Talk:Waldorf School

Links to external sites[edit]

While criticism of Waldorf education is of course sometimes legitimate, consider suspect any organizations associated with the critic Dan Dugan, who is perhaps the chief organizer against Waldorf Schools. See"Audio McCarthyism" a six-page article from "Stereophile" magazine, which presents Dugan as a user of McCarthyite deception and smear tactics.

Talk about smear tactics! The Stereophile article has nothing to do with Waldorf education--it's a hysterical reaction to my busting of consumer fraud in the "high end" hi-fi business. The above paragraph is by Sune Nordwall, himself hysterical about anybody having the gall to criticize his cult's school. -Dan Dugan

The personalities of Dan Dugan and Sune Nordwall are not relevant to maintaining the article on Waldorf Schools. This is pure ad-hominem argument. Note that a warning that a person or organization is presenting false or misleading information about the subject may be appropriate, if accompanied by specific evidence of same, which could then be discussed. In the absence of that I intend to edit this irrelevant discussion out after allowing time for objection. (This comment and others in bold are by Abd.)

Links: Waldorf Critics and Waldorf Survivors offer very personal views of individual schools by individuals who have been overly challenged by some aspect of Waldorf Education. No two Waldorf schools are identical in nature and the experiences of individuals vary.

The individuals running these sites have very subjective and negative views on waldorf education.

The sure do, I'm one of them. What's interesting is the problems that crop up at Waldorf schools all over the world. These indicate systemic problems. -Dan Dugan

The last two paragraphs add nothing to the discussion. the first one simply repeats what was in the paragraph before, only with more highly charged language, and the second, while a little more relevant, still lacks specifics, and could be said about nearly any social movement.

Parents considering Waldorf for their children are encouraged to meet the individual teachers at the prospective Waldorf/Steiner school they would attend.

This should practically go without saying, and should apply to any form of education. It seems innocuous enough, however.

Racism?[edit]

First off- I am not anti-Waldorf, I have a lot of respect for the Waldorf system- in particular the associated Camphill communities (a Scottish, special-needs variant of Waldorf schools)

As somebody thinking about sending a child to a Waldorf school, I would like some clarification on what role racist theory plays in the ethos of Waldorf education. I have, for example, seen the following quote in a number of articles on the internet (from an interview with Rudolf Steiner in "German Weekly" 1888).

"You see, when we really study science and history, we must conclude that if people become increasingly strong, they will also become increasingly stupid. If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows intelligence. ... It is indeed true that the more the fair individuals die out the more will the instinctive wisdom of humans vanish."

There also appear to be several more references to African people being "sub-races".

Although Waldorf schools appear to be progressive, caring, gentle places, I cant help thinking that they appear to be a little "aryan" (emphasis on german culture, predominance of caucasian children).

I know that there is perhaps no simple answer to these questions, but it would be nice to get some answers from individuals who are neither extremely "pro" or "anti" the Waldorf system.

For some comments in detail on the points mentioned, see Some comments on a libelous article on Waldorf education in Salon.com

Sune Nordwall Co-webmaster of WaldorfAnswers 29 July, 2005

Not Racist[edit]

Hello, I'm a Waldorf homeschooler who researched these accusations of racism when I first started. It just didn't seem to jive with the holistic beauty of the education. SO anyway, you asked, so I'm trying to respond.

Steiner was using a whole different definition of race -- meaning the entire human "race" is passing through different stages. This was all based in the work of a popular Theosophist (is that the term?) at the time. Steiner later rejected the whole teminology and used the new term "cultural epoch" to apply to the same idea.

I found two articles that helped me with the racism/anti-semitic accusations, the first very factual, and the second seems to be from a very personal viewpoint. I hope they help you decide. Here are the links: http://www.defendingsteiner.com/misconceptions/index.php http://www.coulee-de-serrant.com/steinerangl.htm Best wishes

Yes, Racist[edit]

The articles posted anonymously above are a very convoluted defenses of the "context" which his remarks were made in. In fact the defense is undermined by the fact that he made a few other racist remarks between 1920 and 1923 which I found at http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?sort=&mid=1717610469

“[T]he representative people for the development of the consciousness soul, hence for what matters particularly in our age, is the Anglo-Saxon nation. The Anglo-Saxon people are those who through their whole organization are predisposed to develop the consciousness soul to a special degree. The prominent position occupied by the Anglo-Saxon nation in our time is indeed due to the fact that this nation is especially suited for the development of the consciousness soul.” (Steiner, 1921, Materialism and the Task of Anthroposophy. Trans. Maria St. Goar. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987. p. 195)

“No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French language. . .It is also possible at the present time that the French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race.” (Steiner, Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922 to 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year. Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988. pp. 87-88)

“The most characteristic sign of the time is the belief that when a group of individuals have set up some trashy proposition as a general program – such as the unity of all men regardless of race, nation or color, and so forth – something has been accomplished. Nothing has been accomplished except to throw sand into people’s eyes. Something real is attained only when we note the differences and realize what world conditions are.” (Steiner, 1920, Spiritual Science as a Foundation for Social Forms. Trans. Maria St. Goar. Ed. Alan Howard. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1986. p. 122)

Sqgl (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)sqgl[reply]

Why is this link inluded in this article?[edit]

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/

Is the above link really relevant? The linked article relates to a rather esoteric debate about hifi cables from 1992. It contains no references, direct or indirect to Waldorf education. It does however show that somebody once disagreed with "Dan Dugan's" (no suggestion that it is the Dan Dugan) ideas about stereo systems.

Why is this link inluded in an article about Waldorf schools?

The link was included as other research has shown that it is the same D. Dugan, and in other venues his language and tactics regarding Waldorf Education have been similar.

This seems like an ad-hominem arguement to me. Dugan may be an idiot- but are the points he make idiotic? In order to counter his criticisms it is necessary to publish them together with critiques of the points he raises by observers. By censoring and defaming Dugan, you merely lend him more credibility.--Fergie 10:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate[edit]

Waldorf schools' pedagogy and practice have often been widely hailed for their creativity and intelligent design, not only by satisfied parents, but by independent educational experts.

Which is followed by two supporting quotes. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive not to promote any entity. I do not doubt that those quotes are true, and that it is factual to say that Waldorf schools have been positively "hailed." But, while the existence of those quotes is factual, the quotes' meaning is not. They present what are, from any eye, opinions, not facts. As Wikipedia pledges to be free of ads and to contain only factual information, those opinions should be removed. ✈ James C. 03:51, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

P.S. Granted, I am a deviant. I also believe the vast majority of sentences starting with "many believe" should also be removed. POV should not apply to mere personal opinions, but also those widely held.

This is not only your opinion, it is the collective opinion of wikipedians- see the wikipedia styleguide section on this

--Fergie 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Federal Lawsuit[edit]

A lawsuit challenging the some "Waldorf methods" public (state supported) elementary schools in California has been on going for several years. The organization filing the lawsuit (PLANS) has the website of http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/critics.html. The idea of the lawsuit doesn't belong in the article for sure, but I think it is instructive of how contentious some of the people posting to this topic can be. While I know that the Wikipedia trys to have neutral evaluations of topics, I think it will be hard in this case unless the administrators take the ability to edit the article away.

Minor change[edit]

I changed the obviously biased "independent experts and satisfied parents widely" part to "adherents", in the interest of pursuing NPOV. I hope I didn't offend anybody.

Two questions[edit]

First, why does it say this article may be biased when it seems to contain both positive and critical information? I can't seem to find any information on it.

Second, as a homeschooler in a growing Waldorf homeschool movement, I would like to see the name of this article changed to 'Waldorf Education' with 'Waldorf School' being a redirect that takes you there. Waldorf is a big part of schools, homeschools, special communities for the disabled, etc.

Points on Soccer, Uniforms and Teachers' min age removed by 24.195.107.120[edit]

24.195.107.120 removed the following from the article as untrue.

As a Steiner parent of 12 years in the UK I know them all to be true . Would anyone else support them . Lumos3 12:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no school uniform but a dress code is enforced which bans clothing with text or pictures and designer clothing.

Football (soccer) is banned at most schools except for the oldest children. The reason usually given for this is that it leads to an imbalance of the childs physical skills towards the feet rather than the hands.

Teachers are expected to have had some life experience before taking up a post and there is no minimum age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.45.121 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person deleting them responds:

"As a Steiner parent of 12 years in the UK I know them all to be true."

They may very well have been true at HIS school! But that does not make them true in general.

I explained my deletions as follows:

1. There generally is no dress code "which bans clothing with text or pictures and designer clothing".

I add: Some schools may tell students to not wear offensive clothing. But banning "designer clothing" is plain ridiculous! Some schools may have dress codes. Most don't!

2. Football (soccer) is not banned at most schools.

I add: It may be banned at some schools, but certainly not at most. A true statement would be that it is not played much.

3. There is no minimum age of 28 for teacher.

Nothing to add to that! I've worked in the movement for decades and this is simply nonsense! Rudolf Grosse, a previous director of the Pedagogical Section in Dornach, started teaching at a Steiner schools when he was 21.

4. Teachers are not expected to have had some life experience before taking up a post, although this is looked upon favourably.

The problem with this page is that the content belies the fact that Waldorf schools are all autonomous. There is common practice, but that's about as far as it goes. This common practice should be described accurately, however.

I hope some editor at Wikipedia is interested in not having spurious information appear on these pages.

Detlef Hardorp, European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education (www.ecswe.org)

P.S.: I only deleted that which was clearly incorrect in the generality claimed. This does not imply that the rest of the text is correct as it stands. I certainly won't be bothered to work on a text in any detail when all the input gets undone a few hours later!

I have direct experience of 4 different schools in the UK and contact with other parents at 3 more and these rules seem universal here. I know of no school that does not follow them.

When you contribute to Wikipedia the text is not yours its the encyclopaedia’s. You must be prepared to see it changed around and to argue your points here to arrive at a consensus. But please dont be discouraged its well worth the effort.

Lumos3 16:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Edited the brief history today to better reflect the circumstances and motivations at the time. The first Waldorf school was certainly not started for Emil Molt; he was simply a catalyst in the process, generously providing necessary funding for the building and operational expenses. See for example the book review of "Emil Molt and the Beginnings of the Waldorf School Movement". Waldorf pegagogy had nothing to do with World War I other than timing. Steiner's objectives were to provide schooling that would be:

1. Inclusive - of all social classes and both genders (i.e. co-educational);

2. Broad (generic) - 12 years of common learning for all trades and vocations;

3. Balanced - developing the body, soul and mind equally (balance of physical, artistic and intellectual activities); and

4. Timely - in accordance with how children naturally develop (seven-year cycles).

All of these objectives were major innovations at the time. The last two parts are tied in with his anthroposophy as much as it is the theoretical basis for them. As most schools have since adopted the first two ideas, it is the balance and timeliness of Waldorf pedagogy that sets it apart from other methods.

Rename this page?[edit]

Hello, I mentioned in "Two questions" above that I felt that this page should be renamed "Waldorf Education." Waldorf schools are just one part of the education movement which includes homeschooling, special education, and child care -- these don't occur in schools. Thus I suggested and am now going to officially request a renaming (with a redirect page at "Waldorf Schools"). Does anyone object?