You may know my feelings about Steiner/Waldorf Schools*. Most importantly, that prospective parents are not being told about the occult foundations of the Steiner philosophy. You may think that the mystical, spiritual and esoteric movement behind Steiner schools might be a very important factor in deciding whether your children should attend such a school. But the schools obviously do not. Informed choice is not possible when you do not understand the school’s underlying philosophy.
As the current coalition government appear to be very keen to allow Steiner Schools to open under the Free School programme, I wrote to my Lib Dem MP for Wells, Tessa Munt, with my concerns. Her constituency will overlap with the catchment area for the first Steiner School opened under the scheme, in the Somerset town of Frome.
She consulted with a Minister in the Department of Education. The response took some time but the message was simple:
So, it would appear that I am mistaken to be concerned.
So, let me recount my concerns. You may then come to your own conclusions.
The Core Beliefs of Anthroposophy and Spiritual Science
Rudolf Steiner was a central figure of the occult revival at the start of the 20th Century. He believed he had access to a higher consciousness through a clairvoyant knowledge of the spiritual world. After splitting with Madame Blavatsky and Annie Besant, he took the German speaking theosophists and set up his own spiritual esoteric movement, Anthroposophy – the knowledge of man.
Anthroposophy blended ideas from astrology, spiritualism, Rosicruciansim, Christian mysticism and other gnostic and esoteric sources, to create a cosmology based on Steiner’s readings of the ‘Akashic Records’ – the cosmic history of the past and the future that exists on a spiritual plane and available to the few through meditation and clairvoyance. Thus was born Steiner’s Spiritual Science – his belief that ordinary science was really just a capability to be able to “spell”, but to be able to “read” one had to have knowledge of higher spiritual existences. Without such knowledge, we cannot fulfill our potential as fully spiritual beings.
Steiner’s visions gave him insights into all areas of human life, including farming (biodynamics), art, dance, diet, architecture, biology, history, geology, finance, and, crucially for us here, medicine and education. These insights have led to thousands of anthroposophically inspired organisations including schools, farms, cosmetic and health companies (e.g Weleda), Banks, (e.g. Triodos) and spiritual communities (e.g. Camphill, Christian Community).
In order to understand Anthroposophy and Spiritual Science, we need to understand the core and basic concepts of Steiner’s world view. Steiner saw the purpose of Anthroposophy was “spiritual advancement through karma and reincarnation, supplemented by the access to esoteric knowledge available to a privileged few.” It is worth remembering that sentence as it is absolutely vital in understanding Steiner-Waldorf Schools. We shall now look at those concepts in a bit more detail.
Steiner viewed the spiritual world to be real and populated with many nature spirits, elementals and root spirits (gnomes). Steiner believed his clairvoyant techniques were a genuine scientific approaches to studying this spiritual realm. They were extra tools, not an alternative to science. We often see Steiner followers repeating the view that Steiner philosophy embraces and extends science. Of course, the reality is that science is undermined by the insistence of the reality of nonsense. This too is important in understanding Steiner Schools.
At the heart of Anthroposophy is the belief that humans are composite beings made up of our bodies and a number of spiritual entities that can be reincarnated. Our spirits enter into bodies each lifetime in several stages as we grow. At about seven years the etheric body incarnates. This coincides with the appearance of adult teeth and gives “strength to learn”. At about fourteen years the astral body incarnates as puberty comes about. Finally, at 21 years, the I, or ego, the divine selfhood incarnates.
The physical body that you are incarnated into will depend on karma. That is, the beneficial or harmful effects you have on the world will revisit you as you reincarnate and determine the sort of physical existence you have. Steiner believed there was a hierarchy of existence that souls could inhabit, driven by karma.
Nearer the bottom of the spiritual hierarchy we can find animals such as fish and reptiles. Those animals with good karma will progress to become apes, Indians and finally Aryans - white and fair Germanic-Nordic humans.
Steiner’s cosmology is inherently racist and abhorrent. Black people are spiritually childish. Jews should simply ‘disappear’. Disabled people somehow must have wanted to be disabled though actions in previous lives.
Steiner viewed the purpose of Anthroposophy was to prevent the human race from degenerating towards a black-brown “denseness”.
In time, however, blondness will disappear because the human race is becoming weaker. In the end, only brown- and black-haired people will be able to survive if nothing is done to keep them from being bound to matter. The stronger the body’s forces, the weaker the soul’s. When fair people become extinct, the human race will face the danger of becoming dense if a spiritual science like Anthroposophy is not accepted.
All of Steiner’s movement, whether agricultural, medical or educational, is designed to assist people through their current incarnation and into better future incarnations. Thus, the Camphill movement, helps disabled people overcome their karma so that they will not be so unfortunate in future lives. Steiner Schools are designed to assist the spirits to enter children’s bodies as they grow and to prepare their souls for better lives. We can view Steiner Schools not as educational establishments, but as places of spiritual midwifery.
In the 1920′s and 30′s, Steiner’s worldview resonated well with the political zeitgeist in Germany and the movement grew significantly. Anthroposophical agricultural practices were set up at Dachau by Himmler and medical supplies used for experiments supplied by the Steinerist Weleda company. (In more modern times, biodynamic agriculture is adopted in places such as the Duchy Home Farm at Highgrove where you can attend courses on how to please the elemental spirits whilst planting, through astrology, homeopathy and ritual.) Although currently presented as humanistic, Steiner’s philosophy is fascistic and reactionary. He recognised that amongst many people, the movements aims and beliefs would be seen as absurd and urged his followers to be coy.
This secrecy was a natural extension of the esoteric and occult nature of Anthroposophy. As is necessary with esoteric organisations, how it is presented to the outside world will differ considerably from inner beliefs. Although, ostensibly, secrecy was a necessary part of the how an initiate moved through the orders of the movement in order to prepare the mind for the next level of revealed knowledge, secrecy could also be used to protect Anthroposophists from outside scrutiny and criticism, and so further their aims undetected.
Steiner-Waldorf Educational Philosophy
Steiner started his first school for children of workers at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory. There are now many thousands of mostly private schools around the world based on Steiner pedagogy.
You may have heard of many of the rather different views of Steiner Schools such as delayed reading, eurythmy dance and focus on art. You may also have heard of their adoption of alternative medicine, such as homeopathy, in treating children. Steiner Schools are keen to stress that they do not teach Anthroposophy and they are merely ‘inspired’ by the ethos of Rudolf Steiner. It is worth looking at how the newly approved state funded Steiner School in Frome presents itself.
The education is based on an understanding that the young child learns primarily through imitation and doing; the pre-pubescent child largely through their emotions and feelings; older students primarily through abstract thinking and the application of cognitive skills.
The curriculum is interdisciplinary, integrating practical, artistic, and conceptual elements and is designed to be in harmony with the developmental needs of children. Learning materials are introduced at the moment of maximum pupil readiness rather than at the earliest opportunity. This allows pupils at all stages to be at ease both with their education and with the pace at which they are taught. This notion of child development is central to Steiner education and draws on Dr Steiner’s work on child development. The school, however, will neither promote nor teach the wider philosophy which is known as “anthroposophy.”
There is no mention on the site about the nature of ‘Dr Steiner’s work on child development’. Indeed, Steiner education is presented as a progressive, child-centred education based on an understanding of child development (What school would say they do not adopt such an ethos?). But this would only be true if you accept that childhood is a process of stages of spiritual incarnation. Whilst it is true that schools do not explicitly teach anthroposophy, their entire curriculum is guided by Spiritual Science. In the same way that Michael Gove will not want schools to teach the educational theories of English literature professor, E.D. Hirsch, he may want schools to have a curriculum informed by his ideas for political and social reasons.
Steiner was very clear about why delayed reading was a good idea – not because older children can learn to read better, but because memorising and reading interfered with the incarnation of the etheric body. It could damage a spiritual protective sheath around the child leading to illness and spiritual degeneration ’Developmental needs’ in the Steiner world are to do with the incarnation of spiritual entities. Only after adult teeth have appeared is a child spiritually ready to learn to read.
People will object that the children then learn to read and write too late. That is said only because it is not known today how harmful it is when the children learn to read and write too soon. It is a very bad thing to be able to write early. Reading and writing as we have them today are really not suited to the human being till a later age – the eleventh or twelfth year – and the more a child is blessed with not being able to read and write well before this age, the better it is for the later years of life. A child who cannot write properly at thirteen or fourteen (I can speak out of my own experience because I could not do it at that age) is not so hindered for later spiritual development as one who early, at seven or eight years can already read and write perfectly.
Similar spiritual reasons lie behind Steiner Schools rejection of technology, computers and television watching. Such devices are embodiments of the evil spirit of Ahriman and can interfere with a child’s development. Steiner schools must be unique in their goals of actively trying to prevent children from learning. Parents are told not to read with them at home and to limit access to technology.
Schools portray themselves as “focussing on the wellbeing of the whole child” and ”nurturing his or her creativity”. Again we must see what they mean by ‘whole child’ as being a reference to their incarnaing souls. Pupils undergo daily dance sessions called ‘eurythmy’, a type of stylised dance invented by Steiner where movements have spiritual significance and purpose. Dances help the child’s spirits develop. Art is practiced too, but in a highly restrictive manner where paper must have rounded corners and with restricted media and colours, such as washes and waxes. Again such media have spiritual significance. A parent wrote about surviving a Steiner School and show how restrictive such a regime can be,
My daughter cried at bedtime and in the mornings as she vehemently resisted going to school. When her accumulated wet-on-wet “artwork” came home, I was aware that, unlike her prolific creative drawing done at home, at school the self expression we had anticipated was actually being frustratingly suppressed.
As for ‘individual needs’, children are treated and taught according to a temperament, such as Melancholic, Sanguine, Phlegmatic or Choleric – a classification assigned to children based on their physical and behavioural characteristics. Steiner saw physical appearance and colour as determinants.
The fact that the curriculum of a Steiner Schools is driven by anthroposophic goals requires Steiner Schools to seek special statuses to avoid breaking the law. Steiner Schools in the UK lobby to remove themselves from the requirements of various government curriculum demands and targets, such as EYFS, so that they can follow their own programme. Steiner schools have also sought to be inspected, not by Ofsted, but by the specially created Schools Inspection Service which has staff that will understand their ‘special approaches and characteristics’. The School Inspection Service is based in Bruton, a Somerset town with a Steiner School. Martin Bradley is one of the key inspectors for SIS and a governor of Hereford Steiner School.
Until a few years ago, you could get a BA in Steiner Waldorf Education from Plymouth University. It was never clear why the University chose to axe the course, but Canterbury Christ Church University is picking up and filling the market gap. We can see from their required reading list what a prospective Steiner teacher was required to learn.
Far from Steiner’s views being seen as a historical anachronism, the text books are full of unreformed anthroposophical views on the world. The text books I have got hold of teach that the heart is not a pump but is forced to beat by the pulsing blood that is forced around the body by the spirit. We learn that humans are bipedal because it frees the arms to pray. Anatomy is treated as a spiritual subject and not a science. The British Humanist Association notes that the source of the curriculum at Hereford state funded Steiner schools is acknowledged to be based on a book by Martyn Rawson and Tobias Richter which teaches that Darwinism “is rooted in reductionist thinking and Victorian ethics and young people need to emerge from school with a clear sense of its limits”. Homeopathy, a most egregious form of quackery, is ‘a good example of an effect that cannot be explained by the dominant [atomic] model’. It is worth noting that Steiner stated that the British Isles floated on the sea held in place by cosmic forces. And he believed in the historical truth of the vanished continent of Atlantis,
We must not be afraid to talk to the children about Atlantis. We should not omit that. We can even present it in a historical context. But then you have to disavow standard geology … The ice age is the Atlantean catastrophe. The ancient glacial period, and recent average conditions in Europe, are nothing other than what has happened since Atlantis sank.
Steiner also rejected germ theory and embraced homeopathy – a situation that leads to Steiner Schools being sources of large numbers of unvaccinated children.
Which brings us on to medicine in Steiner Schools.
Anthroposophical Medicine in Steiner Schools
Many Steiner Schools have an Anthroposophical Doctor. These are registered and trained doctors, but extend their practice through Spiritual Science. As such they embrace forms of homeopathy and naturopathy. Unlike conventional homeopaths, who claim to consider the whole person, anthroposophical doctors need to also consider past and future lives. Whereas many alternative doctors use spiritual knowledge to treat the body, the role of the Anthroposophical doctor is to use spiritual knowledge to treat the spirit – the current physical body is secondary to this consideration.
Doctors in the schools have a strange attitude to medicine. At the St Paul’s Steiner School, the relationship is described as follows:
The doctor may prescribe Anthroposophical or homeopathic remedies or therapies such as art therapy, massage or Eurhythmy therapy sessions for which the parents are administratively and financially responsible. Curative eurythmy is the name given to specific exercises that are given to help children with their physical and inner development. These exercises are undertaken with a specially trained Eurythmy therapist.
The school does not carry out dental checks, hearing or sight tests, nor does it provide immunisation boosters.
So, the GMC registered doctor may prescribe extra magical dance lessons, but not provide services that could help them with specific problems or even save their lives.
This spiritual attitude has perverse effects. Steiner believed that measles was an important disease for children to have as it aided their “spiritual development”. It is a disease that will kill and injure some of the children it infects. Indeed, a recent review entitled Anthroposophy: A Risk Factor for Noncompliance With Measles Immunization documents measles outbreaks in the UK after the virus was able to gain a foothold in anthroposophic communities. The UK’s Health Protection Agency views Steiner Schools as a ‘high risk population’.
Steiner was also against the eradication of smallpox by vaccination as he believed that this would only delay the spirit’s karmic destiny in other lives. Belief in reincarnation is not harmless. Steiner appeared to accept the death of a child as an acceptable part of helping spirits through their incarnations. Your child is just an expendable vessel. But their spirits will receive great karma. I hope you are happy with this.
How should we understand modern Steiner Schools?
So, we have a problem. The history of the Steiner’s movement would suggest it is at best barmpottery, and at worst, deeply unpleasant and racist nonsense that threatens the wellbeing of children through crackpot ideas about medicine and an absurd approach to education. Clearly, the UK government does not think there is a problem as I was told in my letter from Tessa Munt that the Frome proposal had gone through full due diligence.
Lord Hill of Oareford wrote to MP Tessa Munt as part of my enquiry saying,
Can we be confident that the Department of Education did indeed carry out a rigorous assessment? I understand no scientific specialists were involved and I doubt very much that civil servants familiar with the occult nature of anthroposophy would have been included in the review. An assumption in such reviews must be that applicants are being open and honest. Is it possible that the schools are pulling the wool over the eyes of civil servants? We should explore that now.
Misleading Parents and Authorities. Undermining and Silencing Critics.
We can start off by recognising that none of what I have talked about here is presented to new parents. You will struggle to find any mention of anthroposophical beliefs and its goals on school web sites. The new Free School in Frome is typical with is misdirection in claiming that it does not teach children anthroposophy. Steiner was very clear about how schools should present themselves to the outside world,
[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf [Steiner] School with its Anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with Anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people would break the Waldorf School’s neck.
Steiner was also clear that the spiritual and religious nature of anthroposophy should be disguised and told teachers,
In choosing your words, never say ‘prayers,’ say ‘words for opening the school day.’ We should not hear the word ‘prayer’ in the mouth of a teacher. Thus you will neutralize to a large extent the prejudice against Anthroposophic matters.
There are a number of ways we may view this contradiction between the Government’s belief that all is well and the stated intentions of anthroposophy. One explanation is that Steiner Schools have undergone massive evolution and have distanced themselves from the racist doctrines and the absurd goals of anthroposophy. They are now somehow just using Steiner’s ethos of creativity, spirituality and closeness to nature to create a different school atmosphere. Another explanation is that Steiner Schools are still guided by anthroposophical initiates who want to use them to fulfill Steiner’s goals and view an esoteric and occulted approach as vital for this to succeed. And if so they are being successful in fooling people.
So we need to look for evidence.
An obvious danger in researching esoteric organisations is that by definition source material may be hidden. We must be careful not to slip into conspiratorial thinking. And as such, ambiguity will always follow us. Original sources are most often in German. Translations have deliberately censored chapters that leave out sensitive material. Books have been written by sympathetic authors that steer clear of racial doctrines and other contentious issues. Also, anthroposophy relies on an oral tradition where initiates are led into the inner beliefs. All this makes collating sets of evidence somewhat tricky.
Let’s start by seeing how existing state funded schools respond to request to see their anthroposophical links. In April 2012, Hereford Steiner School, the UK’s first state funded anthroposophical school, set up by the last Labour government, was asked for staffs’ associations with anthroposophical organisations under Freedom of Information laws,
I would be grateful if you could provide details of the professional membership of any Anthroposophical organisations and societies held by the school principal, the school governors, all teaching and support staff, including the school doctor. This need not identify individuals by name, their role or job title would be sufficient.
The School refused. It stated it had no interest in their staff’s associations with anthroposophy and considered such information as private.
A request for an internal appeal was made with various objections including noting that their application form for staff invited “applicants to describe their awareness of Anthroposophy.”
The publicly funded school sought legal advice in order to prevent handing over the information and then denied holding the information. This was pointed out to them as being simply untrue. A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner. Finally, on the 31st of October 2012, the school relented and gave a very limited response, apologising for withholding the information.
The School has subsequently gone to pains to further remove text that describes its anthroposophical links from its web site and application forms.
The French Steiner School Whistleblower
Last year, an important document (translation) was written by the ex-anthroposophist and Paris Steiner School teacher, Grégoire Perra. In the document, Perra describes the French school’s systematic and subtle indoctrination techniques practiced on not just children, but parents and teachers. He describes how the school routinely misled authorities as to what they were doing.
The nature of their teaching, such as keeping one teacher with children throughout their school days was disguised for example,
“Indeed, in these schools, misleading state officials is commonplace. For example, I witnessed that, when a teacher is scheduled to be inspected in class, s/he will commonly be replaced by another teacher who has the [necessary] skills or qualifications. [37] Then the students are asked to “play the game” in the presence of the inspector, and to act as if the teacher who conducts their class [this day] is their regular teacher. [38] Similarly, it may happen that there are health and hygiene inspections.”
He describes the same sort of reluctance to be open about the schools anthroposophical founding,
On the website of the Federation of Waldorf Schools, or on visitors days at these schools, no one will speak openly about the links between Waldorf education and Anthroposophical beliefs. You will hear about a form of schooling that places the development of the individual at the center of its concerns, taking into account the uniqueness of each human being. Rudolf Steiner is presented as a teacher and philosopher of the last century, while the Steiner-Waldorf schools are described as innovative institutions, comparable to Montessorri schools. You will not hear about Anthroposophy as an esoteric doctrine constituting the theoretical foundation of Waldorf teaching, and certainly you will not hear about the human or institutional ties that directly connect Waldorf schools and the Anthroposophical Society.
School inspectors fail to spot problems in the teaching content because they have no idea about how Spiritual Science subtly undermines established facts,
Because inspectors from the ministry of education do not know these interpretations [Steiner's views on taught subjects] — they are not the specialists in Anthroposophy — they have difficulty identifying them.
Most worryingly, Perra describes how the closed world of the Steiner School leads to abusive relationships. Teachers are encouraged to form long lasting bonds with children, which in some cases turns in a very wrong direction,
For example, when I was teaching, I witnessed in one of these schools an illicit relationship that had begun between a teacher and a student of the upper classes. They started dating when the student was in 10th grade (Third) and the situation continued until the 12th grade (First or Terminal). All class teachers of the high school knew about it, including some who were members of the board of the school. How could they ignore it, since this teacher and this student had come to live together in the same apartment?
It would be easy to dismiss Perra’s account as a one-off account of a school that had gone bad. But when put in context of the knowledge of Steiner’s goals for anthroposophy, we see a coherent and deeply disturbing insight into the murky world of Steinerism.
Perra describes how the role of schools is not to explicitly turn children into anthroposophists, but to subtly indoctrinate – to “prepare them to move naturally toward the Anthroposophical movement”. Disturbingly, he describes how many of the teachers, maybe periphery to the inner circle, are unaware of what they are doing is indoctrination.
Perra’s document ought to be dynamite and throw Gove’s plans for Steiner Free Schools into disarray. In France, the anthroposophical organisation is worried too and are currently pursuing Perra in the courts.
Perra will not be the first person who has been intimidated or smeared for speaking out. One of the few academics who writes on the history of anthroposophy, Peter Staudenmaier, has been pursued online by supporters and web sites set up to question his credibility. Blogger zooey discovered that the Swedish Waldorf Schools Fellowship in Sweden paid Sune Nordwall to ‘monitor the debate’ on the web. However, his actions have included an alleged threat to Mumsnet with libel if they posted about Steiner Schools. He uses pseudonyms to post misleading information on articles such as this, and creates blog posts to attack Staudenmaier.
Professor Edzard Ernst found himself to be under attack from a German journalist who was under the pay of anthroposophical organisations Weleda and Wala. The newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, in an article, Schmutzige Methoden der sanften Medizin (The Dirty Tricks of Alternative Medicine), discovered that Claus Fritzsche was being paid €43,000 to run a set of web sites that denigrates Ernst for his criticism of anthroposophical and homeopathic medicine. Ernst has though been attacked by bigger enemies. In the past, Prince Charles tried to remove him from his Professorship at Exeter for expressing his views on alternative medicine.
Responses
The picture I have painted is one of a secretive and, perhaps, dishonest organisation that does not disclose its origins, beliefs and goals to prospective parents of its schools. The Steiner movement has of course responded to similar criticisms in the past. What sort of arguments do they use?
The first type of argument is to suggest my concerns are historical – that they do not apply to the modern Steiner movement. If this is true, then I would simply ask where is the evidence for this? Such a shift in the anthroposophical movement would surely have been historically documented and debated. I find no reason to believe this has ever happened. I see no evolution in the organisation’s purpose, practices and beliefs.
Indeed, there is every reason to believe this would be a very hard thing to achieve for anthroposophy. Anthroposophical beliefs are based on the revealed wisdom of the revered Rudolf Steiner. He claimed his beliefs had authority because the techniques were scientific in nature – repeatable and available to those who could reach the required level of spiritual development. If the movement were to question core beliefs, like the racial hierarchy this would obviously put into doubt all his teachings and undermine the very foundations of the movement. Just as within mainstream religions, there is a huge inertia against questioning core revealed beliefs and exclusion of those that do. In short, anthroposophy is irrational and pseudoscientific because it contains no self-correcting mechanisms.
The next sort of argument is that the schools must be doing good because there are plenty of adults who have been through the schools who have successfully been to university and are having good careers, often in technical or scientific areas. Well, yes. As almost all students in the UK have been through a private Steiner education, we are talking about relatively wealthy families who can afford the fees. Within such families, of course children tend to do well with educated parents and perhaps pushy parents. Also, within Steiner Schools you may well find good teachers who do the right thing for their children.
Finding excellence is no guarantee that excellence is the expected outcome. As Steiner schools move into the state sector, the ability of Steiner schools to fulfill their promise of excellence across a wider social demographic may be much harder to achieve and may well be truly damaging. Commonly , it is pointed out that state schools practice dodgy pedagogical philosophies and restrict creativity. The tactic is to assume the default position: that if there are faults in mainstream education, the answer must be Steiner. Of course, this is a fallacy.
A related argument often comes from Steiner teachers or their associates that says that they taught in the schools but ignored all the “mumbo-jumbo”. This argument reveals two things: that firstly all the mumbo jumbo is present, and secondly, the hierarchical and esoteric nature of anthroposophical organisations. People are slowly pulled into the inner circles. Not all are blue card carrying ‘First Class’ member of Anthroposophy, as they are known. Outside of the inner circle, goals and beliefs are systematically obfuscated. There will be teachers with little idea of the nature of anthroposophy, but have found the idea of such schools alluring.
We can see the sort of obfuscation that occurs in responses to other criticisms.
When Professor David Colquhoun posted similar criticisms of Steiner Waldorf Schools, a comment was posted under the name SWSF (presumably the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship) as follows,
The Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship (SWSF) works to support and promote Steiner education in the UK. Both the SWSF and its member schools are unequivocal in their condemnation of racism and in their commitment to the universal principles embodied in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and protected by the Equality Act October 2010.
The SWSF refutes categorically any statement, suggestion, implication or inference that any of its member schools would tolerate racism in any shape or form or that Steiner education is racist.
As writer Dan Dugen has noted, it is common for Steiner followers to “equate racism with overt hatred, and since they don’t feel that they hate anybody, they’re sure that they can’t be racists. They don’t understand that ignorance and paternalism are racism, too.”
It is true that Steiner schools have many black children and teachers in them. And it would appear that they would not refuse admission on grounds of race. But if they were to apply Steiner’s beliefs equally to all children, then differential treatment and attitudes may surface depending on racial characteristics. Of course, if one accepts Steiner’s racial hierarchy as true, then applying his teaching methods may not be seen as racist – just practical. Similar beliefs were at the core of South Africa’s apartheid – differential treatment was necessary due to different racial temperaments and cultures. Racism in South Africa did not occur just when police were brutalising protestors, but through the very fabric of the structure of society.
In short, it is not sufficient for Steiner Schools to say they condemn racism, they need to express how they now recognise Steiner’s anthroposophy was inherently and insidiously racist and how the movement has now rejected all such doctrine and taken steps to eliminate it from the many thousands of anthroposophically based organisations across the world. I have not seen that happen.
What to do?
Emma Cragie, former trustee of Bruton Steiner School, with her sister Annunziatta Rees Mogg (whose brother is local MP Jacob Rees Mogg) and Education Secretary Michael Gove.
The UK government looks likely to approve the many more Steiner Free School applications that are springing up across the country. The pattern is likely to follow the Frome example: applications are being made near existing private schools; when approved, the first intake will be from the private school which will then be promptly shut down, as happened at The Meadow school at Bruton near Frome in Somerset, under the guidance of Emma Cragie, of the Rees-Mogg clan (see image) . The Steiner Free Schools are essentially the nationalisation of a private school for existing children and offering no new choice to local communities.
How these news schools manage their intakes in future years will be interesting. The private schools have managed this through a network of Steiner kindergartens ensuring parents of new children have an aptitude for accepting the Steiner ethos. Children will find it difficult to transfer from existing state schools as they will have nasty Ahrimanic habits, such as wearing LED trainers, playing Gameboys and being able to read and write.
How Free Steiner Schools select children will pose challenges. They will not want to expose themselves to the ‘wrong sort of parents’. Much of what is available publicly on the internet about the inner goings on of Steiner schools has come from ‘survivor’ parents who may at first found Steiner Schools alluring, found something was not quite right, investigated and were subsequently horrified. Here is one such story and well worth reading. When the school is state funded, such horrified parents are be ticking time bombs under the schools and government policy.
The ambitions to create many larger publicly funded Steiner Schools will create staffing issues too. There will be too few Steiner trained teachers and it will take some time for Canterbury Christchurch University to get up to speed. Teachers will be uncertified, untrained or imported from overseas. This will create vulnerabilities for the schools – they may well be overstretching.
As Perra describes in his document, the closed and secretive nature of Steiner schools is an environment where the predatory or unscrupulous may take advantage of children. All environments with children risk potential problems, but the detached Steiner schools with a sense of their own spiritual superiority and unwillingness to allow outside scrutiny and criticism pose a dangerous habitat. I hope I do not have to point out that I told you so.
Media scrutiny of these schools is feeble. As I discussed recently, the Guardian’s attempts at shining some light resulted in a slightly mocking article rather than raising any serious concerns. The Guardian staff are full of people with associations with Steiner Schools. The BBC recently interview me and several other critics for a special programme on new applications for Free Schools. That story looks like it has been spiked – I have no idea why. (see updates below)
But light can be shone into this rather murky world. And indeed blogging is a good start. Earlier this year, writer James Gray investigated how Aberdeen University were going to set up a Chair in Anthroposophical Medicine funded by a donation of millions from anthroposophical organisation, the Software AG Foundation. The story ended up in the Guardian and the Times Higher Education suggesting how the University was supporting ‘pure quackery’ and its reputation would be shattered. The University decided against accepting the money and dropped its plans.
You too can shed some light. Our legislators need educating. Write to them, especially if there is a Steiner School proposed near you. Parent need to understand that Steiner Schools are not just cuddly tree huggers, but there is a distinct spiritual agenda behind the educational philosophy that is not being disclosed. Informed choice here is the key thing.
If the government is serious are providing choice in school types, that only makes sense if that choice is based on freely available, accurate and complete information. I hope my summary here suggests, at least, for Steiner Schools, that this may not be the case.
Updates
Sunday 4th November
Just a few days later and reports of sex offender unchecked at Glasgow Steiner Schools:
“Shock as it emerges serial sex offender was employed by private school to teach music to kids: STEVE BIRCH refused a check at The Steiner School in Glasgow and was allowed to remain in position for four years.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/serial-sex-offender-was-employed-by-private-1416155
Monday 5th November
The BBC has been in contact and the story on Steiner Schools has not been spiked as I stated, but is due to be aired later this month.
Further reading
The excellent DCScience blog on “the curious Steiner Waldorf cult”.
Part 1 The true nature of Steiner (Waldorf) education. Mystical barmpottery at taxpayers’ expense.
Part 2 The Steiner Waldorf cult uses bait and switch to get state funding.
Part 3 The Problem of Racism
and, in general,
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/
http://ukanthroposophy.wordpress.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/
Specific Articles:
https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/he-went-to-waldorf THE ANTHROPOSOPHICAL INDOCTRINATION OF STUDENTS IN STEINER-WALDORF SCHOOLS By Grégoire Perra
https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/coming-undone - A Parent’s story.
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Staudenmaier.html Anthroposophy and Ecofascism – Peter Staudenmaier
https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/mistreatment Mistreating kids Lovingly – Steiner Schools
* Anthroposophical Schools are known as either Steiner Schools or Waldorf Schools depending on which country in the world you live in. I have tended to stick to Steiner Schools as I live in the UK.
“Waldorf Schools: Rudolf Steiner’s books are ‘an incitement to racial hatred’, says BPjM
(…) The “Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien” (BPjM) (”Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons”) examined 2 books by Rudolf Steiner for “racist content” and decided that the content of the books is racist.
To understand the BPjM´s importance and function here’s its self-portrayal, quote:
“General information about the BPjM (Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons) We are an official administrative authority of the German government called “Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien” (BPjM) (”Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons”). Our task is to protect children and adolescents in Germany from any media that might contain harmful or dangerous contents. This work is authorized by the “Youth Protection Law” (Jugendschutzgesetz – JuSchG). Media monitored by us are, among others: videos, DVDs, computer games, audio records and CDs, print media and internet sites. Objects are considered harmful or dangerous to minors if they tend to endanger their process of developing a socially responsible and self-reliant personality. In general, this applies to objects that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or otherwise racist material. (…)” see the BPjM-homepage for the rest.
The 2 books examined by the BPjM are:
– „Geisteswissenschaftliche Menschenkunde“
English title: „Spiritual-Scientific Knowledge of the Human Being“
– „Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie“
English title: „The Mission of Individual Volk-Souls in Connection with Germanic-Nordic Mythology“
The 2 decisions differ from one another only with regard to which particular statements by Rudolf Steiner the BPjM considered to be racist. As stated in the respective decisions on i) „Geisteswissenschaftliche Menschenkunde“ and ii) „Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen“, decisions page 6:
„Der Inhalt des Buches ist nach Ansicht des 12er-Gremiums in Teilen als zum Rassenhass anreizend bzw. als Rassen diskriminierend anzusehen.”
„The content of the book [by Rudolf Steiner] is, in the opinion of the board of 12 representatives, considered in part as an incitement to racial hatred, respectively as discriminating on grounds of race.“
This is followed by a definition. I only translate the most important part:
„Ein Medium reizt mithin zum Rassenhass an, d.h. stellt Rassenhass als nachahmenswert dar, wenn darin Menschen wegen ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu einer anderen Rasse, Nation, Glaubensgemeinschaft o.ä. als minderwertig und verächtlich dargestellt oder diskriminiert werden (Ukrow, Jugendschutzrecht, Rn. 284).”
“A medium incites racial hatred, that is, depicts racial hatred as worthy of imitation, if human beings are represented as being inferior or contemptible or are discriminated against, due to their affiliation to another race, nation, religious community or the like.”
This definition is followed by those of Rudolf Steiner’s statements that were considered by the BPjM as racist. I translate only statements concerning BLACK PEOPLE directly (…)”
read more: http://www.ruhrbarone.de/waldorf-schools-rudolf-steiner’s-books-are-“an-incitement-to-racial-hatred”-says-bpjm/
I also wrote to my MP who passed on my concerns over Steiner Free Schools to Lord Hill at the DfE. He wrote back: “One of the principles behind our education reforms is to give parents greater choice over the type of school their children attend…The approval of a Steiner school simply means that parents will be able to choose to apply to the school if they believe that a Steiner education will be right for their child.”
The politics of Free Schools aside, greater choice sounds like a laudable aim, but it must be an informed choice. As Andy makes clear, the Steiner school movement goes to great lengths to avoid talking about their history and beliefs. Luckily for prospective parents, there is now much more information available online than there was even a couple of years ago. So far though, government scrutiny has been as feeble as that of the mainstream media.
Lord Hill goes on to say: “While Steiner schools do pursue a particular pedagogy, and could be said to have a distinctive ethos, they cannot be said to promote a particular faith or religion.” If that distinctive ethos includes an overriding concern for the spiritual welfare of children over multiple incarnations, sometimes to the detriment of their health and education in this lifetime, whether or not you call it a religion seems a moot point.
Thanks for this excellent post.
I visited the Department of Education (along with the British Humanist Association) to talk to civil servants about Steiner and Maharishi schools. Three of us faced seven or so civil servants, some of who had responsibility for selecting “Free Schools”.
The conversation was amiable enough. But I was struck by the lack of curiosity of the DfE staff. When I asked, it turned out that not one of them had any scientific background. Sad though that was, it should not be important because you certainly don’t need to be a scientist to understand that the karma, reincarnation etc that lie at the heart of the Steiner approach are just nonsensical. They don’t seem to appreciate that the schools’ attitude to immunization contradicts directly the government’s declared policy, and endangers the children at the Steiner schools but also the entire neighbourhood.
That leaves me baffled by the fact that they have approved Steiner schools for state funding. I can think of only two possibilities.
(1) Perhaps they are naive -they seem to believe what the schools tell them, despite the fact that anyone with a bit of curiosity can very easily find out the truth of the matter. That would be characteristic of official regulators who tend to look only at the boxes that have been ticked on the forms presented to them. That was the procedure adopted by the University of Wales when validating external degrees. It eventually led to the University of Wales being shut down. In brief, the DfE assessors seemed to be quite naive and to deficient in critical thinking ability.
(2) The only alternative explanation that I can think of is that the “expert” civil servants were actually a charade. They had been told by Gove what he wanted, and they caved it, despite knowing that it was wrong. In other words, the whole process represented the sort of policy-based evidence that appeals to the egos of politicians, but isn’t good for the nation.
Michael Gove famously said that children should know about “Newton’s laws of thermodynamics”. Anyone so deeply ignorant of science as that remark suggests Gove is, could easily believe in gnomes, reincarnation and Ahriman. It worries me that we should have a minister of education like that.
lecanardnoir: This post was edited as it was very long with lots of links, many of which were not declared as written by the poster. This comment thread is being more heavily moderated than most due to the potential for abuse and my desire to see proper debate. So, all, please keep comments short and to the point. Posts with links are likely to fall into my moderation queue and delayed. Posts with a gish-gallop of many links is bad form. Attribution is good. Declaration of interests even better. Sock-puppeting will not be tolerated. The furtherance of harassment and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Many thanks.
However. the final paragraph in the comment is well worth publising.
Andy also writes about me:
“Blogger zooey discovered that the Swedish Waldorf Schools Fellowship in Sweden paid Sune Nordwall to ‘monitor the debate’ on the web. However, his actions have included an alleged threat to Mumsnet with libel if they posted about Steiner Schools.”
The Swedish Federation of Waldorf schols did not ask me to monitor the web and report what is published about Steiner Waldorf education, both for and against, primarily in Sweden, where I live, but also abroad. I suggested it to them and they agreed. Did I threaten Mumsnet if they posted about Steiner schools? Not in general, only specific libelous posts with the WC-group and the myths it publishes (see above) as source.
Keep up the good work, Andy, that I think I saw somewhere at your blog. I know it’s there, … somewhere.
Some more full if short comments by the undersigned are found here: http://www.thebee.se/comments/5NovOnLewisBlog.html
Very good investigative piece, thank you for this. I am aware of two former Steiner school attendees who were abused by their teachers; and although it is very certain that Steiner schools are not unique in this aspect, I believe that the nature of the staff / student relationships at those establishments made the ensuing damage worse.
On another note, I am not clear what you are saying about E.D. Hirsch, whose ideas about the importance of a common cultural vocabulary seem to me to be very reasonable.
Paul, my point was not whether Hirsch’s ideas on education are reasonable or not, but to make a simple point that we do not teach children about E.D. Hirsch’s theories. The children will be oblivious to the pedagogical underpinnings of their curriculum. (And some teachers too.) As with anthroposophy in Steiner Schools.
Thank you for this very good article !
I have written extensively about an incident that occurred only a few years ago regarding the teaching of racism as science at Highland Hall Waldorf school http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/search?q=racism, http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=4, http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/search?q=europeans.
Highland Hall taught my child that the blood of Europeans is more evolved than the blood of Asians and Africans. When questioned about this lesson, the first respondent, Karen Grant, replied that this represents “out of Africa” theory. It was clear they were clueless. Several conferences ensued with Highland Hall teachers and staff and rather than refute the racist implications of that lesson and reprimand the teacher, they DEFENDED the lesson. Later, I met with two Highland Hall board members who again defended the lesson by claiming it wasn’t racist. http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/10/highland-hall-board-members-clueless.html The racist teacher has been passed to another Waldorf school. http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/2012/05/lake-champlain-waldorf-school-reviews.html
You may say, yes, but this is very far away from the UK. Highland Hall is the Waldorf teacher training center for Southern California. Teachers receive training there and go on to teach all over the world. When Claire McConnell was caught duct-taping children to their chairs http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=1364683&nav=0RZFGxHZ, she was shuffled to the UK where she used her Waldorf credentials to try to secure work as an au-pair. Notice, she was EXCUSED by AWSNA representative Patrice Maynard in the article. Maynard, in this article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57509260/private-school-parents-less-apt-to-have-kids-vaccinated-than-public-school-counterparts-ap-analysis-indicates/, excuses Highland Hall for having the least vaccinated student population in California putting everyone who comes into contact with this school at risk of catching or spreading diseases – often unknowingly to infants or elderly grandparents.
Waldorf schools are not what they want you to believe they are!
This is very well reasoned and researched. However, I think there is a broader discussion that is missing. The question is, “what is the role of government in our education”? If I review public school education, or what you refer to as “main stream education”, I see a very specific philosophical worldview at work. Why is it that this worldview, that perhaps you consider to be superior, should be forced on my children? Why is your philosophy the standard upon which we treat all of education?
I went to a public school (in the US) and a Waldorf school. I received a very poor education in the public school, and was lucky enough to have parents who were well educated and could find an alternative. That alternative was the Waldorf school. The education was far superior.
Now you may argue that is all very well, but don’t use my “public” funds for this school. Well, to that I have to ask, “where did the public school funds come from”? From all of us as tax payers! So why can’t I have the choice of sending my child to the school of my choice when it is originally my money? Your philosophy may work for you and your family, and so you send them to your “main stream school”, but for my family I want the choice of another school that I know is superior.
I will never be able to convince you that the Waldorf school is superior, just as you will never convince me that the main stream school is superior. So unless you consider yourself a dictator who will decide what is right for my life and my family, you can’t argue that I should have no choice.
Educate your children according to your philosophy and I’ll educate mine according to mine. My funds will be applied to my children’s education, and your funds will be applied to your children’s education. Is that not fair?
Daniel – I am not sure whether you have not read my post, misunderstand it, or choose to misunderstand it.
I do not want to deny parents choice. I want to make sure that choices parents make are made on the basis of all relevant information. Steiner schools systematically fail to disclose very relevant information. And it is not about ‘your funds and my funds’ – Steiner Schools have now chosen to enter the world of public funding – that makes this a collective debate, something Steiner adherents will have to get used to.
Andy Lewis,
I associated your grievance with others who you quoted in your article, such as Dan Dugan. Also, you talk in some detail about the impact of Waldorf schools on particular communities, such that they dry up other establishments. You wrote, “when approved, the first intake will be from the private school which will then be promptly shut down”. Now perhaps this is not an outright condemnation of the principle of public funding for Waldorf schools, but it comes quite close. You are arguing that it is not practical, or feasible to fund a Waldorf school because it has too great an impact on the broader community. It is not as though you are simply looking to get better disclosure for Waldorf schools; you are skeptical of the funding in the first place. If I misunderstood the section I quoted, please clarify your position.
Most, if not all other Waldorf critics who I have read on the net argue against the notion of public funding for Waldorf education, as a matter of principle. In other words, even disclosure of some standardized sort would still disqualify a Waldorf school from funding.
I see two or three major questions:
1) What is relevant information to disclose?
2) Can there be publicly funded free schools in a community without impacting the freedom of other families?
3) How is the philosophy and pedagogy of a Waldorf school different from a “main stream” school and does that place it in a unique position (ie disclosures etc)?
I don’t have enough time right now to start addressing these questions, but they are my starting “placeholders” for how I frame the topics.
Yes, that is fair… if you are prepared to pay privately for that non-mainstream educational philosophy, as long as you taking that option does not force others to do so against their will (or by obscuring its nature), and as long as the “alternative way” remains within the law. I am not a lawyer and have next to no knowledge of the statutory requirements on educational establishments in the UK, but I imagine that some of what the above article describes would (should…) be considered to be of borderline legality if taken to court.
But yes, if some parents want their kids to have a Steiner/Maharishi/etc. education, in full possession of the facts about that education and without forcing others to take the same path, then it’s fair. But the situation in the UK is not so clear cut… a few attempts to discuss along those lines follow:
* One reason for UK Waldorf/Steiner schools receiving focus here and elsewhere is that new legislation is permitting them to apply for public funding. Hence Steiner schools are becoming state schools in the UK (“public”, in the American sense rather than the silly British one!)
* Following on from that, there of course cannot be publicly funded options of every type of schooling philosophy in every geographical area. Hence under the “Free Schools” programme the *only* state funded school in a catchment area may end up being a Steiner or Maharishi one, and parents who cannot afford private education for their kids (i.e. most people) will have to send them to one of these non-mainstream establishments whether or not they like it. So “your preference” and “my preference” are not independent if we happen to live in the same area and both want our kids to go to state-funded schools.
* Choice is nice, but in a world of finite state resources it makes sense for there to always be a “default” option consistent with the mainstream of educational practice and free of the sorts of controversial aspects described in the article. Yes, that will restrict someone’s freedom, but this is a consequence of living in a social society: in providing a good, basic service for all, not all personal preferences can be met… but there is always the private option for those who are determined. The parallel with the medical quackery aspect of this blog will hopefully be glaringly obvious to many.
* Private services still have to remain under the rule of law and relevant regulation, of course… they do not have carte blanche to do *anything* they like. Even private schools have to demonstrate that a basic standard of education is being achieved and that the children in their care are being psychologically and physically cared for (or at least I believe and hope that is the case). That requirement is all the more critical when the school(s) in question are being publicly funded. Given that there are several big questions to be answered about Steiner schools in this respect, I’m with Andy L and David Colquhoun in being surprised and disappointed at the apparent lack of curiosity (and investigative due diligence) among the Dept of Education officials charged with overseeing the Free Schools programme.
“* Hence under the “Free Schools” programme the *only* state funded school in a catchment area may end up being a Steiner or Maharishi one, and parents who cannot afford private education for their kids (i.e. most people) will have to send them to one of these non-mainstream establishments whether or not they like it. ”
Then why stop at “free schools”? In an environment where private institutions can compete with traditional state-run ones – for the “public good” – it seems like a very logical approach to have “free fire departments” too. Specialized religious groups could replace traditional fire-fighting techniques with their own fire-fighting techniques, perhaps, “rain dancing”. If you happen to live in a city where there is *only* enough demand for one fire department, and it happens to be one of the ones that practice “rain-dancing”, well…too bad!
Pete
When you point out that we could have “free fire departments”, implied is the idea of standards. In other words, it is clear that it would be a disaster to have a “free fire department” where there is not regulation or a standard. A fire department must be able to put out fires and this is a basic requirement. My interpretation of the analogy you are proposing is that a Waldorf school is akin to the “rain dancing” fire dept? If so, then clearly there are standards of education and the Waldorf school must prove that it can educate students. As long as the public school is measured to the same standard, then we agree. Both fire departments must prove they can put out fires, and both schools must prove they can educate students.
Andy Buckley,
Your post is quite reasonable. I don’t pretend to know much at all about the Dept of Education in England. I am here simply to advocate for Waldorf education, as my experience with it has been a positive one. I also want to make sure it is being dealt a fair hand. I should point out that I’m not even sure on the exact mechanics of how public funding can or should work for Waldorf schools. – So I am really here in open dialogue, to work on issues that are related to this question.
Take your point about choice being nice, but not always practical. Andy L also related concerns with regard to this. I have ideas about how a mechanism would work to achieve this, but until it is tried it is only an idea. If our discussion is centered on how it works today in England, then I really have far too little knowledge (but I’ll be happy to comment on aspects as they are explained to me). I also may agree with you that the current system is broken or inefficient! As I stated, I am not defending the specific implementation of funding, but the idea of funding as a principle.
In summary, I believe I should have the ability to send my child to a Waldorf school as I am a tax payer. I am sure there is not a perfect implementation of a funding system that achieves that. I open to discuss what a better system for public funding might be.
Choice is all well and good, but using State money to teach racist, anti-scientific garbage is not. If parents truly wish to brainwash their children into whatever religious peculiarities they wish then reluctantly I think we should permit them to do so, but not at the expense of me and the rest of the UK taxpayers. I extend that to all religious schools, not just to things like Steiner.
Andy, you point out at the end of your article, “If the government is serious are providing choice in school types, that only makes sense if that choice is based on freely available, accurate and complete information. I hope my summary here suggests, at least, for Steiner Schools, that this may not be the case.”
I agree with the first part of this statement, but disagree with the latter part. All schools should have standards that apply across the board. There should be transparency on the pedagogy and tested quality, and perhaps achieved by standardized test scores or other measures.
Whether a teacher is a member of a Lutheran, Catholic, Buddhist, or other church is not the business of any parent or education board. If the teacher is a member of the Anthroposophical Society is also no ones business. I don’t believe we should review the sexual preferences of teachers either, unless they have committed a crime in this area.
So the standards for what is personal and what is public are quite clear. If you are a criminal, you lose rights due to your actions. If you are a law abiding citizen, then your academic credentials and professional conduct are all that matter. The Waldorf schools meet this criteria, and if an individual teacher falls short, then the legal system is utilized.
Your article tries to make the assertion that Waldorf teachers do not have the rights of other citizens, and this aspect makes no sense to me.
Daniel,
“Whether a teacher is a member of a Lutheran, Catholic, Buddhist, or other church is not the business of any parent or education board. If the teacher is a member of the Anthroposophical Society is also no ones business.”
Of course it’s of interest to parents, students and official bodies. What people believe always influences what they teach and the way they teach: if they teach other than what they believe they are dishonest and we would prefer honest teachers. If they teach what they believe we all need to know what those beliefs are. For example, when teaching economic development theory, I made a point of ensuring my students knew which theories I thought had merit and which not. It did not prevent me from teaching opposing theories and explaining them properly but it did ensure that students could take any bias I had into account. If I had not been honest, the students would not have adequately been able to assess what was being taught. Not to be interested in the beliefs of the teacher is really not to be interested in the subtleties of discourse that can turn a message one way or another; it is a preference to be conned.
“If the teacher is a member of the Anthroposophical Society is also no ones business. ”
Except that many school websites specifically ASK about the teacher’s “connection” or “commitment” to Anthropsophy – right on the employment application. Anthroposophy is a very big deal to Waldorf schools – and they want to know that the teachers accept Anthroposophy, hook, line and sinker. Parents have EVERY right to question why this is – and Waldorf schools have NO right to deny parents answers about this!
With how our society, at least in the US is arranged it does create problems. Ideally if a teacher is a member of the AS it should be no ones business. Because we don’t really have a mechanism today for public funding of schools this gets more difficult. But it is a difficulty that should be addressed and overcome.
My issue is as follows. The public “main stream” school has a philosophy and worldview. I would call it a religion. That religion is one of materialism. When they interview teachers for their main-stream classrooms, they ask that if the teacher has a spiritual life, that they leave that behind, because the religion of materialism does not recognize the spirit.
Because you are an advocate for the religion of materialism (correct me if I’m wrong, but so far I can infer this), then you don’t even see the issue. Your philosophy and worldview are confirmed by the main stream school. The fact that teachers in this school are not allowed to bring their spiritual understanding into their teaching is a positive outcome for you.
For this reason there is really no such thing as a main-stream school. There are only schools that have philosophies and worldviews. Schools may be publicly funded or privately funded. In either case, regardless of funding, they will hold to their philosophical cores and hire teachers that meet their requirements.
I believe the parents should have a choice. They should know that a Waldorf school has a philosophy and a worldview, just as they should know that a “main-stream” school has the philosophy of materialism, or something in between. But in either case, the teacher’s privacy must be held in high regard. The teachers are evaluated so that they demonstrate quality results.
Teachers should not be put through an experience that pries into personal matters; only items of a professional nature are evaluated. I believe it is enough to know that the school upholds a specific pedagogy. If parents wish that type of education, then they send their children, otherwise they choose another school.
Now we certainly can discuss what is necessary for disclosure of a “pedagogy”. I think this will be its own robust conversation.
” The fact that teachers in this school are not allowed to bring their spiritual understanding into their teaching is a positive outcome for you.”
Spiritual “understanding”? Don’t you mean spiritual “beliefs”?
“Teachers should not be put through an experience that pries into personal matters; only items of a professional nature are evaluated.”
Their “profession” is to SPREAD ANTHROPOSOPHY. It only looks like teaching to people who don’t know the difference.
“Now we certainly can discuss what is necessary for disclosure of a “pedagogy”. ”
Sure, ANY disclosure would be better than HIDING it? FULL disclosure is what is legally and morally appropriate.
There is little difference between Steiner schools and other religious schools in that respect. Read theission statements for the major religions and all of them see education as an opportunity to promote their own set of beliefs to children, in the cery cynical knowledge that young children are most vulnerable to reloigious brainwashing.
I got pretty much the same response: that they would not have approved the school if the concerns were correctly identified. The fact that the concerns were correctly identified and they still approved the school, as I had said in my letter, appeared to have passed them by.
I suspect the letters were written in advance…
A terrific article. I wanted to offer one small correction on a point of Steiner’s dogma: in anthroposophy, while humans do reincarnate progressively in “higher and lower races,” humans do not reincarnate as animals. There are religions with notions of karma in which animals reincarnate in parallel to humans (that is, bears or lions reincarnate, but bears always reincarnate as bears and lions always reincarnate as lions, etc.), and other religions in which humans and other animals can “cross” reincarnate, i.e., reincarnate as other species. Anthroposophy is not either of these. Anthroposophy was originally a schism of theosophy and these Westernized versions of karma thoroughly reject those aspects of karma that they inherited from the religions of southeast Asia.
Steiner always emphasizes the differences between humans and animals. Animals are not thought to have souls in the way that humans do. (They do have “group souls,” that is, all dogs possess a common dog soul, which individual animals are “members” of.) Humans are more spiritually advanced than other animals and are able to “learn from our pain” (that’s what karma is basically about), in a way that animals are not thought to be capable of. See:
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ManfKarma/19100517p01.html
Daniel wrote:
“Educate your children according to your philosophy and I’ll educate mine according to mine.”
That only works if you are entirely honest and forthcoming about what your philosophy is when you try to recruit my child for enrollment in your school. If you’d like to be left alone with your educational philosophy, then don’t run schools. Is that not fair?
“My funds will be applied to my children’s education, and your funds will be applied to your children’s education. Is that not fair?”
Of course that is fair … if you aren’t running a school you are trying to recruit my child for. In that case you are asking for my funds, yes?
Yes, I agree with you. Each school, whether main-stream or Waldorf, must disclose its pedagogy. I suspect that we may disagree on what constitutes “disclosure”, but we should discuss this. My only wish is that it is done equitably.
For example, in main-stream schools evolution may be taught with natural selection and mutation as the only mechanism for the advancement of a species. Today, there is quite a bit of debate on how evolution is taught in the classroom. Yet there is no formal “disclosure” from the main-stream school on what their underlying philosophy is on this topic. Yet there is a specific philosophy underlying it. If we are going to probe and disclose the philosophy of a Waldorf school, we must do the same for the public school.
The point is not to put a school on trial, but to disclose enough about the philosophy and pedagogy so a parent can make an informed decision. Too often Waldorf critics are not even-handed. They really just want to disparage Waldorf education, not seek a solution for society.
The “debate” over how evolution is taught has been manufactured by the religious groups.
Daniel:
“Whether a teacher is a member of a Lutheran, Catholic, Buddhist, or other church is not the business of any parent or education board. If the teacher is a member of the Anthroposophical Society is also no ones business.”
Dandy. Then why is it that when Waldorf schools hire teachers, they give preference to anthroposophists? They do indeed not only inquire about the applicant’s “relationship to anthroposophy,” but often make willingness to state a commitment to anthroposophy the primary credential for the job.
“I don’t believe we should review the sexual preferences of teachers either, unless they have committed a crime in this area.”
Um, excuse me but exactly what sort of a crime does a person commit in the “area” of sexual preference? I do hope you misspoke.
Regarding the teachers membership in the AS, I started to address this in my prior response to Pete. But my comment about “sexual preferences” has to do with not prying into the private lives of teachers. On the other hand, if a teacher commits a sexual crime, that is clearly not protected.
Daniel wrote:
“Whether a teacher is a member of a Lutheran, Catholic, Buddhist, or other church is not the business of any parent or education board. If the teacher is a member of the Anthroposophical Society is also no ones business.”
I made the Freedom of Information request to the Steiner Academy Hereford which asked about this. I very carefully worded the request to ask about “professional membership”. Given the fundamental importance of Anthroposophy to Steiner education and the existence of, for example, the Pedagogical section of the Anthroposophical Society, I do think that membership falls into the same category of professional affiliations that you’d expect of other professionals such as doctors, architects, builders…
It can’t simultaneously be both a private matter (such as religion or sexual orientation) and the entire foundation of the way in which you relate to children as a professional person.
I should add that I was also careful not to ask for the names of individuals and their Anthroposophical affiliations. The purpose of my request was to find out whether or not this information is recorded at all.
MarkH,
This is a complex topic, so I’m not trying to be dismissive of it, but I’m not sure I’ll have enough time to get into all the issues.
Teachers have the right to a private life, while parents have the right to choose the pedagogy that is right for their child. We need to find a happy medium here, where both interests can be attained.
Membership in the AS is really a very private matter. Events and meetings are done on the teachers own time, if they so wish to attend at all. They are not reimbursed for conferences or their time at conferences (of course I am not overseeing schools, so this is a generalization and may have exceptions). AWSNA conferences are certainly an exception as these are directly “professional associations”.
The AS is akin to church on Sunday. When a regular teacher attends church, they may have Gospel lessons that inform their teaching or give them some wisdom that helps them better understand a child in their classroom. For the Waldorf teacher, this same type of inspiration comes from attending an AS study group.
Even the pedagogical section of the AS is not setup to create apostolic constitutional decrees, like the Catholic pope. They make no decrees. It is a free association, and a personal one at that.
Now it is true that the pedagogy of the Waldorf school must be reviewed by every parent. But this is analogous to reviewing what takes place in the classroom. Every main-stream school parent is not reviewing the various churches that inspire their teachers. They are leaving their children in the hands of a professional institution that has demonstrable results, and regulations.
However, there is a certain philosophical worldview as the foundation for the pedagogy. This is where it becomes more complex. I already mentioned in a prior post that main-stream schools actually have the same problem, but their worldview is centered on materialism.
I am not sure the way our society is organized is really ready for this. My issue is that society must transform and become ready. It is denying parents the freedom they deserve to not resolve this situation.
In the mean time, I think regulators are doing what they can to try and accommodate those parents who want an alternative.
Hi Daniel,
Sorry to repeat myself, but the point of my FOI request was to help shed some light, as Andy suggests is needed, on the institutional relationship between Anthroposophy and Steiner/Waldorf schools, not to gain information on particular individuals. This is more complex than it needs to be because of the way schools behave when asked about it. The eventual answer from Hereford was actually less interesting than their initial reaction to the question.
You wrote: “Now it is true that the pedagogy of the Waldorf school must be reviewed by every parent.” Absolutely right. The problem is that the schools typically don’t go out of their way to help parents do so. They have a responsibility to do so in my view, because Steiner/Waldorf pedagogy and Anthroposophy is relatively unfamiliar and for many an unknown quantity, compared to say, a mainstream faith school.
Also: “I already mentioned in a prior post that main-stream schools actually have the same problem, but their worldview is centered on materialism.” I’m reluctant to go down this particular rabbit hol , but have to point out that sweeping statements about the inadequacy of mainstream education is a typical feature of Steiner propaganda. There are good and bad mainstream schools and a great deal of variety in ethos and approach, even within the constraints of the UK national curriculum.
Also, I’m never sure what “materialism” means in this context, but I’ll give you a worldview that I would be happy for a school to promote and perhaps you can tell me if it’s materialistic: “Science works and critical thinking is a useful skill. It’s good to ask questions and ‘I don’t know, but let’s find out together’ is a great answer.”
“I am not sure the way our society is organized is really ready for this. My issue is that society must transform and become ready.”
That was Steiner’s issue too… and he was quite happy to “transform” society through covert methods, like lying to parents about what their children are learning in Steiner schools.
“It is denying parents the freedom they deserve to not resolve this situation.”
Ultimately, parents don’t have the freedom to harm their own children Daniel. Sometimes the state has to step in and put a stop to child abuse. This is what they should do with Waldorf schools. Dishonesty is part of Waldorf’s objective.
Thanks to Andy for a great post!
As for anthroposophy — of course it’s not a private matter, as it is the foundation of the pedagogy. The teacher’s engagement with anthroposophy is essential for the profession. Without anthroposophists on the staff, you can’t run a waldorf steiner school. Mark H is quite right that:
‘It can’t simultaneously be both a private matter (such as religion or sexual orientation) and the entire foundation of the way in which you relate to children as a professional person.’
Daniel wrote that ‘academic credentials and professional conduct are all that matter’. This — when it comes to waldorf schools, which base their entire organisation, their methods and so forth on anthroposophy — is simply not true.
As a former waldorf (steiner) student myself, I disagree with Daniel about another thing too: this kind of education is not superior. He also claims that parents should be able to make the choice they wish (at the expense of others). And I would say that for a parent to make an informed choice when the schools obfuscate the role of anthroposophy is pretty difficult. Daniel himself contributes to this obfuscation by trying to give off the impression that anthroposophy is irrelevant and the teachers’ relationships to it should not be asked about. Where’s the element of choice in all this? I think choice would require basic honesty about the contents of the alternatives offered.
Alicia,
This is far more complex than your attempt at framing it as a binary issue. As I posted earlier, the main-stream schools have their philosophy and worldview. We need a mechanism to review and reveal the main-stream school’s spiritual belief system, if you want to apply the same standard to the Waldorf school. But I view a different approach as more equitable. Namely, allow parents to choose and keep the regulators responsibilities only to educational results.
You quoted Mark H, “It can’t simultaneously be both a private matter (such as religion or sexual orientation) and the entire foundation of the way in which you relate to children as a professional person”. – That is revealed by the pedagogy of the Waldorf school. There is no need to delve into what a private teacher does on their own time for spiritual renewal. And if this is not enough for you, then figure out a mechanism whereby I can be allowed to apply my funding to my preferred philosophy.
Therefore, what I grant you is that we may not be setup as a society to handle this complex situation properly. Ideally we would allow teachers to have their own spiritual life, and allow parents to choose what school and what pedagogy their children are exposed to. That ideal may fall short in our current societal order.
You wrote, “this kind of education is not superior”. Alicia, you had a bad experience with a Waldorf school. I had a fantastic experience. We both have our anecdotes and these clearly do not make a statistical conclusion either way. That is my point. You use your experience to make your own decision, and I’ll make my decision. I respect your experience, please respect mine.
You wrote, “He also claims that parents should be able to make the choice they wish (at the expense of others)”. No, you did not read what I wrote. I don’t want to make a choice at others expense; I want to make a choice at my tax-paying expense. I want the funds I pay for school taxes to go to the school I choose for my child. This is not at the expense of anyone else.
You wrote, “I think choice would require basic honesty about the contents of the alternatives offered”. I agree with you here. There should be complete honesty about the pedagogy, while protecting the privacy of the teachers.
Alicia, I understand you had a really rough experience in your school. You are blinded by that bad experience and attempt to keep other people from having the freedom to pursue their own experiences. Try and transcend the person feelings and think about the interests of innocent citizens.
Daniel:
‘That is revealed by the pedagogy of the Waldorf school. There is no need to delve into what a private teacher does on their own time for spiritual renewal.’
It appears to me that you don’t understand the role of anthroposophy in waldorf pedagogy. I agree with you that the teacher’s spirituality is his or her own business. However, WHEN this spirituality directly informs the pedagogical practices — it is not longer a private matter as far as those consequences go.
‘I respect your experience, please respect mine.’
How is it that as soon as someone posts a viewpoint that contradicts the viewpoint of a Steiner school proponent, they start to assume we don’t respect their viewpoint? The only way to ‘respect’ you folks, I’ve noticed, is for us to shut up. That’s the only way you aren’t going to complain that your viewpoint is not ‘respected’.
This crap about ‘respect’ isn’t about respecting the other person — it is rather about you demanding all kinds of special considerations for yourself. Because nobody has said you can’t promote your positive perspective on Steiner education. You simply don’t want critics to present theirs and want them shamed as disrespectful for speaking their minds the way you speak yours.
‘There should be complete honesty about the pedagogy, while protecting the privacy of the teachers.’
The privacy of the teachers cannot be protected at the cost of the children. If the teacher’s beliefs influence their treatment of the children and the methods used in education, people have right to know. There’s no other way. Complete honesty about the pedagogy requires complete honesty about its anthroposophical foundation and what it means to the teacher’s work in the classroom.
‘Alicia, I understand you had a really rough experience in your school. You are blinded by that bad experience and attempt to keep other people from having the freedom to pursue their own experiences. Try and transcend the person feelings and think about the interests of innocent citizens.’
Daniel, I understand you had a really good experience in your school. You are blinded by that good experience and attempt to keep other people from knowing what waldorf education is really about and this at the cost of those families who, unwittingly, end up with an education they don’t understand. Try and transcend the personal feelings and think about the interests of innocent children.
Thank you, Alicia.
“And if this is not enough for you, then figure out a mechanism whereby I can be allowed to apply my funding to my preferred philosophy.”
It’s called PRIVATE SCHOOLS. They are available to anyone… even Waldorf schools have tuition assistance programs for people who otherwise couldn’t afford them. BE SATISFIED WITH THIS. Waldorf schools don’t belong in the public sector BECAUSE they are religious, they’re racist, but most importantly, because they’re dishonest! Here’s a thought for you Daniel… Dishonest adults and other people’s children are NOT a very good mix.
When the Free Schools programme is complete and an area has a CofE, a Catholic, a Jewish, a Steiner, a Maharishi, a Shi’ite and a Montessori school, where will all the normal kids go?
Choice my arse.
How about doing away with any form of segregation. All kids no matter what background go to their local school.
Brilliant. We want to be able to choose between musical genres, politicians, and different kinds of foods, because these things are important to us. Why would we eliminate all choice when it comes to the education of our children? Surely not because every local state school is surely providing a fantastic educational experience?
Why should I be able to choose my laundry soap, but not my child’s educational provision? I truly wonder what irritates people about choice in this one area, when they demand choice in every other?
I’m told that in the Netherlands, every school is simply state funded. This makes each available to any family, whatever the income level. It’s a cultural choice. This seems a sensible solution.
In Hungary, all the state schools and private schools have a big schools fair, where they present their strengths and focus. Each family can choose which one they would like their children to attend. Note that if you choose a state school, you are not restricted to the local school — if there’s a different one you prefer, you can simply enroll your child there. (The private schools there also receive significant government funding: at a minimum, all teachers’ salaries are paid by the state. This makes these schools also affordable to most people.)
Let’s get a little more creative than the one size fits all model.
All right Harlan! I was wondering when someone else would have the courage to speak the truth, and straight to the point too!
Harlan:
‘We want to be able to choose between musical genres, politicians, and different kinds of foods, because these things are important to us.’
Presumably you pay for your music and your food yourself.
“Brilliant. We want to be able to choose between musical genres, politicians, and different kinds of foods, because these things are important to us. Why would we eliminate all choice when it comes to the education of our children? Surely not because every local state school is surely providing a fantastic educational experience?”
Nobody is eliminating choice. You can choose to send your child to private Waldorf. The choice is really about “honest” schools vs “dishonest” schools. Children don’t get a fantastic educational experience at Waldorf… if they did, private Waldorf schools would be happy to stay private. They can barely keep their doors open these days, and it’s going to get a lot worse as the word spreads.
“Why should I be able to choose my laundry soap, but not my child’s educational provision?”
Do you have to *pay* for the laundry soap? Or do you expect it for free? And if somebody produced “laundry soap” that didn’t work… or did something to your clothes OTHER than cleaning them, wouldn’t you expect it to be labeled differently?
“Let’s get a little more creative than the one size fits all model.”
Or, more creative than one set of facts fits all…
Daniel
You have written a great many words now. You seem very keen to concentrate on the issue of ‘choice’.
You have not addressed the specific criticisms of Steinerist beliefs that underpin and permeate the teaching. Nor have you addressed the apparent concealment of those beliefs, which, from the evidence that Andy has presented, looks deliberate.
Only after you have dealt with those can one decide whether Steiner schools are a legitimate choice. And only then could one properly discuss how that choice might be implemented if it is publicly funded.
Andy,
Since I invited Daniel to comment here, I’ll emerge from Lurkerville and offer my perspective on the topic.
It’s been more than 30 years since I took the Waldorf Teacher Training at Rudolf Steiner College in Northern California and having been a hard core (nerdlinger) Anthroposophist since 1976, I can provide a certain overview of the ever-entwining Anthroposophical and Waldorf movements as I’ve seen it evolve and devolve over that time span.
Infamous on the Steiner Internet for the past 16 years as bloviating maverick, jejune jester and someone who actually trolls in his own name, I shall now purvey here my new identity as anthroposophical apostate in the context of Melanie’s recent characterization of me on Alicia’s blog as a “godless cultural Catholic.” (Thanks, Wendy!)
I am very heartened and gratified by the work of Gregoire Perra, whose own apostate insights into the “soft cult” nature of anthroposophy may someday earn anthroposophy its own entry in the DSM-6??? manual of psychiatric disorders. (Interestingly enough, Rudolf Steiner predicted such an insane development, but more on that another thread.)
My impression of the present controversy in the UK over the public funding for Waldorf schools is that youse guys and gals across the pond are about a decade behind the parallel developments in the former colonies here. I of course refer to Dan Dugan and his PLANS organization that sought legal action against the public funding of Waldorf charter schools here in California.
It appears that legally, you folks in the UK have a much better case against the Anthros and Waldis than Dan did. We shall see.
But back to my recounting the American history of Waldorf since 1980.
Rudolf Steiner College was not the original name of the institution located in Fair Oaks, California, a northeast suburb of the state capital, Sacramento. Founded in 1976, its original name rang ponderous and cumbersome: “The Sacramento Center for Anthroposophical Studies.” As you might astutely and correctly guess, Germans were involved with the naming.
And the chief German was Rev. Carl Stegmann (1897-1996), one of the first Christian Community priests ever ordained and the man who was personally commissioned by Rudolf Steiner himself to carry everything Steiner had said about the spiritual destiny of America to that country in order to advance anthroposophy there.
Carl and his wife Christine, a eurythmist, finally emigrated to the USA in 1967, both at the age of 70, and the Center formed 9 years later during our famed Bicentennial Year.
But as destiny would have it, the Center quickly shifted within two years to a focus on training Waldorf teachers and was re-named Rudolf Steiner College. By that time, Carl was 80, and he quietly withdrew from his own center to be venerated as the founding father, but not much else beyond a fringe group of young Anthroposophists dedicated to the so-called “America work” a direct translation of the phrase Rudolf Steiner himself used for Carl in 1923: “die Amerika Arbeit.”
I realize that my comment is easily expanding into an article now, so I will cut off here, with a tease of coming attractions. I also realize that my historical recounting may not be on topic for this thread, so I’ll wait for feedback about that.
Suffice it to say that the leading figure in Waldorf education in the USA today was centrally involved with that “mission shift” of Carl Stegmann’s center to Waldorf training. She is Betty (Kane) Staley, whom I call “Oma Waldorf” today because she is a nice Jewish mother of Waldorf, now grand-mother, (Oma) from New Yawk City and since I meself was raised Irish Roman Catholic in that same NYC, I can offer a unique perspective on just how she has managed to guide the American Waldorf movement to where it is today, leaving Waldorf Critics in her dust.
Finally, since this is election day in the USA, I came up with this rough but still nifty analogy in honor of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith:
Rudolf Steiner is to Carl Stegmann as Joseph Smith is to Brigham Young.
Tom Mellett
Los Angeles, CA
Tom – unfortunately most of your comment will be incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t followed events in the US.
But – from Dan Dugan’s account of Betty Staley’s evidence re the PLANS (People for Legal and Non -Sectarian Schools) lawsuit in 2010, she appears to have behaved rather badly:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15551
The idea that she wouldn’t know about Michaelmas is .. well, she does know.
If Staley is the ‘leading figure in Waldorf education in the USA today’ one might question the movement’s honesty and integrity. It’s much the same in both our countries, supporters of Steiner Waldorf schools are not entirely candid.
Hi Melanie,
You’re quite right about the audience unfamiliarity with the American historical riff that I composed. And so, rather than add another installment which I had already started to answer your link to Betty Staley’s testimony, I thought it best to see if I could briefly summarize my own “devotee to apostate” experience over the last 36 years as Anthroposophist and sometime Waldorf teacher in order to communicate with this audience that is largely based in the UK.
What came out was a 4 line poem, too long for a haiku, but somewhat haiku in quality, given that it seems to capture past, present and future all at once.
Tom
=========================
We Steiner people are all quite mad.
But we hide it very well.
Alas, there is no cure for us.
And you’re next.
==========================
“But we hide it very well.”
Seriously… not so much.
Post removed for sock/meat puppetry.
This author went out of his way to use words that carry a negative connotation today, like “occult” and “mystical.” That should be a sign to readers that this author is a nay-sayer and not a historian.
A lot of important philosophers and thinkers of the past several centuries believed things that we no longer value today. That is no reason to discount the now-evolved values that have come out of their movements. In fact, this is pretty much true if you study ANY great thinker of the past, there were some good ideas, and some not-so-good ideas, so we should take what benefits us and do something good with it (like many of these schools do today). It doesn’t mean the schools subscribe to some of the more dodgy ideas the creator valued in his/her day. That should be obvious and it’s a shame this author can’t understand that.
And, if a parent cannot take 10 minutes to research a “Steiner” or “Waldorf” school that is so transparently named, then I think that is on them. Why should they be told about every little historical detail that involved the creator of he movement? Do parents need to be hand-held and coddled? Obviously, there is nothing hidden about the schools’ origins if they are named after their creators!
At any rate, there will always be a bunch of fearful, close-minded people like this on these sites drumming up skewed history in order to scare people into mindlessly following the masses. Sigh.
I did not go ‘out of my way’ to use words like ‘occult’. These are the words that Steiner used himslef to describe his philosophy, such as in his book “Occult Science”.
Good point Andy, especially as “Occult Science” is required reading for Waldorf/Steiner school teachers. And let’s not forget Steiner’s “The Occult Significance of Blood.” It seems the word “occult” is problematic to occultists. Odd.
Did you miss the parts where it has been shown that Steiner schools actively conceal their philosopohies and how they influence the teaching?
Do you think a parent who takes “10 minutes to research” what goes on in Steiner schools will gain a true impression of them if that parent relies on Steiner schools’ descriptions of themselves?
“It doesn’t mean the schools subscribe to some of the more dodgy ideas the creator valued in his/her day. That should be obvious and it’s a shame this author can’t understand that.”
OK, which of Steiner’s ideas have the schools abandoned? Can you name a few for us, since it’s so obvious? They haven’t even adequately distanced themselves from Steiner’s racism. What exactly is so obvious to you?
I too wrote to Michael Gove, met with the Dept For Education and spoke to Ofsted about my concerns as I realised the arty and relaxed school I’d enrolled my child in was not what I thought it was at all.
Gove told me he would look into it, the DfE seemed completely horrified and photocopied teaching resources etc and Ofsted said I should have researched what the school’s philosophy was about ! Bit tricky when the parents handbook avoids it and I hadn’t thought to Google ‘Steiner racism’ ,’Steiner lies’ etc
I honestly think these schools are being funded simply because Gove’s mates are involved with Frome and politicians seem to make up rules to suit themselves.
This is a great post and I really hope somebody somewhere will be embarrassed enough to sort this madness out !
The schools will be in turmoil if they get local kids in wearing bright pink or black with Nike trainers and I-Pods, how will they explain that they can’t play football because it’s not good for their reincarnation ? Akward…
What I remember from our school;
The stifling of creativity -everyone had to make a fekking wooden spoon,draw a wet on wet volcano painting in Class 6, knit ,play ancient tunes on wooden recorders, decorate their main lesson books in an ‘appropriate’ manor ( the class teacher wrote on my daughter’s book ‘careful how you decorate’ too many black squares ! )
No computers till age 14
No CD’s no amplified music
Really bad teaching a lot !
All the older kids hating eurythmy.
Parents evenings where the parents aren’t allowed to talk.
A lesson on how Gnomes were real (for 13 year olds !)
Having some very sweet staff and some really scary ones like the one who came from Brighton Steiner School and lasted 3 weeks as he told stories of decapitation and shook the kid’s hands so hard it hurt them…
Racism and how it wasn’t dealt with ,not surprising really !
Being sent a letter from the school’s solicitor saying I was not allowed to speak to Ofsted or the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I’m looking forward to seeing the BBC piece and hope you will be visiting a pub in London soon !
“Being sent a letter from the school’s solicitor saying I was not allowed to speak to Ofsted or the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”
Do you still have this letter? I’d love to post it on my blog…
Have you posted this letter on your blog?
If you are prepared to make public that letter, then it would be incredible!
Andy, I Just found the letter and will get it to you. Pete I guess you will be able to get it if Andy posts it otherwise Andy has my email if you need it.
.
Fantastic! Thanks!
A couple more responses to address the balance-
‘Until a few years ago, you could get a BA in Steiner Waldorf Education from Plymouth University. It was never clear why the University chose to axe the course, but Canterbury Christ Church University is picking up and filling the market gap’
The University of Plymouth took the decision to kill off the course because of poor recruitment and retention of students over the past three years. Many universities have altered their course choices which directly result from a shift in student fees and funding. Since the government’s withdrawal of funding for second degrees. As many people begin the course later in life after a change in career, they faced charges upward of £8,000 a year instead of the standard £3,225.
In Steiner education, children keep the same teacher for a number of years, this is bound to have an effect on the availabiloity of new teaching posts for graduates.
Despite the course’s closure, Professor Michael Totterdell, executive dean of the university’s faculty of education, insisted there was a possibility of a Steiner option in its BA Education Studies degree.
“Indeed, in these schools, misleading state officials is commonplace. For example, I witnessed that, when a teacher is scheduled to be inspected in class, s/he will commonly be replaced by another teacher who has the [necessary] skills or qualifications. [37] Then the students are asked to “play the game” in the presence of the inspector, and to act as if the teacher who conducts their class [this day] is their regular teacher. [38] Similarly, it may happen that there are health and hygiene inspections.”
This is common practice also in state schools also. With experience working as a teacher in several state schools and been through a few Ofsted inspections, it is common practice for the school to have prior warnoing of the inspection dates, and for the school to put adequate measures in place to esure a successful inspection. This includes briefing students and modifying the teacher/ teaching practice available on inspection days. An experienced inspector will be aware when this is occurring, and takes this into account for inspection reports.
I could go on for there is valid fors and against for each point. I am neither for or against Steiner schools, but as a state teacher who is considering other education for my own children, see balanced and unbiased debate as the logical way forwards in this. Old views and science is simply that- old, we take what’s valid and discard what is useless.
Soon after making that statement, Professor Michael Totterdell ‘decided after careful consideration to retire’ from the University of Plymouth.
The closure of the Steiner BA at Plymouth happened after a FoI request was made to the University requesting the course materials.
http://ukanthroposophy.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/plymouth-university-axes-steiner-ba/
Mike Collins notes: ‘Perhaps fear of ridicule is the reason Plymouth tried for so long not to divulge what students would be learning there.’
Graham, regarding OFSTED inspections I recently spoke to a UK state secondary school teacher who had been a head for several years (she gave that up and returned to regular subject teaching complaining of the thankless stress of it). She was most scathing of OFSTED, claiming that they were easily fooled by any school with staff experienced in gaming the system.
Discussions in the comments following this Guardian “Secret Teacher” piece about OFSTED seems to back up her claims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/nov/10/ofsted-inspector-notice-improve-secret-teacher
Andy,
cracking article
best wishes
Well, this should warm the cockleberries of Sune’s Waldorf heart-that’s-not-a-pump:
Kenneth Chenault, a graduate — and lifer (Pre-K-12) — of the Garden City Long Island Waldorf School, may become one of President Obama’s new cabinet appointees — either Treasury or Commerce.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-18/amex-s-chenault-said-to-be-discussed-for-treasury-post.html
White House officials have approached American Express Co. (AXP) Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Chenault about joining President Barack Obama’s second-term administration, possibly as Treasury secretary,. . . .consideration of Chenault among Obama’s staff may indicate the president hasn’t made a final decision on a replacement for Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who has said he plans to leave the post. . . . Other potential roles for Chenault, a longtime Obama supporter, may be as Commerce secretary or as a senior adviser to the president, according to the people,
Read this Waldorf alumni page about Mr. Chenault
http://www.waldorfgarden.org/page.cfm?p=656
Hello, your article is very well documented, however it looks like it’s written by someone who didn’t attending any class in a Waldorf school and nor is children. I think the only issue with the Waldorf system, as with any educational system, is that teachers can be more or less gifted in terms of teaching skills. I for one attended for a few years a Waldorf class with an outstanding teacher, and all i can say for sure is that racist or religious “voodoo” were never part of the teachings. On the contrary, there was a lot of focus on the creative development of the child that made the children in my class have great school results, way high above the other school systems. So your concerns should be filtered also through direct participation and observation in order to have an objective image on this.
Hello, youHello, your article is very well documented, however it looks like it’s written by someone who didn’t attending any class in a Waldorf school and nor is children. I think the only issue with the Waldorf system, as with any educational system, is that teachers can be more or less gifted in terms of teaching skills. I for one attended for a few years a Waldorf class with an outstanding teacher, and all i can say for sure is that racist or religious “voodoo” were never part of the teachings. On the contrary, there was a lot of focus on the creative development of the child that made the children in my class have great school results, way high above the other school systems. So your concerns should be filtered also through direct participation and observation in order to have an objective image on this. r article is very well documented, however it looks like it’s written by someone who didn’t attending any class in a Waldorf school and nor is children. I think the only issue with the Waldorf system, as with any educational system, is that teachers can be more or less gifted in terms of teaching skills. I for one attended for a few years a Waldorf class w
No gnomes, Miruna?
I’m guessing that Miruna’s Waldorf school was not truly in Scotland.
well, if gnomes were the worst thing children would hear about, it would be room for a lovely future, wouldn’t it?
Not site what to take from your reply. We’re the gnomes there or not?
Marvelous posting. Your blog post is very informative. I got to know lots of useful info from your site. Thanks for sharing.
Dear all, I am someone that appreciates the value of education. Educated to PhD level and working in academia. I don’t believe that Steiner schools offer anything less than your average state comprehensive in terms of educational quality. I attended a comprehensive school myself, followed by a college and I think it is very hard for children who want to learn to do so on an environment where a teachers role is ofteb more ‘crowd control’ than education. As a firm humanist I certainly do not believe in mysticism, but I can’t see why these teachings are any more harmful than those of our accepted mainstream religions. I would much rather my child was being taught reincarnation and karma than the bigoted views of those more traditionalist religions. I have heard many stories over the years of science lessons taught by teachers that are in fact creationists, and therefore teach Darwinism as if it is just a theory, with no more supporting evidence than the garden of Eden. I utterly support the existence of alternative schools, and parents choice. Personally from talking to friends who attended Steiner schools I would happily send my children to one as this system seems to produce very well balanced individuals.
Once again: informed consent.
Lucy, I agree that other religious and mystical traditions can be as harmful. But, while the Abrahamic religions have in their texts values that are abhorrent, they also have a tradition of explanation, modification, cherry-picking and dissent that has taken place over (in the case of Christianity, for example) 2,000 years. It is thus possible, in many religious schools, for parents to know precisely what the education on offer entails (many Christians, for example, don’t believe in miracles, the ‘virgin birth’ or slavery). In contrast, Anthroposophy is a modern religion that specifies a racially prejudicial and mystical karmic schema in a 20th Century context. Basic Anthroposophical ideas are often hidden from parents and many of the most unpleasant elements are denied even when they direct the pedagogy that is the basis for Steiner-Waldorf teacher training and teaching practice.
Sadly, many of the ‘well balanced individuals’ who have been through the Steiner system are as protective of their schools’ record as their teachers. And, like their teachers, they deny the institutional racism inherent in their belief system. Given that pretty much every other organisation in the modern democracies recognize racism within their ranks, and have policies to improve things, it is not surprising that anti-racist campaigners wish to see Anthroposophical organizations shape up.
The first stage in combating such racism is to fully understand that it exists, and why it exists, within one’s organisation. Steiner schools and many of their ex-pupils are still very much in denial about this. If they were ‘well balanced’ they would be calling for the rejection of Steiner’s racist ideology; they would be calling for Anthroposophy to be abandoned and for Steiner to become an historic curiosity rather than the focus of a cult.
Finally, if pupils were well balanced they would also be calling for the rejection of the kind if anti-science mysticism that is rapidly making all rational discourse with Steiner proponents almost impossible.
“Personally from talking to friends who attended Steiner schools I would happily send my children to one as this system seems to produce very well balanced individuals.”
That’s like going to a pottery factory and being shown only the finished products… All the samples look great if you don’t think about all the broken pots that didn’t make it to the shelf.
For every child that graduates Waldorf, DOZENS have had their education distorted, interrupted or skewed by their encounter with Waldorf. The ones that have withstood the punishment of this cruel educational system seem like fine citizens… they certainly aren’t individuals – they all have had their rough edges smoothed to fit the Waldorf mold. Over the years, they have been humiliated into not asking questions (makes them seem smart when you meet them doesn’t it?). They are polite, and never talk back, well behaved… Stepford children. Years of abusive teaching practices will do that to children.
How can Waldorf students be well-”balanced” when only one out of twelve makes it to the scales in the first place. Whenever you meet a Waldorf grad, think of the dozen students who (after being lied to by Waldorf) tried Waldorf and found it didn’t “fit” for them. Ask the Waldorf grad if he kept in contact with friends who didn’t end up graduating. The answer is always the same… NO. “Individuals” don’t behave like that.
I just wanted to make some observations based on some of the things I have read here.
1. Some of the critics of Steiner Education say that first hand experience of the education and its value, whether as a parent or pupil in a school, doesn’t count as “evidence.” Why not?
2. Some Steiner Schools are apparently not very good at PR
3. Anthroposophy is denounced as “secretive” even though hundreds of Steiner’s written works are published in English and available on request from any good public library. They are also available to buy from Amazon as well as directly from the publishers. Practically everything Rudolf Steiner ever said or wrote is available either online or in books.
4. Andy’s comments about Anthroposophy and occasional “quotes” are not supported by references to the original published material and so are impossible to validate by going back to the source (usually Steiner) and forming one’s own opinion. I personally like to test things out for myself and don’t like taking someone else’s word for it.
5. There appears to be no real room for debate because conclusions are already drawn.
6. The conversation appears to be irretrievably polarised (can you sense the emotion in some of the posts?) and I can’t help being reminded of the debates in the Middle Ages between the church and the “heretics.” I thought that modern people had grown beyond that but apparently not. That makes me incredibly sad quite frankly. Whatever happened to good will?
Alan
My argument about Steiner Schools is simple: they do not disclose the nature of their schools to parents. Yes, much of Steiner’s work is published. But schools refuse to engage and say how his work influences their approach to teaching. Some of what they say is clearly misleading. That is why they are secretive.
You ask for good will. I believe the full onus is on the schools to start being open about how Anthroposophy drives their schools. That would show good will.
Alan -
yes, I agree – it’s often struck me that anthroposophists view ‘materialists’ (their term) as heretics who will not accept the True Church of anthroposophy. I’m sorry if this makes you sad, but as we are no longer in the medieval era there’s little risk of those who reject Higher Worlds being stretched on the rack or burnt at the stake. So, we can all rest easy.
‘Practically everything Rudolf Steiner ever said or wrote is available either online or in books.’
A parent should not be obligated to read the entire rambling, contradictory oeuvre of a spiritual guru before placing their child in a school. The school should be honest and upfront from the very beginning, there’s absolutely no excuse for not being so. However – in my opinion – there’s little evidence Steiner Academies intend to be honest, in fact the Principal of the Steiner Academy Frome told such a whopper to the BBC that archangels wept. It’s all complicated by anthroposophy being esoteric – there’s no fun at all if everyone knows what’s actually going on.
That’s why it can be useful to read something by a former Waldorf student and teacher who has been on the inside:
“I was a member of the School of Spiritual Science — that is to say, I was included in the special category of Anthroposophists having access to higher occult truths that are withheld from regular members of the Anthroposophical Society. I participated in esoteric lessons, which is to say I participated in the secret cult of the School of Spiritual Science.’
https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/he-went-to-waldorf
No one wants to ban anthroposophy or to stop people from following Steiner’s ideas if that’s what they want to do. But we question what evidence the proponents of Steiner have to justify basing an entire school pedagogy on the insights of an esoteric religion.
“1. Some of the critics of Steiner Education say that first hand experience of the education and its value, whether as a parent or pupil in a school, doesn’t count as “evidence.” Why not?”
It counts as the evidence of one pupil or parent. Unlike hundreds of parents, students and teachers who have spoken with a common voice – that Waldorf causes harm. My blog is filled with evidence – not one or two parents – hundreds! Have a peek… http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/
Andy,
I agree that it might be useful for the schools to find a better way to explain how Rudolf Steiner’s work influences the curriculum and teaching methods in the school. Clearly they are not succeeding at the moment, as is evident from the various blogs. It is, however, no secret that it does. Otherwise why call the school a “Rudolf Steiner School” at all?
Secondly, your characterisation of Anthroposophy is very interesting but it is so extreme (at least that is the way I read it) that I would like to know your sources so that I can read it for myself and form my own opinion. I realise that most prospective parents might not have the time to do this and are quite comfortable to take it on your authority but I am not. In the spirit of true scepticism, which I know you espouse, I want to read it for myself. So, can you please give me, and other interested parents, clear references that back up your characterisation?
Melanie,
What makes me sad is the lack of common ground and polarisation of the points of view expressed on this site. I was not characterising anyone as a “church” or a “cult” but just noticing that others were doing so and that no-one seems to be really listening. Listening is what I mean by good will I think. When things get polarised into, for example, “materialists” versus “anthroposophists” or the like then the end product is almost inevitably fear, anger and hatred which leads ultimately to fundamentalism in its many disguises, which is the scourge of modern times WHEREVER it originates. We are all imperfect human beings though are we not?
Have you read any of the “rambling, contradictory oeuvre of a spiritual guru” that you refer to? Could you refer me to anything in that body of work that you would consider helpful for me to read that would justify your point of view? Apart from the link to the very interesting essay by Grégoire Perra that you kindly shared that is. I won’t comment on that now as I need more time to read it properly.
Pete,
I imagine that it takes a lot of courage for someone to come onto this blog and speak out about their positive personal experiences of Steiner Education. I am sure that there are hundreds more like that out there too if someone wanted to start a bog for them. It is not about numbers, it is about why. I want to know WHY people have one view or another view. If someone has a positive view I am interested. If it is negative I am also interested. Listening to everyone is the key to forming fruitful dialogue and a way forward.
Alan,
Before we go on, it is good etiquette to declare any interest you may have in the subject. Would you care to do so?
Next, you ask why call a school a “Rudolf Steiner School?” A good question. One I have been pursuing with the proposed Bristol Steiner Academy. Answers are not forthcoming.
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2013/01/steiner-academy-bristol-a-challenge-be-open-with-parents.html
You then ask for the sources of Steiner’s works so that you can read for yourself, but in previous comments you appear to be well aware of the publications of his works. Which way do you want to play this?
Alan – cheer up – I’m sure our common ground is that we all want the best education for our children.
You ask: ‘Have you read any of the “rambling, contradictory oeuvre of a spiritual guru” that you refer to? ‘
Yes I have.
‘Could you refer me to anything in that body of work that you would consider helpful for me to read that would justify your point of view?’
This is clearly just a game for you. Can you point me to anything in that body of work which would change it? Whatever you imagine my point of view is.
‘When things get polarised into, for example, “materialists” versus “anthroposophists” or the like then the end product is almost inevitably fear, anger and hatred which leads ultimately to fundamentalism in its many disguises, which is the scourge of modern times WHEREVER it originates. ‘
Yes. Although I do believe it was the scourge of earlier times too. It’s best not to get too excite however; anthroposophists need not fear the lions.
Andy,
I am well aware, as you say, of how to access Steiner’s work. Any online search will provide that information. What I have asked you for is which of his works you have accessed and read in order to form the view that you have expressed so strongly on this blog. It is normal in academic circles to provide references for points of view such as this.
I am aware that there are probably many people who are about to make judgements about Rudolf Steiner Schools based on what you have said about anthroposophy and other related matters. It is no game for them. They are deciding on the future education of their children. I think it is “good etiquette” as well as good practice, and empowering for your readers to give references for people to read for themselves. Otherwise you will be setting yourself up (inadvertently I am sure) to be the “authority” on the subject and people will have to trust you. This is not in keeping with the core message of your blog, unless I have misinterpreted you somewhere along the way.
I don’t want to plough through hundreds of titles to try to find the parts you are talking about when you can give me the references and save me the bother. So, are you able to help me (and other parents) to read for themselves from the sources that you used to arrive at your statements above about anthroposophy? Or not? Over to you…. ☺
The interest I have in this dialogue is to establish the truth. Like you, I want to “stick to the arguments” and leave personal interests out of it for the same reasons you do.
I would be very happy to have a personal dialogue with you if you like, perhaps we might meet at one of your forthcoming talks for example.
I note you did not declare any interest. Before we go on, would you like to reconsider that?
I will note that my posts do contain extensive links to sources. If you feel I have missed anything important, then please feel free to suggest specific references missed.
“I imagine that it takes a lot of courage for someone to come onto this blog and speak out about their positive personal experiences of Steiner Education.”
Perhaps… but unlike how Waldorf people treat those who are critical of Waldorf education, nobody here is going to threaten them or their family if they say positive things about Waldorf.
You *do* know that families are often threatened when they start complaining about Waldorf, don’t you? Again, my blog is filled with lots and lots of mentions of this. I myself had threats made toward my children by their TEACHER – because I dared speak out against their school. So please, spare me the talk about the “courage” of parents who declare they like Waldorf, it’s definitely *not* the same thing at all. Waldorf supporters are free to speak… Waldorf critics speak at their own risk… Ask Gregoire Perra.
“I don’t want to plough through hundreds of titles to try to find the parts you are talking about when you can give me the references and save me the bother.”
Likewise, I’m sure Andy doesn’t feel compelled to provide a citation for every sentence in the article. If there are any issues Andy raises that you have questions about, please point them out. I’m more than happy to help Andy in providing citations to support what he said in the article. I’m sure others will too. Which statements are you suspicious about – or are having trouble attributing to Steiner?
It’s understandable that parents may want some sources – regarding Steiner’s race doctrines, here is a comment from historian Peter Staudenmaier made after my post on on DC’s Improbable Science blog. (at that time I wrote as Thetis):
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3853#comment-8660
There’s a complication for British parents. Peter Staudenmaier states:
‘Aside from anthroposophist statements, there is relatively little literature available in English on Steiner’s racial teachings. The best sources are in German.’
Adding, later in his comment: ‘The task is not as easy as it is for German readers, however, since a number of English translations of Steiner’s published works have been surreptitiously cleansed of openly racist and antisemitic material. Among many others, four of Steiner’s major statements on race have never been published in English’.
He provides a list of Steiner’s works which are available in English. The online library for Steiner’s work is here: http://www.rsarchive.org/
Since writing this (in 2010) some of Peter Staudenmaier’s academic papers have become available to download here: http://marquette.academia.edu/PeterStaudenmaier
I encourage anyone who would like to debate this material to raise questions or concerns on the Waldorf Critics list – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/
For those with some German, historian Helmut Zander discusses his work here:
http://www.srf.ch/player/tv/sternstunde-philosophie/video/sternstunde-philosophie-mysterium-anthroposophie–der-historiker-helmut-zander-im-gespraech-mit-norbert-bischofberger?id=cd417eb3-78a9-40c3-9342-21bde5e7a471
http://www.ceres.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/personen/details/helmut-zander/
For some comments on the writings by Peter Staudenmaier, that Melanie suggests the readers of this blog to read as “information” about Rudolf Steiner’s views of “race” in different senses, and Peter Staudenmaier’s relation to the subject, see
http://thebee.se/Staudenmaier
http://waldorfanswers.org/ThreeConcepts.htm and
http://thebee.se/comments/PS/OnPS2004Paper.html – some comments on the paper “Race and Redemption” by Staudenmaier.
They show that Staudenmaier’s discussion of the subject, after his first untruthful demagoguery now 13 years ago, is based on superficial understanding of the subject, and that his argumentation purely is based on the word “race” and not on concepts.
They also show his non-interest in actually understanding the subject he discusses, and a non-interest in the different meaning of the word in the different contexts in which Rudolf Steiner used them, of which only one of them refers to the word “race” as it is used today in an anthropological sense.
The other two main senses are
- humanity during the stages of the development of our present solar system, and
- the human forms that developed from beginning to end of Cenozoic time, that is Tertiary and Quaternary time, that can be understood to be the time in the main referrred to in anthroposophy as “Atlantean time”.
To understand what sense of “race” Rudolf Steiner actually was referring to when he used the word at different times, one needs to analyse the published transcripts, as he did not always make this clear explicitly in the lectures, and it has to be inferred from the context.
As anthroposophy mainly has been approached from a humanistic perspective both by anthroposophists and others so far, only little has been developed in terms of understanding anthroposophy from a natural scientific perspective in the broad sense of the word so far.
The two last mentioned papers are a small contribution to this. A discussion that mixes up comments that refer to the different meanings of the word, the way both Staudenmaier and anthroposophists often do is meaningless.
“For some comments on the writings by Peter Staudenmaier”
By whom? Someone equally qualified? Are you a PhD Sune? Are you an historian? No wait… you’re a paid disinformation spreader.
“To understand what sense of “race” Rudolf Steiner actually was referring to when he used the word at different times, one needs to analyse the published transcripts, as he did not always make this clear explicitly in the lectures, and it has to be inferred from the context.”
We KNOW the context Sune. Individuals are spirit beings that incarnate into multiple human forms throughout their existence. That’s the context. The additional context is that those human forms may be “ranked” in hierarchical fashion. This idea is repeated in Steiner dozens if not hundreds of times. It isn’t a misunderstanding Sune, it’s what Steiner ACTUALLY TAUGHT over and over again… and the notion is RACIST. Steiner was a racist Sune… the sooner you acknowledge it, the better understanding you will have of Anthroposophy’s relation to the world today.
Sune, when you say: ‘the way both Staudenmaier and anthroposophists often do’ it strikes me that your work is very much your own interpretation of Steiner’s ideas. Perhaps you’ve created your own vision of who Rudolf Steiner was, who you’d like him to be, just as the Richard III Society have created their own version of the (recently exhumed) Richard III. This situation isn’t without pathos. But we shouldn’t get too attached to historical figures.
You’re not quite right. Understanding Steiner takes more the reading Staudenmaier has engaged in. It takes conceptual analytical thinking. Without it, you get the word goulash produced by Staudenmaier.
Andy,
I am sorry but I don’t understand what you mean by declare my interest. I thought my last paragraph covered that. Forgive me if I am being a bit slow here but would you mind explaining what you mean? Perhaps an example?
To continue from a previous comment – more generally I recommend parents read The Sun at Midnight, The Rudolf Steiner Movement and Gnosis in the West By Geoffrey Ahern, available here:
http://www.jamesclarke.co/product_info.php?products_id=226
website here: http://www.sun-at-midnight.com/index.page
That they also look here: http://www.rsh.anth.org.uk/pages/tues_talks.html
and here: http://www.rudolfsteinerpress.com/
Plus that parents reflect on the content of teacher training courses here: http://www.waldorftraining.org.uk/courses.html
Here: http://ukanthroposophy.wordpress.com/plymreadinglists/
and here: http://www.westt.org.uk/testimonials.html
Where it is very clear that anthroposophy forms the basis of Steiner Waldorf education. If you want to understand what will happen in your child’s education, you have to understand what anthroposophy is, and why it is there.
A spokesperson for the proposed Steiner Academy Bristol suggested that they will be training their own teachers in-house. I suggest that if they intend to circumnavigate the anthroposophical basis of Steiner Waldorf education (unless they plan to throw a voile over it and hope no one notices it’s there) they should change the name of their proposed school and submit another bid.
You really do sound paranoid, Melanie.
Rudolf Steiner schools are schools primarily based on Steiner’s thinking and philosophy the same way Montessori schools are based on the thinking and philosophy of Maria Montessori.
That’s what the names of the Rudolf Steiner schools tell, at least to people who have some form or normal understanding of names of institutions.
But his philosophy, anthroposophy, is not taught as such at the schools, and he explicitly stated as an injunction that is should not.
http://waldorfanswers.org/Injunction.htm
For some comments on what Gregoire Perra writes, whoi claims that it is, in spite of this, see
http://thebee.se/comments/FrenchTeacher.html
He’s overdoing his argumentation and does not seem to have understood the basis for what he has been teaching and have some perspective on it.
The paranoia you are cultivating – and Peter Staudenmaier – is just that; paranoia.
Probably all of Steiner’s lectures on Steiner Waldorf education are published on the net, for free access and download, at
http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive.php#waldorf
Anyone can read what he thought Steiner education should be, in addition to the 710 titles one can find at Amazon for simple search on “Waldorf education” – http://amzn.to/11QdK3h
The first title listed – http://amzn.to/11QdK3h – Understanding Waldorf Education: Teaching from the Inside Out by Jack Petrash is very good.
It’s written by the teacher of the children of the Swedish journalist Göran Rosenberg at the Waldorf school where he had them when he worked for Swedish TV in the US a number of years ago. In November last year, Göran Rosenberg was awarded the prestigious Swedish August Prize for his novel about his father: “A short stop on the wey from Auschwitz”.
http://bit.ly/WTxuvW
He had a release presentation of the book at the anthroposophical “Kulturhuset” in Järna some months ago.
What you and Peter Staudenmaier cultivate is just little founded paranoia.
Steiner Waldorf schools don’t cultivate and spread anti-Semitism.
They are marked by among other things the way people of Jewish origin have contributed to its founding and development up to this day, and by the important role played by the history of Jews and Judaism in its curriculum, as part of understanding the history of humanity.
And Steiner Waldorf pupils in Germany, that has the largest number of Waldorf schools world wide, are least right wing extremist and hostile to foreigners of all pupils in Germany accoding to independent research – http://bit.ly/b1vmln
Relax, have a massage, and a beer, or some soothing tea if you prefer. There are far greater problems and dangers in the world to children, also with a Jewish background, than Steiner Waldorf schools.
Sune Nordwall wrote about PhD Peter Staudenmaier: “Understanding Steiner takes more the reading Staudenmaier has engaged in.”
Sune believes a PhD/historian/professor can study Steiner/Anthroposophy for decades but requires even more reading before understanding Steiner. But parents, well, they should be able to grasp enough from a couple of parent evenings… right?
Sune wrote about former Waldorf teacher Gregoire Perra:
“He’s overdoing his argumentation and does not seem to have understood the basis for what he has been teaching and have some perspective on it.”
Sune believes even Waldorf teachers mis-understand Steiner. But parents should be able to look Steiner up on-line and get a good grasp of what is “THE BASIS” for what is being taught to their children.
Notice the clever wording:
“But his philosophy, anthroposophy, is not taught as such at the schools, and he explicitly stated as an injunction that is should not.”
Sune is famous for creating strawman arguments (his straw-colored website should be a reminder if you visit). Critics don’t claim Anthroposophy is “taught” to the students, they claim, as Sune acknowledges above, that it forms the BASIS for all that is taught in Waldorf. It is the lens through which teachers view students. And that lens is a very racist lens because, and there’s no getting around it, Anthroposophy is a racist doctrine.
“Steiner Waldorf schools don’t cultivate and spread anti-Semitism.”
Yet, Waldorf schools today are indistinguishable from the Waldorf schools that claimed to be in complete alignment with the policies of Nazi Germany.
Sune, nobody is going to relax and have a beer while Anthroposophists push racist ideas on our children.
“Anyone can read what he thought Steiner education should be, in addition to the 710 titles one can find at Amazon for simple search on “Waldorf education””
Thanks. Can you please point us to GA349?
Sune – apparently all critics of your movement (especially female critics) have paranoia. Another woman who writes an intelligent and challenging blog is in your words a ‘former psychiatric patient’. And similar comments were made about the Norwegian author of ‘Det de ikke forteller oss – Steinerskolens okkulte grunnlag’ This book:
http://www.cappelendamm.no/main/Katalog.aspx?f=10119&isbn=9788202318888
About Gregoire Perra you state:
‘Some years ago, someone who worked as a Steiner Waldorf teacher in France hit the wall from caregiver burn-out in his work, collapsed and became allergic to everything connected with his former work. Since then, he has started to describe it from the perspective of more traditional education.’
I don’t think I can add anything to that. We should let it stand for a while and marvel.
yes – people should read as much as they can. Nor should they take my word for anything, they should read and consider for themselves. However a note about Jack Petrash, to quote Roger Rawlings:
‘When he was a child, Jack Petrash was taught “about the benefits of asbestos.” Later, of course, asbestos was identified as a carcinogen. On this basis, Petrash argues that schools should not place too much emphasis on teaching children facts. “This [e.g., society’s changed understanding of asbestos] is the obvious flaw in fact-based education. Whether we were taught about the solar system, the Soviet Union, or computers, much of what we had to learn in school is now outdated.” [Jack Petrash, UNDERSTANDING WALDORF EDUCATION (Gryphon House, 2002), p. 26.]‘
from: https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/today
I’ve already discussed with you the research you link to, but I will repeat myself.
The German study you mention examined a variety of settings, including non-Waldorf schools, and showed that schools with “the highest proportion of non-German students” had the highest rates of xenophobic attitudes – this finding held across all settings. Thus it’s the fact that there is an extraordinarily small percentage of ‘foreign’ students at German Waldorf schools, which are overwhelmingly white – in sharp contrast to public schools in Germany, that leads to the report’s statistic re Waldorf schools.
The German report therefore produces no evidence, when controlling for other confounding factors, that Steiner Waldorf schools “are least hostile to foreigners and express least extremist right wing attitudes of all pupils in Germany.”
You say: ‘There are far greater problems and dangers in the world to children, also with a Jewish background, than Steiner Waldorf schools.’ I absolutely agree, of course there are.
I believe it would give you greater credibility if you were to admit that most of the sites you link to were written by yourself, admittedly under different names.
“The first title listed – http://amzn.to/11QdK3h – Understanding Waldorf Education: Teaching from the Inside Out by Jack Petrash is very good. ”
Jack Petrash is the guy who, after learning that asbestos is harmful, decided facts aren’t worth knowing. https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/today Why would you ask readers not to read Staudenmaier and then send readers to the site of such an obvious idiot Sune?
Grégoire Perra has his own blog:
http://gregoireperra.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/lendoctrinement-a-lanthroposophie-dans-les-ecoles-steiner-waldorf-lien-avec-le-site-de-lunadfi/
And there is now a French Waldorf Critics site:
https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfcriticsinfrance/home?pli=1
Plus on German radio today: Resistance against state Waldorf School in Hamburg
Criticism sparked by outdated pedagogical approach:
http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/campus/2004639/
Melanie, you write:
“it strikes me that your work is very much your own interpretation of Steiner’s ideas. Perhaps you’ve created your own vision of who Rudolf Steiner was, who you’d like him to be,”
No. I’ve analysed his writings and lectures for long from a conceptual perspective.
Sune wrote: “No. I’ve analysed his writings and lectures for long from a conceptual perspective.”
If the conclusions you come up with aren’t supported by Steiner’s writings, then whose conclusions are they? They’re YOURS Sune.
Apparently, nobody actually understands Steiner as well as you do (nor CAN they ever hope to), but how much time would you say parents and teachers (and historians) should spend trying to understand Steiner before sending their children to Waldorf (or even commenting about Waldorf)?
I’m guessing by your previous comments that it must take YEARS of study for parents to understand what Steiner really meant. Maybe parents who need to understand Steiner should get started well before they’re even parents… maybe they should start while they’re still in school… OH, sorry, you’ve already thought of this…
May I point out that I seem to be observing a bunch of people who have already made up their minds fruitlessly bashing each other with their “truths?” It seems to be getting personal. I can see that this sort of “discussion” is no discussion at all.
I have read some very interesting links though, including the ones to Staudenmaier and Perra. I had no idea this stuff was out there. As Staudenmaier (PhD!!!) has given his references to R Steiner in the proper way I have decided to read the books he refers to and make up my own mind.
What would be really interesting to me, but I don’t expect it to ever happen, would be to meet everyone and have beer together, or go for a hike in the mountains for a week. I can see that behind all these posts and agendas are real people with stories to tell and all this arguing on a soulless computer screen is obscuring our common humanity behind a smokescreen of emotional rhetoric.
Alan – very glad you’ve discovered both Dr Staudenmaier and Gregoire Perra, there’s no substitute for making up your own mind. But do consider cutting down on the ecumenical tone-trolling.
“What would be really interesting to me, but I don’t expect it to ever happen, would be to meet everyone and have beer together, or go for a hike in the mountains for a week.”
Here’s another “beer” suggestion. What’s up with that? Does Anthroposophy look better to people after a few beers? Or is this new “What’s all the fuss about” attitude the next tactic for discussion – as authorized by Waldorf? Sune (the most aggressive/abusive Waldorf proponent on the net) asking people to chill out is just creepy.
I think Steiner answers my “beer” question above: “You must not try to receive these insights in a sober-minded and intellectual way.” [STUFEN DER HOHEREN ERKENNISNIS, p. 66.]
So maybe there’s something to Sune’s suggestion… maybe we all just need to drink until Steiner’s insights may be properly received. Maybe it doesn’t take 20 years of study… just 20 year old Scotch.
If your had actually been to a Steiner school you d know that this is a load of bullshit so stop writing about them when you don’t know shit about how they actually work
Arnold, aren’t you supposed to be promoting CHIME schools? Waldorf is your competition.
Some of us here actually know how Waldorf schools work… and don’t work.
I went to a steiner school up until class 8 and then left to do my GCSE’s at a state school that received outstanding in every category in it latest ofstead report. I loved both schools but decided I wanted to do my A levels in a steiner school because you are given the freedom to be yourself instead of being just another child pushed to get results.
Arnold and Annie – with respect, do you believe your comments are good advertisements for Steiner education?
I’m sorry I swore that was stupid and I’m also not trying to advertise waldorf schools but I’m a student and have been for 8years and I justget really annoyed with people like this dude who completelslag off Steiner scho when they have had no experience firstly, in the morning we don’t jump over fires and I can guarantee other things he said are also not true. And iII also get annoyed anata people who are so easily persuaded by this who can’t prove any of thispeople like
Sorry my phone messed up I meant firstly instead of astlant
Arnold… What was said that requires proof for you?
Really confused here. I fail to understand what Andy Lewis means when he mentions to Alan about “declaring his interest”.
I was trying to read through all of the debate and comprehend the philosophy of Steiner education systems.
What intrigues me is that Andy consistently refuses to get into a debate and answer questions that Alan raises.
“Really confused here. I fail to understand what Andy Lewis means when he mentions to Alan about “declaring his interest”.”
Cousins to the gnomes are the trolls… and typically when Andy (or someone else) asks for someone to “declare their interest”, it means the poster appears to have a vested interest in Waldorf or Anthroposophy. Usually, we find out they are on the board of a Waldorf school, or married to a Waldorf teacher, or part of some Anthroposophical initiative… something like that.
As it turns out, Alan went off to read up on the subject.
I have worked as a support worker at a Steiner establishment for two years I have a degree in art and am also a child minder with years of experience working as an outreach worker. Student’s needs are met staff show concern about real issues and support creative ideas. Students are taught a multitude of crafts and lean the precision of tools. Drama and dance are used to help with expression and acting out real life situations. All students have music lessons and explore World music as well as modern song writing. Students learn to cook and experience working outdoors, building with green technology, rearing animals and growing food. Students use the internet and core skills are met. I realise in the past mistakes must have been made but that is all over the educational spectrum. I wish I had attended a Steiner school my teachers beat me from age 4 because I struggled reading it was horrendous, I was brilliant at drawing but that seemed to be unimportant. Art is a great way to learn, my feeling is if your child seems to require special attention it would be worth visiting a school to meet the staff and have a chat to make up your own mind. Staff train in diversity. Having experienced Steiner education as a worker my only concern is that the pay is poor. I honestly feel that Steiner must be an altogether modern educational setting that treats each person as an individual. It is a caring and inspiring environment. Students who attend the establishment where I work did not fit into State School some people don’t and it is important that the State consider this issue. Kind Regards
How would a Steiner School treat a child as an individual whose talents were in physics and mathematics? How would painting with watercolours (not black obviously) focus on this child as an individual?
At my school in particular i know the maths and physics departments are very good indeed. I am currently taking maths A-level and find the course very helpful and well taught. Many people in my year passed their maths and physics CCSEs with far higher marks than they would have expected possible due to the high standard of education at our school. I personally am taking an A-level in Fine Art as well as maths which just goes to show that, since I am doing well in both the school offers quality education on a variety of subjects not just academic ones or artistic one, but both. Painting is an entertaining activity for children and helps to develop their imaginations and artistic skills.
So in answer to your question, the school deals very well with maths and physics as you seem to doubt. There are several students at my school taking both subjects at AS level and at A2, and receivng excellent tuition in both as well as all other subjects such as languages and artistic subjects.
In my experience: a Steiner school can’t do that. Nor can a Steiner school assist an individual who desires to make progress in other areas… even basic things such as reading, writing, maths. They don’t adapt the curriculum for a child who is already reading when s/he starts school, for example. What’s left for such a child is to wither away in boredom. Unless s/he is also thrilled by flute playing, form drawing, eurythmy and wet-on-wet painting — in which case at least some interests are met.
Whether an individual child’s needs are met depends on the child’s ability to adapt to the Steiner curriculum. The Steiner curriculum is not going to adapt to the child.
Wrong. In my experience each child’s learning is tailored exactly to their abilities, strengths or weaknesses. This is one of the key features of Steiner education in fact; it is recognised that not all children learn well in the same ways and the education is altered for them individually.
In my experience, and in the experience of many others I’ve been in contact with, this is not the case. So I echo what you said: wrong.
I’ve come to the conclusion that if your personality and your gifts and abilities are more or less in line with what is expected according to the anthroposophical model of child development then you don’t crash head-on with the Steiner system. If, however, you’re not so lucky, you’ll run into problems.
Steiner schools are not suited for all children, and there’s no reason to pretend they are. It would be better for Steiner schools to admit when Steiner education is unlikely to work.
I’ve been reading quite a lot of books about Steiner education. You almost invriably get a lot of ‘truths’ about how children are, how they develop and what is appropriate at certain ages. Rarely any acknowledgements that these are not universal descriptions — some children are vastly different from the model described. I’ve asked Steiner folks, teachers, what they’d do if a child wants more intellectual challenges — the answer is: nothing; they say the Steiner curriculum provides these children, too, with what they need, no additions or alterations needed. Such responses, and reading Steiner education literature, only confirm my own experience: there is little in steiner educatione for the individual who didn’t fit the pre-conceived model.
Is that using the barmpot idea of child temperaments?
By the way, are Mike/A Giraffe and Mickey Mouse the same person? Or am I talking to two people here?
Child temperaments are not necessarily the only thing that defines different children. Just because you don’t agree with the idea of “temperaments” doesn’t mean you think all children are the same and learn in the same way do you? As mike said, different children have different strengths/weaknesses and benefit from varied teaching styles.
Jonathan: that is the problem with the anthroposophical model – it is too restricted. It tells you how children are, and if a child is not like that — bummer!
The temperaments is just one part of that. Another is the idea that children develop in 7 year cycles and that these cycles are associated with certain ways/manners of being, experiencing and learning. In quite a rigid way.
Not to get technical or anything but people do “regenerate” roughly every 7 years since that is how long the most resilient cells in your body last before dying and being replaced; therefore every 7 years (or so) you are physically a “new person”!
But seriously, I agree with Jonathan in general, the steiner system is reputed to be quite good at recognizing different children’s strengths, what model they use to do this is unfortunately not a subject i am very strong on, but from personal experience, it works well enough. Besides having varied teaching methods for different students is better than can be said for most schools where all students are treated the same and if it doesn’t help them, oh well. In this case, I would say that any kind of adapted teaching is better than none.
This seven year regeneration thing is of course nonsense on several levels.
Firstly, cells in your body regenerate at different times with some, such as the intestine lining replace every few days, blood in weeks or so, bone in 30 years and brain cells – never.
And secondly, Steiner thought of the seven year cycle as essentially a spiritual metamorphosis that corresponded with some elements of the bodies metamorphosis such as change of teeth.
You should be very careful when trying to do post hoc justifications for spiritual beliefs with cherry picked science.
A Giraffe/Mike/whoever: ‘the steiner system is reputed to be quite good at recognizing different children’s strengths’
I know it’s ‘reputed’ to be this; this is standard Steiner school talk. It’s one of the reasons I’m objecting, because I don’t think people should believe this reputation is necessarily deserved. It’s basically something that Steiner proponents say. There’s nothing to back it up, except… their own claims that this is so.
So my suggestion to parents is to read lots of Steiner education literature and imagine what might be the consequences if your child does not fit the model described.
I have no idea what you mean with ‘varied teaching methods for different students’ — I have not seen anything to suggest they have this, neither in the literature, nor from my experience or from that of others. I have to conclude that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you had a really great teacher who did adapt the teaching methods to individual students, but that’s not something she’s getting from Steiner literature.
As for getting ‘technical’ — no, that’s not at all what the 7 year cycles signify in the anthroposophical view of man. You might want to check it out actually.
” In my experience each child’s learning is tailored exactly to their abilities, strengths or weaknesses. This is one of the key features of Steiner education in fact; it is recognised that not all children learn well in the same ways and the education is altered for them individually.”
I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this comment. Nothing could be both further from the truth – and at the same time closer to Waldorf PR.
I wonder if Mikey Mouse has read any of the teacher training materials about what Steiner thought about “individuality”… Steiner frowned on children behaving as individuals… and so do many Waldorf teachers (who are true to their training). Being an individual gets more children bounced out of Steiner schools than any other “problematic” behavior. Being an individual in a Steiner school means being a victim.
@Andy
” suggests that not to be the case… Anyway how about you stop picking on irrelevant details and answer the actual point he made.
You are avoiding Mike/Giraffe’s main point just because of some joke about 7 year cycles. If that was meant as a serious point, apologies, but followed by a ”
well the obvious answer is that not everyone goes to a steiner school, those who do and stay are perfectly happy with the way we are taught, with creativeity and academic skills. and the rest can attend schools where thier exams is everything and thats that.
Well, I rest my case. This comment is so telling. Not only in its language, so to speak, but also in its prejudices against education outside of waldorf.
Zoe (with a small z presumably)
Capital W at the start of the first sentence.
Steiner should have a capital S.
The word is “creativity”.
Their is spelled like this. Not i before e.
“exams ARE everything”.
You mean “that’s” as a truncation of “that is”.
You people make me sick. You pick on an individual for such petty frivolities to avoid confronting the argument head on and in doing so believe you are taking the high ground because you are suddenly in the right? Pathetic.
I believe your sources are misinformed.
Mine? I went to a Steiner school myself, have read numerous books on Steiner education, discussed the topic with people over several years time now. I think I’m less likely to be misinformed than you are. Especially considering that you claim to be a 17 year old student, still in school, who appears to reject even obvious facts such as about the link between Steiner education and anthroposophy.
Yeah, sorry I wasn’t trying to justify Steiner’s 7 year theory, just drawing from something I read about some kind of cell taking 7 years to regenerate (not related in any way to Steiner) but it looks like i drew an incorrect conclusion and for that I apologize. My intention wasn’t to contradict anyone or fire up a discussion on the subject.
MM – How do you know you have done better because of your anthroposophical education in your Steiner School?
I didn’t say I had done “better” then anything, but you seem to think Steiner schools offer nothing except painting; this is an incorrect assumption entirely.
This article would be hilarious if it was not so god-damn misleading! Who wrote this crap?
Happy to give an exactly accurate answer: you did.
It was my understanding Andy Lewis wrote this crap…
I said exactly.
Phew, well I am relieved we managed to sort that one out! Happy days!
That makes no sense, unless Terence is Andy Lewis.
I teach at a Waldorf school in the Czech Republic.
I know that Steiner’s philosophy was potty. My colleagues do, too. They’re not fools. In fact, having taught in about a dozen “normal” schools I can vouch that my Waldorf staffroom provides the most intelligent, educated colleagues I have yet experienced. We are there because despite the rantings of anthroposophy our Waldorf school provides us with a platform to provide a better education than state-controlled schools allow.
Christians do a lot of good. Nobody wants to close down their charitable institutions simply because the philosophy underpinning their philanthropy requires a belief in an egocentric omnipotent homophobe who runs the universe. We just let them carry on doing good.
Waldorf schools deserve the same – and where they don’t do good, market forces will have the effect Darwin described.
Define steinerist education that excludes the rantings of anthroposophy. What are the crazy parts that you have excluded? Where is this systematic process documented and how is it monitored?
You seem to be conflating “Steinerist education” with “Steiner school”.
One is an abstract concept which may or may not inspire action; the other is the reality experienced by students.
The latter, in my albeit limited experience, is a place where teachers who believe in child-centred education gather together. Odd stuff like eurythmy happens, but it is seen as odd, a charming eccentricity like funny hats at Harrow.
Someone, somewhere is ensuring that the “odd stuff” happens in your school. Who is that?
I ask repeatedly, but no one has answered, when did the systematic revision of steinerist education occur so that the worst aspects of Steiner’s beliefs were removed from the schools operating in his name?
What makes you think it was systematic?
There’s no Head Anthroposophist sitting in a Transylvanian castle stroking the spirit body of a cat!
I think you’re being disingenuous.
If your defence is that there is no systematic management of the education offered by steinerist schools then you have just cut parents and children completely adrift and Steiner schools can just make things up as they go along.
Miša – My impression is that there are people who very much want people like you on the periphery to think like this.
Who cares? The “people on the periphery” are no less than the people in the classroom. That is where the children’s learning experience occurs.
But happily going along with what the Steiner School says should be happening.
Yes, I only ask a child to speak when their aura is glowing green.
Misa, the extent to which parents can choose secular schools varies around the world and in many countries the choice you allude to (incorrectly)in your ‘Darwin’ comment does not exist. In the UK, for example, a large percentage of schools have a religious observance element in their daily structure and in Scotland I believe observance is a statutory duty. You say that ‘nobody wants to close down charitable institutions because…’ Well, that simply isn’t the case. A great many people believe that it would be better to replace the religious charities with secular charities; we do not want to see any religion, including Anthroposophy, promoted to our Children as either a specific or an accepted set of values. You seem to think that your decision to teach in an Anthroposophical school is OK because others teach in other religious schools but in both cases a set of values, in which tacit support for mysticism (racist mysticism in the case of Anthroposophy)is being inculcated to children as if those values are not harmful. Given the recent racial tensions in the Czech Republic, I would have thought you would be particularly sensitive to the undercurrents of bigotry than can pervade the social sphere unless they are openly addressed. For example, how many Romany teachers and pupils attend your school? I believe the non-white Czech population is about 5% – largely people of Vietnamese origin, is that represented in your school in the pupils and staff? Finally, Darwin did not describe market forces – I hope you are not teaching that to your students because, ‘social Darwinism’ leads to very dire consequences indeed – not unlike the consequences of Anthroposophy and its more potent cousin.
Are you entirely sure you are not being driven by some unfortunate childhood experience? Your desire to purge the world of non-Humanist elements seems disconcertingly strong.
As regards the colour of the people in the school – I must admit, I’ve not looked. I’ll check it out. I tend to run discussion classes (English language) and what I can say is that the kids in the Waldorf school are the least racist Czechs I’ve yet encountered. It’s just not an issue there – whereas it’s very much an issue in the mainstream high school in which I also teach.
I am driven not by a “desire to purge the world of non-Humanist elements” but for public schools to be honest and open about what they are and what they do.
I suspect most school managers don’t actually know what they’re doing or why – so good luck in your quest.
Miša. If you think Steiner’s philosophy was potty, do you still teach a Steinerist curriculum? Eurythmy. Myths? Restricted art? Little real science, technology etc?
Hi Andy,
Please see my reply to Badly Shaved Monkey (above).
In addition, being largley funded by the Czech government, Waldorf schools here have to comply with the Czech curriculum, so you get a nice blend of obligatory academic study as required by the government, plus a piano in every classroom.
I get the impression from the passion aroused in this and other blogs that some people have had appalling experiences in Steiner schools. This is no great surprise – schools are run by people and wherever you go, you get good people and you get bad people. An educational model can only ever increase or decrease the chances of a good education being provided – where people are concerned, there’s never any guarantee. Steiner schools provide a greater opportunity for a child-centred education to be provided, so child-centred teachers congregate there and deal with the historical eccentricities of the system with greater or lesser enthusiasm, just as more academically-motivated teachers might congregate at exam factories and deal, with greater or lesser enthusiasm, with other traditions, such as up-tight dress codes or the singing of hymns.
No educational environment is perfect. As teachers, we just have to choose the environment which best enables us to deliver the type of education in which we most believe.
“This is no great surprise – schools are run by people and wherever you go, you get good people and you get bad people.”
Unfortunately, whenever those educators are bound by a religious or occult doctrine, you don’t get the kind of accountability you would expect from normal institutions. If these schools were run as a business, for example, they would get rid of problematic teachers who are ruining the reputation of these schools. But instead, these schools are run like religious cults and problematic teachers are moved around from school to school – often ending up in administrative positions or worse yet, teacher training positions. The most deaf-to-criticism of these are at the heads of Waldorf/Steiner school organizations like AWSNA and SWSF (or the other one with the same initials).
Changing the subject ever so slightly: given that the Health Protection Agency regards Steiner schools as essentially unvaccinated communities, I’m more than a little worried about the two South Wales institutions in light of the recent measles epidemic. Have we heard anything from or about these schools, and any attempts they are or aren’t making in protecting the health and well-being of the children in their care?
Hello. I am currently writing an essay for my degree and am trying to find some academic journals regarding Steiner education and particularly detractors of it. Can’t seem to find anything. Can you help please?
Hi Sharon,
Google Peter Staudenmaier.
See http://waldorfanswers.org/Studies.htm
Sharon – you are unlikely to find anything critical, independent and objective in Sune’s list. He is a known PR man for the Steiner movement.
This person asked a similar question and got a brilliant answer:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130424185435AA4wJkf
Sune, run quick… maybe you can add your website!