return to WCA Archive
Index
-- Topica Digest --
RV: Frank's version of history - correction
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
AWSNA and Ministry of Education
By FThFawcett aol.com
Re: AWSNA and Ministry of Education
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
I love it
By annarose33 hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:46:05 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RV: Frank's version of history - correction
I wrote:
Btw, Southern Cross Review features
) "fiction, education, science, current events, essays, book reviews, poetry
) *and* anthroposophy". You might say that the latter infiltrates the other
) topics, which does sometimes happen. I especially recommend, though, the
) Editor's Page ( http://southerncrossreview.org/editorial.htm ) this issue
as
) an indication of a filter on anthroposophy.
The url is incorrect (sorry). Should be
http://southerncrossreview.org/27/editorial.htm
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:23:48 EDT
From: FThFawcett aol.com
Subject: AWSNA and Ministry of Education
--part1_50.20533f9c.2c5aaaa4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear List Members,
I will introduce myself, since this is my first posting. My name is
Frank Fawcett, presently living in Chicago. I have been a student of
Anthroposophy for about 30 years, and have taught math and science
for periods in both
state schools and Waldorf schools. I consider both the Anthroposophical
movement and the Waldorf school movement to be good things, although
not without
their problems and faults.
I would like to respond to NJS's question concerning AWSNA
(Association of Waldorf Schools of North America) and whether it
constitutes a kind of
"Waldorf Ministry of Education". I have had some dealings with AWSNA (through
ordering books for our branch library), so I called their office to ask about
the organisation itself. The principal people are away at a conference, but
the secretary was able to answer some questions and send me an
information sheet.
The association was formed in 1965 by delegates from the Waldorf
schools existing at that time, to address issues they had in common. This was
primarily (the secretary thought) to make Waldorf education
better-known, and to
increase enrollment (related to finances, almost always a problem in Waldorf
schools to some degree, in my experience).
Since then it has acquired its own board of trustees and coordinating
committee. These work together with delegates from the member schools to set
policies and procedures. It is also linked with similar organisations in
other countries. It is funded partly by member schools (40%), partly
by gifts and
grants (40%) and by sales of books (20%).
Its role today seems to be largely educational within the Waldorf
movement itself- holding conferences and publishing a magazine and
about 100 books
and pamphlets for teachers, board members and parents. It also provides
loans and grants to individuals for training, and to teacher-training
institutions.
It has also apparently acquired legal rights to the name "Waldorf"
here, and acts as an acreditation board for schools wishing to use
that name. I
don't know the criteria, but could find out if there is interest. There is
also a designation "Waldorf-inspired", I think mainly for new schools.
When I read the term "Waldorf Ministry of Education", I remembered
reading about the French Minister of Education, who could look at his clock and
know what was being taught in every classroom in France. AWSNA has no power of
that sort. Each Waldorf school (and to a large degree each teacher) is
autonomous, and I think it is mainly the schools (through their
representatives)
that direct AWSNA in its orientation.
This autonomy was intended by Rudolf Steiner, as I understand it, and
I think it is overall a good thing. My experience with a large city school
system was that many teachers felt somewhat disempowered by the
school board and
administration, with a corresponding loss of morale (although I think the
present head of the Chicago system is quite good).
The autonomy has a down-side (which has been pointed out on this
list)- parents with an issue to address are dependent on the degree
of maturity of
the individual school with its college of teachers and board (unless it is a
legal matter). Waldorf schools also have their internal politics, not always
healthy in my experience. But on the whole I think the autonomy is a good
thing. A teacher's enthusiasm for her (his) work is a major factor in the
quality of education, one that is often not mentioned when school
improvement is
discussed in the newspaper here or on TV.
Frank Fawcett
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:32:57 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: AWSNA and Ministry of Education
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_yNMImyij/9KGujA6QVawbg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Welcome, Frank. Thanks for the info. I was aware of most of it but
there is always something new to learn.
-Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Fawcett
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:23 AM
Subject: AWSNA and Ministry of Education
Dear List Members,
I will introduce myself, since this is my first posting. My
name is Frank Fawcett, presently living in Chicago. I have been a
student of Anthroposophy for about 30 years, and have taught math and
science for periods in both state schools and Waldorf schools. I
consider both the Anthroposophical movement and the Waldorf school
movement to be good things, although not without their problems and
faults.
I would like to respond to NJS's question concerning AWSNA
(Association of Waldorf Schools of North America) and whether it
constitutes a kind of "Waldorf Ministry of Education". I have had
some dealings with AWSNA (through ordering books for our branch
library), so I called their office to ask about the organisation
itself. The principal people are away at a conference, but the
secretary was able to answer some questions and send me an
information sheet.
The association was formed in 1965 by delegates from the
Waldorf schools existing at that time, to address issues they had in
common. This was primarily (the secretary thought) to make Waldorf
education better-known, and to increase enrollment (related to
finances, almost always a problem in Waldorf schools to some degree,
in my experience).
Since then it has acquired its own board of trustees and
coordinating committee. These work together with delegates from the
member schools to set policies and procedures. It is also linked
with similar organisations in other countries. It is funded partly
by member schools (40%), partly by gifts and grants (40%) and by
sales of books (20%).
Its role today seems to be largely educational within the
Waldorf movement itself- holding conferences and publishing a
magazine and about 100 books and pamphlets for teachers, board
members and parents. It also provides loans and grants to
individuals for training, and to teacher-training institutions.
It has also apparently acquired legal rights to the name
"Waldorf" here, and acts as an acreditation board for schools wishing
to use that name. I don't know the criteria, but could find out if
there is interest. There is also a designation "Waldorf-inspired", I
think mainly for new schools.
When I read the term "Waldorf Ministry of Education", I
remembered reading about the French Minister of Education, who could
look at his clock and know what was being taught in every classroom
in France. AWSNA has no power of that sort. Each Waldorf school
(and to a large degree each teacher) is autonomous, and I think it is
mainly the schools (through their representatives) that direct AWSNA
in its orientation.
This autonomy was intended by Rudolf Steiner, as I understand
it, and I think it is overall a good thing. My experience with a
large city school system was that many teachers felt somewhat
disempowered by the school board and administration, with a
corresponding loss of morale (although I think the present head of
the Chicago system is quite good).
The autonomy has a down-side (which has been pointed out on
this list)- parents with an issue to address are dependent on the
degree of maturity of the individual school with its college of
teachers and board (unless it is a legal matter). Waldorf schools
also have their internal politics, not always healthy in my
experience. But on the whole I think the autonomy is a good thing.
A teacher's enthusiasm for her (his) work is a major factor in the
quality of education, one that is often not mentioned when school
improvement is discussed in the newspaper here or on TV.
Frank Fawcett
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:45:38 +0000
From: Anna Rose Tack (annarose33 hotmail.com)
Subject: I love it
I need to express that what is written here in all these messages
doesn¥t convince me at all about negative aspects of Waldorf. My
experiences have been only positive.
The problem of many here is that they can¥t transcend their personal
stuff and thus fight against something that they should deal with in
themselves. The phenomenon of projection. Some messages here are
dogmatic and unfree if not sectarian. It is not the first time that you
have to hear this I guess. I just wanted to get rid of this comment. My
kids are happy at school. I am happy with the school.
Are you happy?
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1104
-- Topica Digest --
Re: biodynamic preparation
By sgroth efn.org
Thanks for postings
By FThFawcett aol.com
Re: I love it
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thanks for postings
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thanks for postings
By sgroth efn.org
Waldorf charters/was "thanks for postings"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Research Monograph on Waldorf Science
By gary goodwinter.com
ad hominum warning
By FThFawcett aol.com
RE: Thanks for postings
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Thanks for postings
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: ad hominum warning
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: ad hominum warning
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thanks for postings
By sgroth efn.org
Secular Waldorf in Egypt
By sgroth efn.org
Re: biodynamic preparation
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thanks for postings
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Steiner's timelines...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:58:49 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: biodynamic preparation
walden wrote:
)Hi Soren,
)
)I am pleased we agree about the occult nature of biodynamics.
)
Has anyone ever disagreed ??
)If you are asking about Steiner's views regarding Africa and/or
)India as opposed to the important role Europe (and especially Germany) plays
)in the grand scheme of things Anthroposophic - my reading shows that Europe
)wins the contest.
)
Hmmm - and my readings show something else.
) I don't need to guess what was going on in Steiner's mind
)at the time. He spells it out for us in a myriad of lectures.
)
He describes an esoteric tradition and worldview, but does he say this
is what you shall believe and follow, or that it is what he embrace as
his views- NO on the contrary,
The important role Europe plays in the grand scheme of things
Anthroposophic is the development of a freedom in thougth that can
overcome the perceptions of groupcharacteristics determining an
individuals destiny. To me dealing with rasism and fascism by being
ostrichs putting the head in the sand and deny that "race" in the sense
tribal, people, linguistic belonging in the past in much higher degree
than now determined the individuals life and destiny, and still does in
many cultures, is mere abstract idealism, and does nothing for practical
overcoming of the culturally institutionalised racial structures.
A critique of indian esoteric traditions such as the one Steiner had in
the controversy with Theosophy is exactly a discussion about Free Will
versus Karmic Determination. It's an absurdity when critique of the
caste system in India - (a truly rasist and fullscale Aryan superiority
fascist system) - is described as rasism.
There's a blind spot here. Rasism is not just a white superiority
phenomonen - but abstract idealism is. All anthro communities I've been
involved with has been extremely multicultural, in the sense that there
has been individuals from all over the world that has been together,
working together and studying together. Where I worked in J”rna, there
was 60 employees - from 4 continents - we cooperated as individuals who
for different reasons was on this location at that time, each
contributing with different backgrounds. Never did I hear anyone talk
about one set of background or type of experience being more rich or
valuable than another. Never did I hear anything being evaluated based
on race or cultural background -
I've also been involved in political activism of anti-imperialism,
anti-rasism aso, but in these circles most people are white young men
who have abstract ideals, good intention, but little practical creation
of community where race have seized to play any role. Anthroposophy is
not based on critisism, it is based on positive action. So when Steiner
in myriad of lectures describe thougths that really dominated the minds
of people before WWII - he doesn't endorse it, neither does he think it
can be overcome by critisism, but instead concentrate on describing the
attitudes that can overcome the past and create a new worldculture,
based on real people's real cosmopolitan attitudes, not anti-rasist, but
non-rasist is Steiners foundation.
mvh Soren
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:23:53 EDT
From: FThFawcett aol.com
Subject: Thanks for postings
--part1_145.167b27de.2c5c3469_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear list members,
I would like to thank Anna Rose and Soren for the last two postings.
Anna Rose's causes me particular sadness when I think that PLANS is trying to
close two such schools (in the name of "protection of liberties") that parents
have freely chosen.
Frank Fawcett
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:25:26 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: I love it
Ms. Tack:
I am glad to hear that your experiences vis a vis Waldorf have been positive
ones.
It unfortunately was not that way for many of us who enrolled our children
in Waldorf schools believing what the teachers/administrators/enrollment
folks told us, which is that the schools were non-sectarian, non-religious,
arts-based, progressive schools.
Sadly, Waldorf is none of those things. (As an aside, I wonder why Waldorf
schools feel they have to lie to prospective parents? Why not just tell the
truth? If they did, the people who are Ok with their methods and philosophy
would enroll and the rest of us would stay away. It is my fervent hope that,
someday, Waldorf schools will catch onto that fact and come clean.)
First of all, Waldorf schools certainly *are* religious schools; they are
the parochial schools of a religion called "Anthroposophy," and most of the
teachers are devotees of Anthroposophy's founder, Rudolf Steiner." Almost
everything about a Waldorf school, from the colors of the classroom walls to
the way teachers dress and speak to how children are seated in the
classrooms to what is taught, how and when, is dictated by the tenets of
Anthroposophy. (Let me note here that I was a Waldorf school parent -- and a
very involved ne -- for more than five years. I know of which I speak.)
Secondly, there is little to no real "art" at Waldorf schools, especially in
the early grades. Art denotes creativity and imagination, and the "art"
taught by rote in most Waldorf schools does not meet this traditional
yardstick. What is "creative" or "imaginative" about sloshing watercolor
paint of a prescribed color onto a piece of paper covered in water? At many
Waldorf school, preschool and kindergarten children can spend weeks applying
blobs of one color -- blue first, then yellow, and later, red -- to wet
paper in a manner rigidly dictated by their teacher. I vividly recall
watching one young boy in my older daughter's kindergarten as he used the
button on his cardigan sweater to scratch the image of a truck onto the
soggy paper. He was that desperate to create a line, to create an image on
the paper which refused to comply because Waldorf teachers believe (under
the teachings of Anthroposophy) that lines are a "lie" left over from
"previous lives."
Thirdly, there is very little, if anything, "progressive" about Waldorf. Its
ideas are positively Medieval in many cases. Take, for instance, Waldorf
teacher's habit of seating children in classrooms based on their so-called
"temperments." Melancholic children are seated together. Choleric children
are seated in the back, so the teacher doesn't get "burnt" by their "fire."
And phlegmatics are seated by the window, so they can benefit from the
light. Oh, please. Other Medieval practices of Waldorf include forcing
lefthanded children to write and draw with their right hands and using shame
and humiliation as punishments (I have been told by others that children at
some schools not only are forced to stand in the corner, but also to wear
dunce caps). Much of the curriculum, especially in the teaching of science,
is very backward and Medieval. The National Council on Science Education,
for instance, has criticized Waldorf science soundly.
I could go on and on, but I feel sure you have heard enough. In fact, once
upon a time I was just like you. I came onto this list and defended Waldorf
to the hilt to what I thought were a group of unhappy, emotionally stunted
people who I figured just did not "get" Waldorf. Over time, however, the
experiences my children and I had at the school, combined with my increasing
research into Waldorf, coalesced and I became a critic of Waldorf. And here
I am.
You ask if we are happy. I am taking that to mean: are my children happy at
their school? Yes, my children are happy -- and so am I -- now that they are
out of that backward, rigidly dogmatic, cultic place that was their Waldorf
school.
Lisa
) From: Anna Rose Tack (annarose33 hotmail.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:45:38 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: I love it
)
) I need to express that what is written here in all these messages
) doesn¥t convince me at all about negative aspects of Waldorf. My
) experiences have been only positive.
) The problem of many here is that they can¥t transcend their personal
) stuff and thus fight against something that they should deal with in
) themselves. The phenomenon of projection. Some messages here are
) dogmatic and unfree if not sectarian. It is not the first time that you
) have to hear this I guess. I just wanted to get rid of this comment. My
) kids are happy at school. I am happy with the school.
) Are you happy?
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
) --^----------------------------------------------------------------
) This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
)
) EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO.bW9tb2Yy
) Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
)
) TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
) --^----------------------------------------------------------------
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:30:00 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thanks for postings
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3142603800_180971_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
The trouble is not that the parents have chosen the schools, but that the
schools have chosen to ignore the Constitutionally-guaranteed separation of
church and state! Waldorf schools are religious schools. They should be
private only. If parents want a religious education for their children, they
should enroll them in independent Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic,
Anthroposophical, etc. schools.
I am an American taxpayer and I do NOT want my taxes paying for public
religious schools. If a group of Baptists tried to start a public charter
school, there would be a public outcry, believe me. The only reason Waldorf
schools have gotten a pass on this is that they deny they are religious. Of
course, once one researches Waldorf (as well as its teacher training
program), it becomes clear at once that Waldorf is religious. It is a
spiritual belief system with a set of tenets, values, etc.
Lisa
From: Frank Fawcett (FThFawcett aol.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:23:53 EDT
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Thanks for postings
Dear list members,
I would like to thank Anna Rose and Soren for the last two postings.
Anna Rose's causes me particular sadness when I think that PLANS is trying
to close two such schools (in the name of "protection of liberties") that
parents have freely chosen.
Frank
Fawcett==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO.bW9tb2Yy
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:21:45 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Thanks for postings
Most Waldorf Schools ARE private schools. To seperate schoold and state,
not just religion (church and state) IS one of the basic techings of
Anthroposophy,
especially in the metapolitical view called Social Threefolding - where
Steiner talks about the natural seperation of a society in three realms,
the cultural/spiritual, the economic and the political/juridical, the
latter being state. In a society formed according to this view schools
would neither be private nor public, but independent spiritual/cultural
institutions, where neither political nor economic interests decided the
curriculum, but a variety of pedagogical impulses would freely compete
in providing the best possible education for the child.
Many Waldorf teachers and the traditional Waldorf movement was very much
against being into a public school system. However the Waldorf Schools
were not intended to be a school for rich people, the first schools was
started for the workers children at the Waldorf Astoria Factory. Parents
who choose to have their children in a non-public school are also
taxpayers and pay taxes for public schools in which their children do
not attend. I think the charter system provides a framework where
parents can send their kids to schools with different spiritual/cultural
approaches - as said most within the Waldorfmovement prefer to be
independent (private schools) of stateinterest (subordinated the
schoolboard) - with the consequence that families with small means can't
pay tuition, and the schools become exclusive for families with good
economy.
Can you support that parents who choose to send their kid to a
independent school should not pay taxes for the public school system.
Think a bit before you answer, The consequence can easily be that rich
people get taxcuts for having their kids in elite schools, while public
schools loose even more funding. Charter schools provide a possibility
to have schools with alternative curriculums within a publically
financed system.
And a Waldorf charter school in turn have to adjust the curriculum to
met schoolboard requirements, thus being less independent than a free
Waldorfschool. Again within the Waldorfschool movement you'll probably
find more people unwilling to be in a chaterschool system, than you'll
find public schoolboards unwilling to let a charterschool teach
according to the waldorf curriculum.
Soren
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) The trouble is not that the parents have chosen the schools, but that
) the schools have chosen to ignore the Constitutionally-guaranteed
) separation of church and state! Waldorf schools are religious schools.
) They should be private only. If parents want a religious education for
) their children, they should enroll them in independent Catholic,
) Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Anthroposophical, etc. schools.
)
) I am an American taxpayer and I do NOT want my taxes paying for public
) religious schools. If a group of Baptists tried to start a public
) charter school, there would be a public outcry, believe me. The only
) reason Waldorf schools have gotten a pass on this is that they deny
) they are religious. Of course, once one researches Waldorf (as well as
) its teacher training program), it becomes clear at once that Waldorf
) is religious. It is a spiritual belief system with a set of tenets,
) values, etc.
)
) Lisa
)
) *From: *Frank Fawcett (FThFawcett aol.com)
) *Reply-To: *waldorf-critics topica.com
) *Date: *Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:23:53 EDT
) *To: *waldorf-critics topica.com
) *Subject: *Thanks for postings
)
)
) Dear list members,
)
) I would like to thank Anna Rose and Soren for the last two
) postings. Anna Rose's causes me particular sadness when I think
) that PLANS is trying to close two such schools (in the name of
) "protection of liberties") that parents have freely chosen.
)
) Frank
)
Fawcett==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter
) how basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:38:40 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Waldorf charters/was "thanks for postings"
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3142611520_68318_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I stated that I was vehemently opposed to allowing Waldorf schools (or
schools of any religion) to operate in the public realm vis a vis charter
schools, which is exactly what is happening in some areas of the United
States.
I stated that as an American taxpayer, I do not want my hard-earned money to
pay for funding for any religious school.
Critics' list member Soren responded:
Can you support that parents who choose to send their kid to a
independent school should not pay taxes for the public school system.
Think a bit before you answer, The consequence can easily be that rich
people get taxcuts for having their kids in elite schools, while public
schools loose even more funding. Charter schools provide a possibility
to have schools with alternative curriculums within a publically
financed system.
Lisa again:
I am afraid I do not have a firm opinion/decision on the question of whether
those who send their children to private/independent schools should get a
tax break/benefit, as their children are not using the public school system.
On the face of it, that does sound like a good idea (especially to me,
because my husband and I struggle financially to send both our children to
independent schools! (g)) However, as you so aptly point out, such would
amount basically to a tax break to the "wealthiest" Americans and public
schools, already beleaguered in many ways, would lose more funding.
You may be surprised to learn that I am in support of charter schools. I
think the idea of creating and operating schools that offer alternative
curriculums, methods, etc. in the public realm is an excellent one. But I
also believe that schoolboards and the other state-level entities who
approve charter plans must be scrupulously careful to make sure the ideas
not only are workable and practical, but also SECULAR. Charter religious
schools, and that includes Waldorf, simply should NOT be allowed to exist.
Can you imagine the public outcry if a group of Catholic people (indeed,
any group of Christians) announced they planned to open a charter school in
which the teachings of Jesus, etc. would be included and would form the
basis of the school's approach? I can. It would simply not be tolerated,
despite the fact that some could make a case that such a school would teach
good values, etc.
Your point -- that Waldorf schools were never intended to be schools for
the affluent and elite -- is well taken. However, the fact that it costs
money to run and to send children to a private Waldorf school is, frankly,
not my problem as an American taxpayer. If private Waldorf schools are too
expensive for the masses to attend (and the schools were started as schools
to be open to anyone, at least that is my understanding!), that is an issue
that must be dealt with by those who run and who advocate for Waldorf
schools. It is THEY who must come up with a solution that will allow
children of all income levels to attend, if that is truly what the Waldorf
teachers, administrators, etc. want and desire.
If Waldorf schools really *do* wish to be Waldorf "freeschools," they --
and not the US government and public school systems -- need to come up with
a way to truly be free. Tying Waldorf to the public system not only is
unConstitutional, but it also (as you point out) dilutes and changes the
nature of Waldorf. Nobody wins that way.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:06:24 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Research Monograph on Waldorf Science
We have recently discovered a new study of Waldorf's science program
entitled "Does Waldorf Offer a Viable Form of Science Education?", which I
expect will instigate a healthy volley among our scientists on the list.
The academics who designed and executed the study are anthroposophists and
former Waldorf teachers, yet they had some surprisingly open things to say
about the Waldorf science curriculum and its relationship to anthroposophy.
Here's a quote from the study...
) Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education
) As a first step Waldorf should disregard Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy as
) the source of accurate scientific concepts. The basis for this
recommendation
) is that Steiner¼s teachings do not pass the tests of empiricism
(a,b,c and d),
) are not testable by anyone (e), have not changed much, if any, since Steiner
) introduced them (f), and rely on paranormal statements that cannot
be verified
) (g). Accepting many of Rudolf Steiner ¼s scientific indications in light of
) the absence of empirical evidence violates the core premises of the
scientific
) paradigm. The anthroposophical argument is that Rudolf Steiner applied
) empirical investigations in the spiritual world where he garnered higher
) spiritual truths, but even if this turns out to be accurate it must be
) discarded as scientifically valid because it cannot be replicated by anyone.
) If and when the scientific paradigm can ever be overturned with an
) anthroposophical paradigm because a preponderance of empirical evidence
) demands it, anthroposophists will have reason to celebrate; but there is
) little in the current paradigm to suggest this is likely.
)
) There is also an argument that Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education are
) inseparable. If that is true then it is difficult to understand how Waldorf
) could offer a viable form of science education. But many educators argue that
) the methods of Waldorf and Anthroposophy are separable --public Waldorf
) educators have gone so far as to argue this point in court when challenged on
) separation of church-state issues. Legal ramifications aside,there is little
) doubt that a distinct separation from Anthroposophy is needed. Consider the
) anthroposophical tenets of developmentalism and evolution. Steiner's
) developmentalism is based on his teachings that children pass through three
) 7-year stages: the first characterized by the reincarnated human spirit
) adjusting to the physical world; the second by the incarnation of the
) "etheric" body with the physical body; and the third by the
incarnation of the
) "astral" body. Steiner's evolutionary teachings suggest that throughout these
) developmental phases the human being is actually recapitulating evolutionary
) phases from previous epochs, dating back to pre-earth existence
when the human
) spirit resided on ancient Saturn, Sun and the Moon. To Waldorf's credit there
) is no evidence that such ideas are taught to the children. There is evidence,
) however, that the rationale for the structure of the Waldorf curriculum is to
) properly guide the incarnating human spirit through these developmental and
) evolutionary phases; and that anthroposophical Waldorf teachers
adhere to this
) rationale as a basis for why and what they teach.
)
) Bringing Waldorf into a Secular Environment By removing Anthroposophy the
) arguments of Waldorf's questionable philosophical foundation are removed and
) Waldorf can focus, instead, on the strengths of its methodology and ways to
) improve it. It should be noted, however, that rejecting Steiner and
) Anthroposophy as the source of accurate scientific concepts does not signify
) the rejection of the many exemplary Waldorf methods that have attracted the
) attention of innumerable parents, educators and academics. We concur, here,
) with a position expressed by Waldorf critics Dan Dugan and Judy Daar (1994):
) "It might be possible to establish schools that take many of the good Waldorf
) school ideas into a secular environment, but this could only be
done by people
) not indoctrinated by Anthroposophical training." Now the question is what are
) those good ideas and how could they be brought into a secular environment?
And in their conclusion, they say...
) Once again we return to the question: How Could Waldorf Offer a
Viable Form of
) Science Education? We believe we have answered it by pointing to a rigorous
) process that distinguishes pseudoscience from science -- with a rejection of
) pseudoscientific ideas, however pivotal they may have been to Waldorf science
) education in the past. This includes removal of Rudolf Steiner and
) anthroposophy as sources of accurate scientific concepts, a separation of
) Waldorf science education from anthroposophy, specific attention to bringing
) the "good ideas" of Waldorf into a secular environment, a critical review
) Waldorf science resource materials, and expungement of materials that don't
) make the grade. We then pointed to the five "big ideas" that
Waldorf needs to
) come to terms with: (1)physics' model of the Atom; (2) chemistry's theory of
) Periodic Law; (3) astronomy's "Big Bang" theory; (4) geology's "Plate
) Tectonics" theory; and (5) biology's theory of "Evolution".
Hopefully this is enough to pique your interest in reading the entire study,
which I highly recommend.
The 94 page monograph can be downloaded from the following link in PDF
format...
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jelinekd/WaldorfSciMonographApr03.pdf
A rebuttal from within the Waldorf movement can be found at the following
link...
http://www.awsna.org/MitchellResponse.pdf
An introduction to the study can be found at the following link...
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB6205.pdf
The fine print...
) Who are the principal researchers?
)
) Dr. David Jelinek is a graduate of Rudolf Steiner College and was a founding
) faculty member of the Waldorf School of Santa Barbara. He taught there for
) ten years, received his Ph.D. in education from the University of
) California, and is currently Assistant Professor of Science Education at
) California State University.
)
) Dr. Pierre-Yves Barbier is also a graduate of Rudolf Steiner College and a
) former Waldorf teacher at Rudolf Steiner de MontrÈal and Mariposa Waldorf
) School. He received his Ph.D.(pending defense)in Educational Psychology from
) UniversitÈ de MontrÈal and is currently the Dean of Academic Affairs at
) Rudolf Steiner College.
)
) Dr. Li-Ling Sun received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the
) University of California and is an Assistant Professor of Child Psychology
) at California State University. Dr.Sun ¼s expertise lies in her ability to
) work holistically with children to assess cognitive development in the areas
) of scientific reasoning and problem solving skills.
)
) Who is funding this?
)
) This project is made possible through a grant by the Center for
) Ecoliteracy, a nonprofit organization committed to numerous ecological and
) educational programs, including Waldorf initiatives.
This apparently is going to be a major discussion point at the upcoming
AWSNA Conference 2003 next week as the study and the response to the study
are referenced at the bottom of the AWSNA Conference 2003 site....
http://www.awsna.org/conf2003.html
I am looking forward to the debates both within and outside Waldorf.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:10:21 EDT
From: FThFawcett aol.com
Subject: ad hominum warning
--part1_1c6.d5e5a78.2c5c697d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Dan Dugan,
I await your comment on Lisa Ercolano's posting to Ms. Tack, which
included the phrase "I wonder why Waldorf schools have to lie to prospective
parents" (third paragraph down).
As I understand it, a pro-Waldorf person was excluded from your list
for using such language. Or do your rules for fostering mature dialogue only
apply to such (pro-Waldorf) persons?
Dear Lisa,
I do not appreciate being called a "devotee" or having Anthroposophy
(which means a lot to me) called a "cult". I am sure you have reasons for
feeling the way you do, but the use of such phrases invites a discussion which
consists of name-calling.
There are things I would like to discuss on this list. You make
points that are worth discussing; but I don't feel I can do it when things are
phrased that way.
I realise you are not the first to use such phrases; I also credit you
with having genuine feelings around the issues you mentioned.
Frank Fawcett
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:19:49 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Thanks for postings
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3587B.099D47B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Do people even bother to read the web site to find out what the lawsuit
is about and what the issues are? PLANS
doesn't try to close schools; the lawsuit is about insisting that they
operate legally. (And anyway how would we close schools? What are you
really worried about? Ordinary citizens can't go around closing schools
for no reason.) The lawsuit maintains that Waldorf does not belong in
the public sector because it is religious; whether Waldorf schools are
"freely chosen" by some people is not the issue. There are restrictions
on our right to "freely choose" many things. I am sure you do not
normally argue that if some people "freely choose" a thing it must be a
good thing and there should be no legal restrictions on anything a
person "freely chooses" to do?
And many people tell stories different from Anna Rose's. You are not sad
for those children or families I guess? Diana
Frank Fawcett wrote:
I would like to thank Anna Rose and Soren for the last two
postings. Anna Rose's causes me particular sadness when I think that
PLANS is trying to close two such schools (in the name of "protection of
liberties") that parents have freely chosen.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:25:41 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Thanks for postings
Soren wrote:
"Most Waldorf Schools ARE private schools."
Yes. And perhaps you noticed PLANS isn't suing them.
"To separate school and state, not just religion (church and state) IS
one of the basic techings of Anthroposophy,"
Ah, but they want to be "separated" from the state's control but not
from its money, right? They consider themselves spiritually superior but
are not above taking the money.
"especially in the metapolitical view called Social Threefolding - where
Steiner talks about the natural seperation of a society in three realms,
the cultural/spiritual, the economic and the political/juridical, the
latter being state. In a society formed according to this view schools
would neither be private nor public, but independent spiritual/cultural
institutions, where neither political nor economic interests decided the
curriculum, but a variety of pedagogical impulses would freely compete
in providing the best possible education for the child."
And who is paying? Who funds the "independent spiritual/cultural
institutions"? "Pedagogical impulses" don't compete with each other in
some imaginary realm untainted by politics and economics.
"Many Waldorf teachers and the traditional Waldorf movement was very
much
against being into a public school system."
These people need to speak up a little louder, perhaps you could spread
the word.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:33:56 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: ad hominum warning
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C3587D.036A4BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Frank Fawcett wrote:
"Dear Dan Dugan, I await your comment on Lisa Ercolano's posting to Ms.
Tack, which included the phrase "I wonder why Waldorf schools have to
lie to prospective parents" (third paragraph down). As I understand it,
a pro-Waldorf person was excluded from your list for using such
language. Or do your rules for fostering mature dialogue only apply to
such (pro-Waldorf) persons?"
You're going to have to toughen up considerably if you intend to debate
here.
There is no rule against saying someone is "lying" here if you can back
it up - if you can demonstrate the claim to be false and show evidence
that they know the claim is false.
This is certainly the case regarding Waldorf advertising. I can
corroborate it myself, having heard faculty conversations many times
along the lines of, It's necessary not to mention to parents the role of
anthroposophy because it puts people off. We know that Steiner shows us
the way, but it is best to be discreet with parents. Etc. Absolutely
they were suggesting that we lie to parents.
If you have any concept of what the "lying" charge against Peter
Staudenmaier is about you are aware it is frivolous. He was accused of
actually inventing an entire lecture. He did not invent the lecture. He
is willing to mail copies of it to anyone who asks, as he offered just
the other day.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:42:08 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: ad hominum warning
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3142622528_17692_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Ad hominem attacks, as I understand the term, apply to personal attacks on
an individual. I simply stated the truth, which is that Waldorf schools
often are not truthful with parents. There is a distinct difference between
the two.
Lisa
From: Frank Fawcett (FThFawcett aol.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:10:21 EDT
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: ad hominum warning
Dear Dan Dugan,
I await your comment on Lisa Ercolano's posting to Ms. Tack, which
included the phrase "I wonder why Waldorf schools have to lie to prospective
parents" (third paragraph down).
As I understand it, a pro-Waldorf person was excluded from your list
for using such language. Or do your rules for fostering mature dialogue
only apply to such (pro-Waldorf) persons?
Dear Lisa,
I do not appreciate being called a "devotee" or having Anthroposophy
(which means a lot to me) called a "cult". I am sure you have reasons for
feeling the way you do, but the use of such phrases invites a discussion
which consists of name-calling.
There are things I would like to discuss on this list. You make
points that are worth discussing; but I don't feel I can do it when things
are phrased that way.
I realise you are not the first to use such phrases; I also credit you
with having genuine feelings around the issues you mentioned.
Frank Fawcett
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO.bW9tb2Yy
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:18:37 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Thanks for postings
Diana Winters wrote:
)Soren wrote:
)"Most Waldorf Schools ARE private schools."
)
)Yes. And perhaps you noticed PLANS isn't suing them.
)
)"To separate school and state, not just religion (church and state) IS
)one of the basic techings of Anthroposophy,"
)
)Ah, but they want to be "separated" from the state's control but not
)from its money, right? They consider themselves spiritually superior but
)are not above taking the money.
)
Your use of the word THEY is a group characterisation, as if ALL people
interested in the Waldorf Curriculum is following some central scheme.
But the upstart of a Waldorfschool is not some centrally planned event.
It is an actual group of people, parents who have an interest in this
curriculum for their kids, and when the group is big enough to start a
school they do so, without any kind of central approval needed from some
antroposophical headquarter.
The free schools of course both are independent from state control
(though I think even free schools must apply to some legislation - ie I
can't tolerate a free school claiming a teachers right to beat the kids
for instance started by a group of parents who believe in physical
punishment) and do their financing by tuition. Which have the side
effect that lowincome parents BOTH pay taxes to the public school system
and tuition to the school.
The charter school system will by many Waldorfpeople not be interesting
as it put's the school under a public dependency - I don't see this as a
big problem though. If the people with an initiative is willing to apply
to the standards required for being recognised as a charterschool - and
feel these standards doesn't contradict the wanted curriculum to much,
that the needed compromises is acceptable for the group of parents,
teachers aso within a certain pedagogical concept, ie Waldorf, then it
is their free choice. As I've understood it, the requirements for
recognising charterschools by schoolboards vay quite much from state to
state. In Oregon the process is quite rigid - while there's other states
that doesn't require much for approving initiatives. Oregon have
approves some Waldorf Chartersschools. In Eugene where I live there's
both a free Waldorf School and a Waldorf Charter School.
And still the parents who have their kids in the Charterschool pay taxes
as well as the parents to kids in the other public schools - so they are
not taking any money.
)
)
)"especially in the metapolitical view called Social Threefolding - where
)
)Steiner talks about the natural seperation of a society in three realms,
)
)the cultural/spiritual, the economic and the political/juridical, the
)latter being state. In a society formed according to this view schools
)would neither be private nor public, but independent spiritual/cultural
)institutions, where neither political nor economic interests decided the
)
)curriculum, but a variety of pedagogical impulses would freely compete
)in providing the best possible education for the child."
)
)And who is paying? Who funds the "independent spiritual/cultural
)institutions"? "Pedagogical impulses" don't compete with each other in
)some imaginary realm untainted by politics and economics.
)
No - that is why we have the problem - rich families have choice, and
can afford both paying taxes and tuition - lowincome families often
don't have that possibility.
The center in my point is the kid - most education today is based on
forming the kid into something, fulfilling other aims than the kids own
growth into a mature selfconfident autonomounous individuality - the
political and economical structures is weaved together into a curriculum
producing usefull citizens. I believe in a future where free individuals
form society with freedom in cultural/spiritual matters, cooperation in
economics (production-distribution and consumtion of goods and services)
and equality in rights (reducing politics to securing equal rigths) -
NOT in a "free" society defining the individual.
The economic sphere is paying for everything - but should not control
anything but production and distribution for fulfilling needs in
consumtion of goods and services. Ideally it is childrens need for
education that determine the school system, not the state or economic
interests.
Soren
http://www.freewebs.com/tcfactory/
And as Waldorf Charter is recognised in rigid Oregon procedures - it
already indicates that the lawsuit will have little success. But all
good, a ruling in court that Waldorf isn't religious in the terms that
would disqualify it from the secular demands for public funding is just
fine :-)
Btw how come the presidency doesn't bother ye folks - there's more
religion funded by taxmoney in the White House than in Charterschools,
more tacmoney used for crusades against third world barbarians in the
Pentagon than in any of Steiners books (btw also more exnazis involves
in that public institution than ever in any antroposophical society) 1
billion not accounted for taxmoney in Pentagonspendings seem to be more
of an issue to me, than some petty waldorf charterschools.
Hmmm and if antroposophy is a religion, how come the Waldorfschools in
Israel manage to have a majority of jewish parents and kids - while the
Waldorfschool in Egypt within a biodynamic community doesn't have a
church but a Mosque in their community
http://www.sekem.com/main_n.html
http://www.sekem.com/culture_n.html
So much for antroposophy and Waldorf as some kind of Christian sect
promoting white superiority
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:28:13 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Secular Waldorf in Egypt
*The SEKEM School*
The *SEKEM School* was founded in 1989 and includes a primary and
secondary school for 300 pupils. It is situated circa 50 km. north east
of Cairo on the fringe of the desert. The pupils represent all social
levels coming mainly from the nearby town of Belbis and the surrounding
rural vicinities.The school serves Muslim and Christian children alike
encouraging them to live in harmony and have respect for the other's
religious practices.
Although the *SEKEM school *is approved by the Egyptian Ministry of
Education and is based on the Egyptian State Curriculum it also promotes
new forms of pedagogic and social interaction. As well as imparting
knowledge and skills, the SEKEM school emphasizes programmes that
cultivate the inner integrity and moral fiber of the individual. Thus
conventional education is supplemented with courses in eurythmy, crafts,
drama, dance or music. By combining traditional pedagogical methods with
innovative practices it is possible to nurture the maximum social,
cultural and educational development of the child. As with all age
levels, working and learning are inter-related and go hand in hand.
Recognising the importance of the physical environment upon the
educational development of the child, the school has spacious and well
equipped facilities including workshops and a theatre.
*Illiterate Children's Programme *
The literacy programme provides classes for illiterate children between
the ages of 10 and 14. Professional educators and local teachers who
have been given training for the task teach the course. The programme
offers curricula designed to increase awareness, raise consciousness and
introduce new experiences in order to help students see themselves as
part of the wider community, in order to help facilitate them in making
a positive contribution. The programme encourages the habit of reading
amongst newly literate persons. Special materials and books are made
available to the children in order to expedite their progress.
* Handicapped Children's Programme*
This programme encompasses children with all types of disabilities.
These include sufferers of general physical disabilities, the deaf and
dumb and the mentally retarded. Allowing the children to exercise their
full rights as human beings and to achieve independence are the main
goals of the programme. The programme aims not only to improve the
quality of the child's life but also to ensure that he/she becomes an
integrated member of society to the fullest extent possible. There are
already many handicapped individuals that have been successfully
integrated into the different activities within the* SEKEM group of
companies*.
http://www.sekem.com/School_n.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 23:24:50 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: biodynamic preparation
Hi Soren,
I wrote:
)I am pleased we agree about the occult nature of biodynamics.
)
To which you replied:
Has anyone ever disagreed ??
Me: I've heard people disagree but that was not my point. I was trying to
be friendly, that's all. I am always pleased to find something in common
with Anthroposophically inclined people. Really.
You wrote:
He describes an esoteric tradition and worldview, but does he say this
is what you shall believe and follow, or that it is what he embrace as
his views- NO on the contrary,
The important role Europe plays in the grand scheme of things
Anthroposophic is the development of a freedom in thougth that can
overcome the perceptions of groupcharacteristics determining an
individuals destiny.
Me: When Steiner turned to the occult (post philosophy) he certainly did
tell me what I should believe: Spiritual Science is the way. And you say
Freedom comes from Europe? Steiner's version of "freedom" gives me the
creeps. I almost bought threefolding at one point - meetings, books...
until I read the fine print (so to speak). I woke up. As an aside I would
suggest the film, Rabbit Proof Fence, as an example of well intentioned,
intellectual-yet-sick racism. Did you know that between the years1800 and
1914 the amount of land surface on planet earth controlled by Europeans
increased from 35 to 84 percent? Steiner not only took no interest in
Indigenous culture, for example, he foretold of genocide as a sort of
karmic, natural occurrence. What kind of freedom are *you* talking about
here?
Soren wrote:
To me dealing with rasism and fascism by being
ostrichs putting the head in the sand and deny that "race" in the sense
tribal, people, linguistic belonging in the past in much higher degree
than now determined the individuals life and destiny, and still does in
many cultures, is mere abstract idealism, and does nothing for practical
overcoming of the culturally institutionalised racial structures.
Me: To be honest, Soren, I have found the ostrich syndrome alive and well
in Anthroposophic circles when this subject comes up. How do *you* deal
with Steiner's theories on race? Do you agree with him?
Soren wrote:
Anthroposophy is not based on critisism, it is based on positive action.
Me: I don't know how anything can be "based on criticism." I don't
understand that statement. Is there room for *critical thinking* in
Anthroposophy? I am all for positive action - thus my position here after
leaving the movement. It almost feels like karma... but I won't go that far
(g)
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:13:44 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thanks for postings
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_hEABvm4ytp3dCagRG/KS9g)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Frank Fawcett wrote:
Dear list members,
I would like to thank Anna Rose and Soren for the last two
postings. Anna Rose's causes me particular sadness when I think that
PLANS is trying to close two such schools (in the name of "protection
of liberties") that parents have freely chosen.
I am grateful for Anna and Soren's posts, as well. I believe you
feel sad, Frank, if you believe what you state above. I respectfully
submit, however, that the roots of your sadness might be misplaced.
I do not belong to PLANS but I have taken the time to read the web
site. I am often perplexed by the number of people looking for
someone to blame. Do you understand the PLANS position with regards
to the schools you mention? I have heard PLANS members called
everything from far right Christians to those pushing secular
humanism to disgruntled parents to materialists to fans of Ahriman!
It's about accountability. In the case of the legal action it is
about the Constitution. As far as sadness goes - there is plenty of
that going around with confused, angry, frustrated families who
believed they had found a nice community where like-minded people
could grow together without the invasion of television, computers and
coke machines in the schools. What we wanted was a non-sectarian,
arts based, low stress education. What they (we) found was a
religious system we never signed up for. And much more.
Ever heard of Eugene Schwartz? Master Waldorf teacher with integrity
- he tells it like it is:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html:
"That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious
experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my
daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious
experience. So that she learns something about reverence. So that she
learns something about respecting a higher being. If she didn't learnthat,
she'd be out the door in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school
that calls itself Waldorf, and denies her a religious experience."
Later:
"The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that
will sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing.
Don't say I didn't tell you guys--10 years ago!. Stop pussyfooting
around. Tell everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the
school, let them know then. If we are really to be a movement for
cultural renewal, it is our responsibility to share with the parents
those elements of Anthroposophy which will help them understand their
children and fathom the mysterious ways in which we work Yes, we are
giving the children a version of Anthroposophy in the classroom;
whether we mean to or not, it's there. So let's at least do it the
right way. [32:50] Let's be bringing Anthroposophical [light] in ..."
Do you know about the Higher Being, Frank? I had no idea my kids
were praying to the Anthropop Sun God every day. Stupid me. I
believed the folks at the school when they told me it was simply a
"verse" the children chanted each and every morning. Every day. It
was a prayer. Little did I know I would need to research the subject
myself when things became very strange. Why did they hide that from
me? Many of our friends are ex-Waldorf families. We feel betrayed
and... sad. Real sad for the kids.
Steiner: "We will also talk about a prayer. But there is just one thing
I should like to ask you. You know, with these things the outer form is of
the utmost importance. Never call the verse a 'prayer' but a 'school opening
verse'. Do see to it that people do not hear the expression 'prayer' used by
a teacher. This will go a long way towards overcoming the prejudice that
this is an anthroposophical school."
Steiner, Rudolf. Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School
in Stuttgart 1919 to 1920: Volume One: The First and Second Years of
the Waldorf School, Stuttgart. (1920) Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner
Schools Fellowship Publications, 1986, p. 45
I could continue but I think (hope) you get the point. Like the
parents you mention who have "freely chosen" these schools, I chose a
school based on an inaccurate picture of that school. That picture
was painted by those who promote Waldorf schools. I thought it was
just this school until I discovered the pattern via the Internet and
telephone. I spent a couple of hours writing a little piece for the
PLANS web site about this subject if you're interested:
(http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/WhoIsRS.html) Spend
some time at the site - it might hurt but you might be surprised. Go
in with an objective mind - full of critical thinking, for sure (g).
It took me a while - I was like Lisa some years ago. I loathed the
Waldorf critics. Then I stopped shooting the messenger and read the
message. Strange how that works....
I know far too many very, very sad Waldorf stories. The vast
majority of these tragedies could have been avoided if the parents
had been given an accurate picture Waldorf Education before they
joined the *community.* Nobody I know is trying to shut down
Waldorf schools.
I understand your sadness, Frank. Do you understand mine?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:36:30 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner's timelines...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_R9A3ZycmEVkg/ZWGQYwl5w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Since we have a few new Anthroposophicaly inclined list members I
thought I might pose a couple of nagging questions. I would
appreciate any input regarding a couple of Steiner predictions I am
having trouble with:
Steiner- "Now science believes that the heart is a kind of pump; that
is a grotesquely fantastic idea. Occultism has never made such a
fantastic
statement as has modern materialism. It is the feelings of the soul which
give rise to the movement of the blood; the soul drives the blood, and the
heart moves because it is driven by the blood. Thus the truth is exactly the
opposite of what materialistic science states. (...) ...the heart has not
reached the end of its evolution, but is an organ of the future; because it
will in the future be a voluntary muscle. (...) And if you now imagine the
man who is able to create his own likeness through the spoken word, whose
heart has become a voluntary muscle, who will have altered yet other organs,
then you have a conception of the future of the human race in future
planetary incarnations of our earth. Humanity will progress on our earth as
far as possible under the influence of a mineral kingdom. (...) Man will
then no longer build up his body from mineral substances as to-day, the
coming human body will only incorporate into itself substances of a plant
nature. All that works in man to-day as mineral will disappear. In order to
give you a seemingly grotesque example: the human saliva of to-day is a
mineral product, for the physical body is an inter-action of mineral
processes. When man will have ended his mineral evolution he will no longer
have a mineral spittle; it will be of a plant-nature - man will, so to
speak, split flowers. Glands will no more secret what is mineral, but a
plant-like substance. The mineral kingdom is brought to an end by the
evolutionary return of humanity to plant-like existence" ( 149-150
Rudolf
Steiner, Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner Press London,
reprint 1981, lecture from 1907).
Does anyone know what time period Steiner indicates here? When does
he believe we will secrete a plant-like substance?
Steiner: "Now we arrive at the truth that will sound strange to you. What we
call ancient clairvoyance, this lighting up of the cosmic secrets within
human souls, had to enter the soul somehow. We have to picture this as
streams flowing into human beings. The ancients did not perceive them, but
when these streams had occurred and lit up within them, people perceived
them as their inspirations. In other words, certain streams flowed into
people from their environment; in later periods these streams were
transformed. In the distant past, these streams were purely spiritual, and
clairvoyants could perceive them as purely astral-etheric streams. But later
these purely spiritual streams dried up, as it were, and condensed to
etheric-physical streams. What became of them? They developed into hair. Our
hair is the result of these ancient streams. The hair on our body was
formerly spiritual streams that flowed from outside into human beings. Our
hair is nothing else but dried up astral-etheric streams......
It will take science a long time to arrive at these significant truths."
[p 42 Universal Human, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophic Press c 1990]
Does anyone have an idea about the timeline here? *When* will
science discover this truth?
Thanks in advance.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1105
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Thanks for postings
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Secular Waldorf in Egypt
By Gary goodwinter.com
RE: Thanks for postings
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
Re: ad hominum warning
By dan dandugan.com
re: ad hominum
By FThFawcett aol.com
Re: ad hominum warning
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: ad hominem attacks
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: thanks for posting
By FThFawcett aol.com
Re: ad hominem attacks
By snell gv.net
Re: thanks for posting
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: standardize tests/long longevity studies
By dan dandugan.com
Re: biodynamic preparation
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 08:40:28 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Thanks for postings
Soren:
)"To separate school and state, not just religion (church and state) IS
)one of the basic techings of Anthroposophy,"
I answered:
)Ah, but they want to be "separated" from the state's control but not
)from its money, right? They consider themselves spiritually superior
but
)are not above taking the money.
Soren:
)Your use of the word THEY is a group characterisation, as if ALL people
)interested in the Waldorf Curriculum is following some central scheme.
My pronoun reference was unclear. "They" refers to the founders of a
public Waldorf school. You're right, it should not have been phrased as
if it to implicate every person who might be "interested in the Waldorf
curriculum."
"And still the parents who have their kids in the Charterschool pay
taxes
as well as the parents to kids in the other public schools - so they are
not taking any money."
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify: I did not intend to accuse the
parents of "taking money," I am accusing the founders of the Waldorf
charter school, in finding a state source to fund a religious project.
In fact, you are right that it is often a complicated situation and the
parents involved in the founding of the school themselves may not know
much about anthroposophy and may not be knowingly setting up a religious
school. The people who should take responsibility are the
anthroposophists who insert themselves into these schemes and whose aim
is most certainly to further anthroposophy. These people do indeed
realize it is a religious doctrine and often see the conflict with the
prohibition against religious doctrines in the public schools here, but
they see this as an obstacle to overcome, not an ethical restraint on
what they plan to do. To them it means you must change some wording in
your document, so for instance "eurythmy" (which is simply not
explainable without reference to the spirit world) becomes "dance," or
"movement activities," or "physical education" (so that the questions
that would reveal the religious underpinnings simply aren't asked). Etc.
Once again if "them" or "they" is unclear here it refers to the
anthroposophists that try to steer parent initiatives in the
anthroposophically desired direction and involve themselves in parent
initiatives seeking state funding for a charter school. Only rarely, I
think, do these (non-anthroposophist) parents understand what
anthroposophy is and what role the anthroposophists intend for it to
play in the school. (The grassroots efforts of these parents are
manipulated. Their time and energy and money are invested in HUGE
quantities and it is only later made clear to them that after the school
has actually opened its doors, "faculty run" will mean they will no
longer have any real say and were never intended to.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:01:25 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Secular Waldorf in Egypt
Soren,
I'm glad you brought up the Sekem Waldorf school and community in Egypt.
I've studied their web sites (both original and later re-designed) and I've
done quite a bit of internet research after stumbling upon them.
You'll find mention of three-fold, eurhythmy, bio-dynamic farming. You'll
see long lists of Anthro herbal medicine products, with customer
destinations primarily in Germany.
Yet there is virtually NO mention of Steiner, Anthroposophy, or Waldorf!
WHY?
The way they explain their philosophy on their site and in a newspaper
article, they are implying that their Egyptian native founder Dr. Ibrahim
Abouleish invented it himself.
) "The whole idea is to foster a positive image of school among both students
) and teachers, and to respect the child's phases of growth and each phase's
) needs," explains Ibrahim Abul-Eish, the director of the school. "In the end,
) we will have healthy, balanced children physically, mentally, and
) spiritually."
)
) Abul-Eish has developed the curriculum at Sekem School, where learning is
) based on science, religion, and art. "Since human beings are made up of mind,
) body, and spirit, then science, religion and arts are the proper nourishment.
) Without one of these three ingredients, an individual will not be
balanced. If
) science is missing from the education process, the individual will be
) ignorant; if religion is missing, he will be materialistic; and if art is
) missing, he will be ruthless," Abul-Eish says.
)
) Abul-Eish himself is a scientist, a pharmacologist who spent nearly 30 years
) in Austria. All he remembers of Egypt before that time is the beautiful
) countryside. When he brought his children to visit Egypt in the late '70s, he
) felt that conditions in rural areas had deteriorated as compared to his rosy
) memories, and he decided to set up several projects serving the community in
) Sharqiya. Sekem School was one of these many projects, which include organic
) farming and related industries, as well as a non-governmental community
) service organisation he launched to serve the families of agricultural
) workers.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/434/feat2.htm
This is called STEALTH anthroposophy, STEALTH waldorf. It's not honest
Soren. They don't mention these things because the KNOW that their Egyptian
Muslim clientele would be put off by the roots of these ideas.
Please explain why if they think Waldorf and Anthroposophy and Steiner are
so great, they never mention them?
I confronted them on this via email a few years back and they avoided
answering my direct questions. (search our archives for "sekem" for the
email exchange).
...Gary
on 8/2/03 1:28 AM, Soren Groth Petersen at sgroth efn.org wrote:
) *The SEKEM School*
)
) The *SEKEM School* was founded in 1989 and includes a primary and
) secondary school for 300 pupils. It is situated circa 50 km. north east
) of Cairo on the fringe of the desert. The pupils represent all social
) levels coming mainly from the nearby town of Belbis and the surrounding
) rural vicinities.The school serves Muslim and Christian children alike
) encouraging them to live in harmony and have respect for the other's
) religious practices.
)
) Although the *SEKEM school *is approved by the Egyptian Ministry of
) Education and is based on the Egyptian State Curriculum it also promotes
) new forms of pedagogic and social interaction. As well as imparting
) knowledge and skills, the SEKEM school emphasizes programmes that
) cultivate the inner integrity and moral fiber of the individual. Thus
) conventional education is supplemented with courses in eurythmy, crafts,
) drama, dance or music. By combining traditional pedagogical methods with
) innovative practices it is possible to nurture the maximum social,
) cultural and educational development of the child. As with all age
) levels, working and learning are inter-related and go hand in hand.
) Recognising the importance of the physical environment upon the
) educational development of the child, the school has spacious and well
) equipped facilities including workshops and a theatre.
)
) *Illiterate Children's Programme *
) The literacy programme provides classes for illiterate children between
) the ages of 10 and 14. Professional educators and local teachers who
) have been given training for the task teach the course. The programme
) offers curricula designed to increase awareness, raise consciousness and
) introduce new experiences in order to help students see themselves as
) part of the wider community, in order to help facilitate them in making
) a positive contribution. The programme encourages the habit of reading
) amongst newly literate persons. Special materials and books are made
) available to the children in order to expedite their progress.
)
) * Handicapped Children's Programme*
) This programme encompasses children with all types of disabilities.
) These include sufferers of general physical disabilities, the deaf and
) dumb and the mentally retarded. Allowing the children to exercise their
) full rights as human beings and to achieve independence are the main
) goals of the programme. The programme aims not only to improve the
) quality of the child's life but also to ensure that he/she becomes an
) integrated member of society to the fullest extent possible. There are
) already many handicapped individuals that have been successfully
) integrated into the different activities within the* SEKEM group of
) companies*.
)
) http://www.sekem.com/School_n.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:15:12 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: Thanks for postings
Diana wrote (to Soren) about charter schools:
) Thank you for the opportunity to clarify: I did not intend to accuse the
) parents of "taking money," I am accusing the founders of the Waldorf
) charter school, in finding a state source to fund a religious project.
With the proviso that I have no experience with U.S. charter schools, only
the little I have read, I nevetheless risk asking: Why a religious project?
Waldorf schools employ a specific pedagogic method based on an understanding
of the human being contained within anthroposophy, the latter being a
spiritual world view. (If you wish to synonimize spiritual and religious,
that's okay by me, as long as you don't do so in the sense of a religion or
church.) Now, assuming that the pedagogical method works, has had positive
results and is in demand (which, imo, is indeed the case), why shouldn't it
be employed, or copied, in other schools, including those financed by the
state, especially when that state recognizes the deficiencies in public
education and is trying to improve it? I assume that such things as
festivals based on Christian tradition, which could be interpreted as
unconstitutional (according to the Supreme Court), would have to be
eliminated. So what's the problem?Ah, you say that the teachers are those
with experience in Waldorf schools and therefore true believers, and will
inevitably want to instill anthroposophy in the pupils and since
anthroposphy is, according to you, a religion, it is unconstitutional. This
is, again imo, absurd. It would mean that no public school teacher could
have any religious beliefs whatsoever. In other words, no Catholics, Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, Mormons would be allowed to teach
in public schools because they would be instilling their own beliefs in the
children..
) In fact, you are right that it is often a complicated situation and the
) parents involved in the founding of the school themselves may not know
) much about anthroposophy and may not be knowingly setting up a religious
) school. The people who should take responsibility are the
) anthroposophists who insert themselves into these schemes and whose aim
) is most certainly to further anthroposophy.
Why "most certainly"? Isn't it conceivable that they think the W-method can
help to improve education in public schools? And do they really "insert
themselves into these schemes" - or are they asked? I don't know, just
asking.
These people do indeed
) realize it is a religious doctrine and often see the conflict with the
) prohibition against religious doctrines in the public schools here, but
) they see this as an obstacle to overcome, not an ethical restraint on
) what they plan to do.
But what if no religious or any other doctrines are offered by them,
therefore no conflict, no obstacles. Therefore what they do is completely
ethical.
To them it means you must change some wording in
) your document, so for instance "eurythmy" (which is simply not
) explainable without reference to the spirit world) becomes "dance," or
) "movement activities," or "physical education" (so that the questions
) that would reveal the religious underpinnings simply aren't asked). Etc.
I don't see the point. Eurythmy is easily explained by its Greek roots. eu =
good, well, pleasant.
) Once again if "them" or "they" is unclear here it refers to the
) anthroposophists that try to steer parent initiatives in the
) anthroposophically desired direction and involve themselves in parent
) initiatives seeking state funding for a charter school. Only rarely, I
) think, do these (non-anthroposophist) parents understand what
) anthroposophy is and what role the anthroposophists intend for it to
) play in the school. (The grassroots efforts of these parents are
) manipulated. Their time and energy and money are invested in HUGE
) quantities and it is only later made clear to them that after the school
) has actually opened its doors, "faculty run" will mean they will no
) longer have any real say and were never intended to.)
) Diana
Hmmm - Sounds like a conspiracy theory worthy of being reported to the
Director of Homeland Security.
Frank TS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:28:50 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: ad hominum warning
Frank Fawcett, you wrote,
)Dear Dan Dugan,
)
) I await your comment on Lisa Ercolano's posting to Ms. Tack,
)which included the phrase "I wonder why Waldorf schools have to lie
)to prospective parents" (third paragraph down).
)
) As I understand it, a pro-Waldorf person was excluded from
)your list for using such language. Or do your rules for fostering
)mature dialogue only apply to such (pro-Waldorf) persons?
Dear Frank Fawcett, if Waldorf schools didn't lie to parents, there
would be no need for this discussion list! Strong opinions and even
dirty words are allowed here, as long as they don't attack
individuals. An ad hominem argument refers to the character of
another person in the discussion, rather than to the topic being
discussed. Steiner instructed the teachers of the first Waldorf
school to lie to parents, and the schools have been doing it ever
since.
)Dear Lisa,
)
) I do not appreciate being called a "devotee"
My first impulse is to say "if the shoe fits, wear it," but I have to
say that that does qualify as an ad hominem, and caution Lisa to
avoid that kind of argument.
)or having Anthroposophy (which means a lot to me) called a "cult".
Speaking about Anthroposophy is quite another matter. Anthroposophy
and Waldorf schools are the topic here, and you can say anything you
want about them (while expecting, of course, to have your statements
challenged). Formally, my "sue me" position is that Anthroposophy is
a "cult-like religious sect." I call it a cult for short, and I find
that description to be both accurate and helpful in understanding the
relationship of Anthropsophy to society.
)I am sure you have reasons for feeling the way you do, but the use
)of such phrases invites a discussion which consists of name-calling.
)
) There are things I would like to discuss on this list. You
)make points that are worth discussing; but I don't feel I can do it
)when things are phrased that way.
)
) I realise you are not the first to use such phrases; I also
)credit you with having genuine feelings around the issues you
)mentioned.
Frank, the description of this list says "not for the overly
sensitive." I'm pleased to have you here as a defender of
Anthroposophy.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:32:27 EDT
From: FThFawcett aol.com
Subject: re: ad hominum
--part1_f2.2f680e78.2c5d87eb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Dan,
Thank you for you welcome (I mean it).
I would like to quote a message from you on 9/10/01 (Sune quoted it on
another list; it must have been to him directly because I didn't find it in
the archives here) :
"Sune, I am unsubscribing you for the following ad-hominum: Subject:
Moderator welcomes known liar back the WC show. ..(message about previous
unsubscribings).. You have shown yourself incapable of carrying on a respectful
two-way discussion...."
There was apparently a background to this, which I am not interested
in going into, as I doubt it would lead to anything worthwhile. But the
implication is that there are rules to allow for respectful
discussion, which should
apply to everyone.
It could be that the statement I took offence at was true, or maybe it
was somewhat overstated. For all I know, schools will be considered as liars
here unless they tell parents "We are devotees of the new-age religious cult
of Anthroposophy, inspired by Lucifer".
I am mainly requesting more consideration of how things may sound to
people who think and feel differently than you, so as to have a "respectful
two-way discussion". Am atmosphere like a boxing match may make for good
sport, but it makes meaningful discussion that much harder.
Frank Fawcett
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 17:29:38 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: ad hominum warning
I am confused ... when did I call Frank a "devotee?" And even if I did call
him that, Dan, I am not sure why that qualifies as an ad hom. Since when is
"devotee" an insult? I just checked the Webster's Dictionary for a
definition to be sure of this, and it defines a "devotee" as someone who is
"strongly devoted to something or someone."
Is Mr. Fawcett trying to say he is NOT "strongly devoted" to Waldorf? If
that is his claim, well, his postings/opinions, etc. belie that claim.
I am a devotee of critical thinking, free speech, separation of church and
state. I also am a devotee of dark chocolate, horses, English literature
(Shakespeare in particular), ballet, trashy murder mysteries and legal
thrillers.
I am not, however, a devotee of Rudolf Steiner and when I enrolled my young
daughter in a Waldorf school some years ago, I wasn't told I had to be. In
fact, I was told almost nothing about Steiner, other than he was a stand up
guy who cared about kids and created a utopian school for the workers of a
cigarette factory. No one mentioned his racist ideologies or that Waldorf
teachers today hold him up as a kind of saint or guru.
Lisa
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:28:50 -0700
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: ad hominum warning
)
) Frank Fawcett, you wrote,
)
)) Dear Dan Dugan,
))
)) I await your comment on Lisa Ercolano's posting to Ms. Tack,
)) which included the phrase "I wonder why Waldorf schools have to lie
)) to prospective parents" (third paragraph down).
))
)) As I understand it, a pro-Waldorf person was excluded from
)) your list for using such language. Or do your rules for fostering
)) mature dialogue only apply to such (pro-Waldorf) persons?
)
) Dear Frank Fawcett, if Waldorf schools didn't lie to parents, there
) would be no need for this discussion list! Strong opinions and even
) dirty words are allowed here, as long as they don't attack
) individuals. An ad hominem argument refers to the character of
) another person in the discussion, rather than to the topic being
) discussed. Steiner instructed the teachers of the first Waldorf
) school to lie to parents, and the schools have been doing it ever
) since.
)
)) Dear Lisa,
))
)) I do not appreciate being called a "devotee"
)
) My first impulse is to say "if the shoe fits, wear it," but I have to
) say that that does qualify as an ad hominem, and caution Lisa to
) avoid that kind of argument.
)
)) or having Anthroposophy (which means a lot to me) called a "cult".
)
) Speaking about Anthroposophy is quite another matter. Anthroposophy
) and Waldorf schools are the topic here, and you can say anything you
) want about them (while expecting, of course, to have your statements
) challenged). Formally, my "sue me" position is that Anthroposophy is
) a "cult-like religious sect." I call it a cult for short, and I find
) that description to be both accurate and helpful in understanding the
) relationship of Anthropsophy to society.
)
)) I am sure you have reasons for feeling the way you do, but the use
)) of such phrases invites a discussion which consists of name-calling.
))
)) There are things I would like to discuss on this list. You
)) make points that are worth discussing; but I don't feel I can do it
)) when things are phrased that way.
))
)) I realise you are not the first to use such phrases; I also
)) credit you with having genuine feelings around the issues you
)) mentioned.
)
) Frank, the description of this list says "not for the overly
) sensitive." I'm pleased to have you here as a defender of
) Anthroposophy.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 17:43:14 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: ad hominem attacks
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3142690995_87929_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
New list member Frank Fawcett comments:
For all I know, schools will be considered as liars here unless they tell
parents "We are devotees of the new-age religious cult of Anthroposophy,
inspired by Lucifer".
Lisa here: Quite frankly, that statement or one similar *would* go a long
way to solving the problems that Waldorf has created for itself by not
telling parents upfront the real score about Waldorf!
I don't think mention of Lucifer is necessary and to be fair, I think it
clouds and confuses matters, as the Lucifer of Anthroposophy is quite
different from the Lucifer referred to by Christians and other non-Anthros.
How I wish the folks representing the Waldorf school I ended up enrolling
my daughter in had simply said "The school's philosophy and methodology is
based on a religion called Anthroposophy, which was developed by an Austrian
occulist named Rudolf Steiner. Most of our teachers -- indeed, especially
the core group of teachers who basically run the school -- hold Steiner up
as a teacher, and make a close and intense study of his words and works.
Some of our beliefs include karma and reincarnation and a theory of
spiritual evolution -- for want of a better term -- that precludes the
teaching of evolution and makes the way we teach science and its content
somewhat different from what your child would get at a non-Waldorf school.
We would strongly encourage you not only to take some time to study Steiner
in his own words, but also to ask yourself whether your family's personal
belief system would make you comfortable here."
In addition, I wish they had told me that the reason teachers stick with
their students over the grades (though that rarely happens in reality!) is
that the teacher is considered a spiritual parent of the child and is
believed to have encountered the child in past lives. I wish they had told
me that eurythmy is not just a form of dance (which is is not!), but had
explained its role in the spiritual development of the child a la Anthrop.
tenets.
There is much, much more that I wish they had told me (that my child
would learn to draw human beings without faces and not be allowed to use
black crayons, to name a few more!), but you get the gist, I think.
I have been involved with Waldorf in one way or the other (from being a
Waldorf parent to being a critic and studying Waldorf and Anthroposophy
intently in an effort to understand what occurred at my child's school) for
more than 10 years now, and I still fail to understand why Waldorf schools
do not "get" that telling the truth about themselves would be a much more
effective marketing tool than is lying or obfuscating (if you prefer that
somewhat gentler term!) the real issues!
I believe that if Waldorf went ahead and came clean and marketed itself
as a New Age school in which children (to steal a phrase from Waldorf
teacher Eugene Schwartz), children would have one religious experience after
the other. I truly believe that enrollment in Waldorf schools would rise,
and what's more, the "right" people would enroll. By that I mean people
whose belief systems are simpatico with Anthroposophy.
Instead, the Waldorf movement seems stuck in its insistence not to reveal
itself completely, and the end result is the need for a list like this and
the Waldorf Survivors List.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 18:56:51 EDT
From: FThFawcett aol.com
Subject: re: thanks for posting
--part1_63.208f758d.2c5d9bb3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Diana,
You wrote: "PLANS doesn't try to close schools; the lawsuit is about
insisting that they operate legally".
If PLANS wins the lawsuit the schools the schools will almost
certainly close; it seems unlikely to me that there are enough committed
upper-middle-class parents to keep them open as private schools. Or
do you disagree?
I know your group is not acting "for no reason". I have read the
stated reasons, but I don't agree with them.
The phrase "church and state" can confuse the intent of the actual
text, in my opinion, which as you know reads "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof".
To me the intent is that government not apply any pressure or coercion with
regards to religious beliefs and practices, as for instance the
pressure to join
the Church of England at that time.
With the charter schools, in all likelihood it is the parents
themselves who requested them, and certainly no-one in government is
pressuring them
to attend.
As for the tax dollar argument, the taxes are going to be roughly the
same whether those children attend one school or another. Why not let the
parents choose the school they want?
But if it is really a problem, how about a system where the schools
would have to collect signatures from supporters in California such that the
combined school taxes would pay for the schools' operation. Would that satisfy
you on this point? I would actually like to know.
Yours truly,
Frank Fawcett
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:01:14 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: ad hominem attacks
On Saturday, August 2, 2003, at 02:43 PM, Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)
) New list member Frank Fawcett comments:
)
) For all I know, schools will be considered as liars here unless they
) tell parents "We are devotees of the new-age religious cult of
) Anthroposophy, inspired by Lucifer".
)
) Lisa here: Quite frankly, that statement or one similar *would* go a
) long way to solving the problems that Waldorf has created for itself by
) not telling parents upfront the real score about Waldorf!
) ÝÝÝI don't think mention of Lucifer is necessary and to be fair, I
) think it clouds and confuses matters, as the Lucifer of Anthroposophy
) is quite different from the Lucifer referred to by Christians and other
) non-Anthros.
Debra, chiming in:
Personally, I *do* feel that parents should be told about Lucifer,
Ahriman and Christ. These are the central gods in Anthroposophy and
impact Waldorf curriculum heavily as much time is spent in classrooms
helping balance the sun throughout the seasons. Sure, Anthroposophy
defines Lucifer differently than Christians, but parents should be told
upfront how they are defined. If parents can't be convinced that Lucifer
is *really* the god of Light, that Christ is *really* a sun god and that
Ahriman is *really* the god of Darkness, they would know right off the
bat that Waldorf would not be a good fit for their family. This would be
fair for everyone and save Waldorf from being called 'Satanic Schools'.
(This is a question I am frequently asked during interviews and I am
sick of explaining how this term doesn't apply because of how Lucifer is
defined...)
I do agree with all the rest of what you wrote, Lisa. . .
) ÝÝÝHow I wish the folks representing the Waldorf school I ended up
) enrolling my daughter in had simply said "The school's philosophy and
) methodology is based on a religion called Anthroposophy, which was
) developed by an Austrian occulist named Rudolf Steiner. Most of our
) teachers -- indeed, especially the core group of teachers who basically
) run the school -- hold Steiner up as a teacher, and make a close and
) intense study of his words and works. Some of our beliefs include karma
) and reincarnation and a theory of spiritual evolution -- for want of a
) better term -- that precludes the teaching of evolution and makes the
) way we teach science and its content somewhat different from what your
) child would get at a non-Waldorf school. We would strongly encourage
) you not only to take some time to study Steiner in his own words, but
) also to ask yourself whether your family's personal belief system would
) make you comfortable here."
) ÝÝÝIn addition, I wish they had told me that the reason teachers stick
) with their students over the grades (though that rarely happens in
) reality!) is that the teacher is considered a spiritual parent of the
) child and is believed to have encountered the child in past lives. I
) wish they had told me that eurythmy is not just a form of dance (which
) is is not!), but had explained its role in the spiritual development of
) the child a la Anthrop. tenets.
) ÝÝÝThere is much, much more that I wish they had told me (that my child
) would learn to draw human beings without faces and not be allowed to
) use black crayons, to name a few more!), but you get the gist, I think.
) ÝÝÝI have been involved with Waldorf in one way or the other (from
) being a Waldorf parent to being a critic and studying Waldorf and
) Anthroposophy intently in an effort to understand what occurred at my
) child's school) for more than 10 years now, and I still fail to
) understand why Waldorf schools do not "get" that telling the truth
) about themselves would be a much more effective marketing tool than is
) lying or obfuscating (if you prefer that somewhat gentler term!) the
) real issues!
) ÝÝÝI believe that if Waldorf went ahead and came clean and marketed
) itself as a New Age school in which children (to steal a phrase from
) Waldorf teacher Eugene Schwartz), children would have one religious
) experience after the other. I truly Ýbelieve that enrollment in Waldorf
) schools would rise, and what's more, the "right" people would enroll.
) By that I mean people whose belief systems are simpatico with
) Anthroposophy.
) ÝÝÝInstead, the Waldorf movement seems stuck in its insistence not to
) reveal itself completely, and the end result is the need for a list
) like this and the Waldorf Survivors List.
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
) --^^---------------------------------------------------------------
) This email was sent to: snell gv.net
)
) EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b32c4M.c25lbGxA
) Or send an email to: Waldorf-Critics-unsubscribe topica.com
)
) TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
) --^^---------------------------------------------------------------
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:09:17 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: thanks for posting
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3142710557_33908_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Frank, would you support Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish or Pagan
or Wiccan charter (public) schools?
I ask this as a serious question. I realize you are not the only person who
interprets the phase: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean that though
the government cannot *compel* people to practice any particular religion
(or any at all), the Constitution does *not* prohibit people from that
practice, as long as it is voluntary.
You seem to be saying (and I trust you will correct me if I am wrong!) that
Waldorf schools are religious schools but that does not make them illegal
according to the Constitution, which only prohibits the establishment of a
religion. Is that a correct and fair interpretation of your point of view?
If so, then I guess you would support charter public schools organized
around other faith paths and traditions. Please tell me if this is so.
Lisa (who does not support the establishment of any public religious
schools)
From: Frank Fawcett (FThFawcett aol.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 18:56:51 EDT
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: re: thanks for posting
Dear Diana,
You wrote: "PLANS doesn't try to close schools; the lawsuit is about
insisting that they operate legally".
If PLANS wins the lawsuit the schools the schools will almost
certainly close; it seems unlikely to me that there are enough committed
upper-middle-class parents to keep them open as private schools. Or do you
disagree?
I know your group is not acting "for no reason". I have read the
stated reasons, but I don't agree with them.
The phrase "church and state" can confuse the intent of the actual
text, in my opinion, which as you know reads "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof". To me the intent is that government not apply any pressure or
coercion with regards to religious beliefs and practices, as for instance
the pressure to join the Church of England at that time.
With the charter schools, in all likelihood it is the parents
themselves who requested them, and certainly no-one in government is
pressuring them to attend.
As for the tax dollar argument, the taxes are going to be roughly the
same whether those children attend one school or another. Why not let the
parents choose the school they want?
But if it is really a problem, how about a system where the schools
would have to collect signatures from supporters in California such that the
combined school taxes would pay for the schools' operation. Would that
satisfy you on this point? I would actually like to know.
Yours truly,
Frank
Fawcett--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO.bW9tb2Yy
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 23:43:04 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: standardize tests/long longevity studies
Lysa De Thomas, you wrote (in part):
)Now I am interested in any information on standardize testing in
)Waldorf schools. It would be helpful to know the socioeconomic
)background of the families too. (I believe that one of the reasons
)most private school children do better than public school children
)on standardized tests relates to the socioeconomic and educational
)levels of the families that send their children to private school.
)when children have the usually richer environment of these homes
)they will generally do better, no matter what educational system
)they are in. To truly test and see if a program is better for
)children, we need compare children from similar backgrounds and
)experiences. We also need to see what happens to a program's
)graduates once they become adults (longevity studies). Just because
)a child does well on a test does not mean that he or she will become
)a productive member of society. I am in the process of accumulating
)this information for traditional and Montessori Schools and am
)interested in accumulating it for Waldorf schools, does anyone know
)where I could get this information?
Unfortunately, Waldorf schools don't believe in testing, and there is
almost no data about the performance of Waldorf students either in
school or after. Publically-accessable data is accumulating about
some Waldorf charter schools in states that require charters to
participate in testing.
I agree about socioeconomic matching of any comparisons. One would
expect that kids whose parents can afford a private school would have
more advantages at home...like books. I grew up in a house full of
books, and three newspapers a day. Look how I turned out, I'm poor
and famous.
) (I have been in touch with many people off the board who tell me
)that they fully have assumed the Waldorf Philosophy on education and
)have removed all the books, papers, and academic information from
)their homes (They have a special garage apartments for those
)things.) until their children are older. They also don't do things
)like go to museums tutor, enrich, and so on because they don't
)believe in giving their young children any academic information
)until they are older. In essence Waldorf education and philosophy is
)their whole life. I am interested in finding out how well these
)children will do in the coming years.)
You really have to wonder about parents who remove all the books from
their homes supposedly for the good of the children. Sounds like cult
behavior to me.
)Also, I would like to revisit my comment from a few nights ago.
)Although I am sickened to read about the horrible forms of
)punishment that some children have received in Waldorf schools and
)the disgusting lack of commitment to the children placed in their
)care by the schools themselves, I have to say that this is not a
)problem solely found in Waldorf, it stems from the private system
)itself. You would find similar problems in most private schools.
)Just as some people have stated, the problem is the lack of
)organization in the higher ranks of Waldorf itself and the states'
)lack of authority over what goes on in private schools. Instead of
)bashing Waldorf in general for this, maybe we should work together
)to set up a system for all private schools, to insure that children
)in any school are safe and when transgressions happen, as they do in
)any system.
I don't think you'll find anywhere near the number of out-of-control
classrooms in other private schools, nor the unsupervised
playgrounds. Waldorf's teacher recruitment and training practices,
their committee government system, and half-baked Anthroposophical
notions about karma all combine to an environment with an
extraordinary lack of accountability.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 00:15:28 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: biodynamic preparation
Soren Groth, you wrote (in part),
)Within the biodynamic movement, as well as within antroposophy in
)general I think you'll find different approaches to this questions -
)there's a conservative fraction that saw Steiner as the completion.
)And there's a majority, who see it as impulses given in a certain
)time and location, which of course give some basic "hints" ( a
)majority of anthoposophists I've meet regard Steiner as giving
)"hints" not laying out the complete and everlasting truth to be
)obeyed) - a similar question arise when Waldorfschools today is
)found in other cultural settings than Central Europe - the first
)generation "german" cultural context eventually give in for the new
)location and setting, the basic impulse becomes applied to it's
)actiual situation.
They say this, but on the ground they don't really do it. Mary Henry
noted in -School Cultures- that schools in Australia and America were
telling the same stories in the same grades.
"T]he curriculum could be compared to a musical score which each
master performer interprets differently. In its essence, it will be
the same piece in each performance. The artistic freedom of each
teacher lies in its interpretation." [Querido, RenÈ M. The Esoteric
Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic Christ Impulse. Fair
Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995, p. 25]
)So in an australian waldorfschool the myths of the aborigines become
)a main focus, where in the traditional waldorfschool in Germany 1920
)the emphasis in the first schoolyears was on centraleuropean myths.
)Well, and a few braindead conservative antro's migth claim that even
)australian aborigines ougth to hear Grimm - though I haven' met any
Actually, Alan Whitehead, the Australian who has published a whole
set of Waldorf curriculum guides, said that studying Grimm's tales
would turn children into Nazis! He wants teachers to make up their
stories. He has blocks for Aboriginal stories, but everything is
filtered through Anthroposophy, "on truth-based occult knowledge of
the spirit of the people, especially in relation to their ancient
Lemurian past..."
)I'm sure traditional african and indian farmers will meet more
)respect for their accumulated knowledge within the context of
)biodynamic/organic farming theorisation, than from the
)agro-industrial complex of agricultural science.
I doubt it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1106
-- Topica Digest --
religious charter schools
By FThFawcett aol.com
devotee?
By FThFawcett aol.com
RE: standardize tests/long longevity studies
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
Re: biodynamic preparation/Grimm's stories
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Re: Secular Waldorf in Egypt
By sgroth efn.org
Re: biodynamic preparation/Grimm's stories
By sgroth efn.org
RE: Thanks for postings
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: standardize tests/long longevity studies
By dan dandugan.com
Re: devotee?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Thanks for postings
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Thanks for postings
By dan dandugan.com
Re: devotee?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:44:32 EDT
From: FThFawcett aol.com
Subject: religious charter schools
--part1_4e.1ffd0183.2c5ece30_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Lisa,
You asked if I would support Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Pagan
or Wiccan charter schools.
I'm still forming my thoughts about this, but I'm inclined to say yes,
if the groups are really sincere. The process I would think, should be hard
enough to require a real commitment. But I'm inclined to say that parents
with a genuine religious commitment should be able to send their children to
schools that support their values and beliefs. I think the schools
would be more
effective, also, for having parents and teachers with similar striving.
I don't know much about Pagans and Wiccans. I guess if they would be
allowed to have a private school, then the above would apply to them, too.
The idea would need a lot of thought and discussion.
As for whether Waldorf schools are religious, I guess it's debatable,
and I'd rather not get involved in the debate. I don't think Steiner's ideas
on child development make it religious.
Frank Fawcett
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:44:53 EDT
From: FThFawcett aol.com
Subject: devotee?
--part1_11c.24f4055d.2c5ece45_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Lisa,
You're right, I wasn't personally called a devotee, but belong to a
group whose members were referred to as devotees.
Actually, I'm sorry to have singled out your statement, as your
postings seem to be sincere and make an effort to be fair. You also
seem to have a
legitimate grievance in that you weren't told more about the background of
Waldorf eduction before joining the school you refer to. That goes for Walden
and the others who have this complaint (with the reservation that I haven't
heard both sides of the story).
My issue with "devotee", and especially "cult", "sect", "occult" is
that I perceive them to be used not to convey information, but for their
negative emotional connotations.
Frank Fawcett
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:37:52 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: standardize tests/long longevity studies
Dan Dugan wrote:
) I agree about socioeconomic matching of any comparisons. One would
) expect that kids whose parents can afford a private school would have
) more advantages at home...like books. I grew up in a house full of
) books, and three newspapers a day. Look how I turned out, I'm poor
) and famous.
er, shouldn't it be poor and infamous, Dan? Just trying to be helpful.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:39:37 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: biodynamic preparation/Grimm's stories
Dan Duggan wrote:
"Actually, Alan Whitehead, the Australian who has published a whole
set of Waldorf curriculum guides, said that studying Grimm's tales
would turn children into Nazis! He wants teachers to make up their
stories. He has blocks for Aboriginal stories, but everything is
filtered through Anthroposophy, "on truth-based occult knowledge of
the spirit of the people, especially in relation to their ancient
Lemurian past..."
And I add:
My daughter attends a Waldorf Kindergarten in Buenos Aires where children
are only told the same old Grimm stories plus some other traditional stories
published by and Antro press in Spain. The same thing happens in the primary
school, where our rich aborigine traditions are totally left aside.
Greetings from Buenos Aires,
Agustina C. Eiff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: biodynamic preparation
Soren Groth, you wrote (in part),
)Within the biodynamic movement, as well as within antroposophy in
)general I think you'll find different approaches to this questions -
)there's a conservative fraction that saw Steiner as the completion.
)And there's a majority, who see it as impulses given in a certain
)time and location, which of course give some basic "hints" ( a
)majority of anthoposophists I've meet regard Steiner as giving
)"hints" not laying out the complete and everlasting truth to be
)obeyed) - a similar question arise when Waldorfschools today is
)found in other cultural settings than Central Europe - the first
)generation "german" cultural context eventually give in for the new
)location and setting, the basic impulse becomes applied to it's
)actiual situation.
They say this, but on the ground they don't really do it. Mary Henry
noted in -School Cultures- that schools in Australia and America were
telling the same stories in the same grades.
"T]he curriculum could be compared to a musical score which each
master performer interprets differently. In its essence, it will be
the same piece in each performance. The artistic freedom of each
teacher lies in its interpretation." [Querido, RenÈ M. The Esoteric
Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic Christ Impulse. Fair
Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995, p. 25]
)So in an australian waldorfschool the myths of the aborigines become
)a main focus, where in the traditional waldorfschool in Germany 1920
)the emphasis in the first schoolyears was on centraleuropean myths.
)Well, and a few braindead conservative antro's migth claim that even
)australian aborigines ougth to hear Grimm - though I haven' met any
Actually, Alan Whitehead, the Australian who has published a whole
set of Waldorf curriculum guides, said that studying Grimm's tales
would turn children into Nazis! He wants teachers to make up their
stories. He has blocks for Aboriginal stories, but everything is
filtered through Anthroposophy, "on truth-based occult knowledge of
the spirit of the people, especially in relation to their ancient
Lemurian past..."
)I'm sure traditional african and indian farmers will meet more
)respect for their accumulated knowledge within the context of
)biodynamic/organic farming theorisation, than from the
)agro-industrial complex of agricultural science.
I doubt it.
-Dan Dugan
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 20:22:24 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Secular Waldorf in Egypt
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
)http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/434/feat2.htm
)
)This is called STEALTH anthroposophy, STEALTH waldorf. It's not honest
)Soren. They don't mention these things because the KNOW that their Egyptian
)Muslim clientele would be put off by the roots of these ideas.
)
As far as I know the founder is inspired by Anthroposophy, Rudolf
Steiner and Waldorf, but have done, what I in another post emphasize is
a valid critique of "followers" for not doing, used the inspiration to
create something valid for his time and location. It is no secret that a
group of conservative followers (and I'll point out that in my picture
of RS and Anthroposophy, they have missed something essential, to
seperate the impulse and the big picture, from examples Steiner gave
regarding his time and location, and taken the latter as truths which
was intended to be implemented universally and eternally - an approach I
think Steiner clearly enough state is not intended) reject Sekem, ie as
the founder really out of own work have points about Islam, that isn't
presented by Steiner. He has as I see it truly used Steiner and the
inner meaning of antrhoposophy for an individual implementation in his
time and location, created something valuable in his cultural context.
This is not STEALTH, I think his relation to islam is sincere and that
he doesn't have a hidden intention of christening Egypt and make people
into bluecopies of germans from 1918 in Egypt 2003. So the
non-mentioning of Steiner is a way to maintain a freedom of initiative.
Sekem simply gets a freedom from the burden of tradition, and can freely
use Steiner, Antrho and Waldorf as a source for inspiration.
The leading philosopher in our time on the subject of social
threefolding - Nicanor Perlas from the Phillipines, who is an
anthroposophist, choose the same position of freedom.
Similarly as I pointed out, devoted antroposophists in the Waldorf
Movement don't see Charterschools as real Waldorf Schools, and none of
these devoted conservative anthropops would ever pretend to be secular
in order to get public funding. In another post there was the mentioning
of devotees, and YES there does exist people who are devoted in a way
that it is justified to critisize (and which Steiner also critisised) -
from there there's a whole scale of people who in different ways adapt
as much as they feel they can relate to. I actually believe most Waldorf
Charterschools is funded by people, who want to adapt as much of Waldorf
as they can relate to, and not by fullscale devoted anthro's with a
demonic masterplan.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 20:42:36 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: biodynamic preparation/Grimm's stories
antigonabaires hotmail.com wrote:
)And I add:
)My daughter attends a Waldorf Kindergarten in Buenos Aires where children
)are only told the same old Grimm stories plus some other traditional stories
)published by and Antro press in Spain. The same thing happens in the primary
)school, where our rich aborigine traditions are totally left aside.
)
)Greetings from Buenos Aires,
)Agustina C. Eiff
)
I'm sad to hear this, and think here's a point to make a valid
constructive critique - In advice to teachers Steiner talks about local
geography as the background for use of myths and tales - the school as a
growth into global community - where the location and the past there is
leading to a presnce in a time-space continuum, not determining the
individual destiny, but as roots. I was born in Denmark and lived
several years in Sweden - there really is a difference between danes and
swedes, which can't be said to characterise anything about individual
danes or swedes ( which is very closely related cultures, languages and
with quite smilar cultural background) - to me that is nothing
controversial, and to be aware of my danish roots doesn't demand that I
am in a certain way. The consciousness to me give me a freedom - The
cultural context is not something that unconciously colour me when I'm
aware of it. What's good about it I can bring into the rainbow of global
community.
To copy the curriculum presented to teachers in Germany in 1917 is not
what Steienr intended with the concept of local psychogeography.
Hopefully the Waldorf movement as it becomes a global phenomonen will
overcome this childdisease and all the time be a creative process
present in it's actual time and locality -
))Soren Groth, you wrote (in part),
))a similar question arise when Waldorfschools today is
))found in other cultural settings than Central Europe - the first
))generation "german" cultural context eventually give in for the new
Well guess it should be formulated "ougth to give in" If it doesn't the
teachers haven't really read what "Steiner says" :-)
Soren http://www.freewebs.com/tcfactory/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:52:27 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Thanks for postings
Frank Smith wrote (in response to my saying Waldorf schools are a
religious project):
"With the proviso that I have no experience with U.S. charter schools,
only
the little I have read, I nevetheless risk asking: Why a religious
project?
Waldorf schools employ a specific pedagogic method based on an
understanding
of the human being contained within anthroposophy, the latter being a
spiritual world view. (If you wish to synonimize spiritual and
religious,
that's okay by me, as long as you don't do so in the sense of a religion
or
church.)"
The question is not generically are "religion" and "spirituality" the
same thing, it's whether anthroposophy is generically spiritual or is a
specific religion. (Do you think there must be a church with walls,
stained glass etc., in order for there to be a religion? Isn't that a
materialistic concept of religion?)
Waldorfers want us to think it is just vaguely, generically spiritual,
welcoming and spiritually nourishing to children in a nonspecific way
that couldn't possibly offend anyone except a virulent
foaming-at-the-mouth atheist (as the critics are often depicted). In
fact anthroposophy is a very specific doctrine; anthroposophy is a sect,
a denomination. Frank, haven't you studied anthroposophy for many years?
I presume you know the doctrine intimately. I doubt you are genuinely
confused about the content of anthroposophy, with its cosmology, its
spiritual hierarchies, its theories of truth and morality, spiritual
progress through karma and reincarnation, detailed descriptions of the
afterlife and prescribed exercises for enlightenment. Good grief what
*would* qualify as a religion if this isn't one?
Waldorf pedagogy is not based on something "contained" within
anthroposophy, as if the pedagogy were a piece of something unrelated to
other pieces of the something. (Holism, gotta love it.) The pedagogy is
an implementation of anthroposophy, a manifestation, an embodiment, or
even an "incarnation" of anthroposophy. These are truths to many Waldorf
teachers. No, they do not aim for the children to understand abstractly
and intellectually the doctrines of anthroposophy, but rather for
spiritual "truths" to "live in" the children. The children should take
images of a spiritual reality into their souls, through pictures,
imagination, feeling, and they need not (actually should not)
intellectually understand theories of any sort till many years later.
(If at all. Even in another lifetime will do.)
Again I don't think this is news to you, Frank, since you train Waldorf
teachers . . . What I am saying is, as you know, routine chit-chat in
Waldorf faculty meetings.
"Now, assuming that the pedagogical method works, has had positive
results and is in demand (which, imo, is indeed the case), why shouldn't
it
be employed, or copied, in other schools, including those financed by
the
state, especially when that state recognizes the deficiencies in public
education and is trying to improve it?"
First of all please show us your evidence that the pedagogical method
works and has had positive results.
I will try to be brief - it shouldn't be employed or copied because it
is illegal.
The state recognizes deficiencies in public education and is trying to
improve it. Lots of people come forth with ideas (charter applications).
The ones that are religiously based aren't legal here and need to be
rejected. Viewing this as merely a karmic stumbling block,
anthroposophists therefore downplay the religious origin and inspiration
of Waldorf in order to get funding.
"I assume that such things as festivals based on Christian tradition,
which could be interpreted as unconstitutional (according to the Supreme
Court), would have to be eliminated."
But they're *not* eliminated, Frank. PLANS has a tape recording of an
Advent Spiral held at a public Waldorf school, for instance. (A simple
example; not an isolated event.) They didn't bother eliminating it. They
just figure once they have the approval, they can do what they please.
Again you know what I am saying, I'm sure you occasionally read other
lists like SJU where posters regularly say quite openly that when PLANS
is watching you must be discreet; once you have them off your case, you
can start back with eurythmy etc. (Just last week someone asked for a
list of Waldorf charters in California, and was cautioned not to name
the schools because PLANS might be listening!)
"So what's the problem? Ah, you say that the teachers are those
with experience in Waldorf schools and therefore true believers, and
will
inevitably want to instill anthroposophy in the pupils and since
anthroposphy is, according to you, a religion, it is unconstitutional.
This
is, again imo, absurd."
Absurd I agree, but it *is* what happens. The true believers do indeed
want to instill anthroposophy, how can you think that we don't know that
happens? We were *there*.
"It would mean that no public school teacher could have any religious
beliefs whatsoever."
(Sigh) (I do hope I have another lifetime where I don't have to keep
saying all this.) Public school teachers in the US may hold any beliefs
they like; no one ever even asks them about their religious beliefs. The
constitution protects their beliefs and their worship as it is intended
to protect everyone's. (Note I do not say it is always effective in
this; as Soren points out it is in fact being seriously undermined.) The
idea is that the teacher's spirituality is their own business, but they
may not teach the children their beliefs, in a state-funded program.
(Nor can they create a "spiritual environment," because it is virtually
impossible to do that in the generic, offend-nobody way Waldorf
pretends; there is always an agenda. You are implementing *somebody's*
spirituality and you are going to be stepping on the toes of lots of
other somebodies.) Get it? If a public school can teach religious
beliefs, how are we to decide *whose* religious beliefs will be taught?
We are a pluralistic society (Lisa mentioned Catholics, Jews, Buddhists,
Wiccans, Pagans etc., but the problem is the families in public schools
in the United States come from literally HUNDREDS of different faiths,
and non-faiths, all of which can be respected on equal footing only if
none is promoted by the state.
"In other words, no Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
Protestants, Mormons would be allowed to teach in public schools because
they would be instilling their own beliefs in the children."
Whew. Again, listen carefully Frank, 'cus it's really a simple idea:
Catholics, Jews etc. obviously teach in the public schools here (the US
is a very religious country and teachers with religious beliefs
certainly vastly outnumber those without). All they have to do is *not*
instill their beliefs in the children.
This is not as hard as it may sound from a Waldorf perspective, where
spirituality is the main event and spirituality can be very
time-consuming. In non-religious schools reading, writing and academic
subjects take up the bulk of the day. It is not so hard for the teacher
to keep her religious beliefs out of the classroom if she understood,
from the start, that her job description is history or languages or math
or art, not soul work.
I wrote:
) In fact, you are right that it i