WC Observer: Spotlight on the Waldorf Critics

« April 2005 | Main | September 2005 »

August 30, 2005

The Big Lie from PLANS

Yes, the web-site of PLANS includes a lot of lies. This quote is a particularly glaring example. The untruth of this particular example has been pointed out over and over and over again. It has been pointed out on the Waldorf Critics discussion list. It has been pointed out on Anthroposophy Tomorrow. Daniel Hindes provided a detailed analysis of the first half of this article, coming up with 66 pages worth of paragraph by paragraph analysis of the problems with the article. But the article is still up on PLANS site. [Link to Daniel's article can be found starting from his page of Refutations: http://www.defendingsteiner.com/refutations/index.php
This example of something that Steiner supposedly "said" has been up on the PLANS web-site for years. It is the first paragraph of an article by Peter Staudenmaier entitled: Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture series was titled "The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the "germanic-nordic" peoples, the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race. [1]

I would like to challenge the Waldorf Critics to verify this quote by providing:
1)The full quote.
2)The date and title of the lecture in question.
3)The GA number of the volume wherein it was published.
I will personally donate $50 to PLANS for their court case if anyone can verify this quote. Since I am a very poorly paid public librarian, $50 represents a lot of money. I am putting up this offer to show that I am quite serious about the claim that PLANS and the WC publish lies.

A few ground rules - the lecture proffered must have been given in Norway. The quote needs to be translated into English, but it would be best if it could also be provided in German. If the quote provided includes ellipses, the amount of skipped text must be identified in brackets. I have ten days after a quote is offered to research the quote and confirm that it is indeed an accurate reflection of Steiner's spoken words. The sample quotes need to be offered as comments on this blog. Any irrelevant quotes (attempts to prove that Steiner was indeed a racist by quoting other stuff, not connected with the example above) will result in $5 being subtracted from the proposed donation each time such a quote is put forward. And, to be even meaner, I will only publish the citation for such quotes, not the quote themselves.

I'm waiting...I have a feeling I'll be waiting a very, very long time.

Posted by Deborah at 7:14 AM | Comments (0)

August 29, 2005

Returning to Pt 1, "Lies on waldorf critics website"

Suffering the "Summer Lazies", I didn't get much further than Paragraph One in Dan Dugan's challenge to "expose any lies" on the PLANS website. I do still intend to return to it.

However, there is some unfinished business remaining on the analysis of the lies on Paragraph One. Dan has formed a response of sorts to the issues, and I would like to take this opportunity to explore that response. I'm happy to report he wasn't in wholesale disagreement with me on each of the issues I raised. He agreed with at least one of them, my assertion that the waldorf critics are but a "motley handful" of people. Well! That's a good start!

But we've still a long way to go. My original argument can be found here . Unfortunately, Dan's response won't be there. Dan's response was not written to me directly, but instead to a third individual who had read my remarks and commented upon them, adding to them some of his own thoughts as well.

The PLANS website claims itself to be a "worldwide network" of former Waldorf parents, teachers, administrators, etc.

In my piece, I pointed out that despite concerted efforts on my part, I couldn't find but a single individual who would admit to being a member of this "worldwide network" besides board members, and quipped that six of the seven board of directors live "close enough they could lunch together". Dan pointedly disagreed, and insisted but just five were living close by.

I hate being wrong. Am I? No, I don't think so. Count them again, Dan. Not too hard, since only ONE of the board of directors lives outside an only mildly extravagant "Let's Do Lunch" geographical perimeter. Though I didn't count them in my original tally, all from PLANS "Supporting Advisory" board could easily join them as well, all except one-"The Amazing Randi"-who calls Florida his home.

So Dan?!?! Come on...........! Ten of the twelve live within just hours of you. Why won't you concede my point on this?

Moving to the next contention. I claimed that PLANS has a lawyer who "has been funded by a religious organization which was deceived into believing that Waldorf schools engage in witchcraft". Dan takes issue, saying his lawyer "would be very pleased to be funded", and attempts to discredit my comment by suggesting that there were just "two small grants" from Pacific Justice Institute (which IS a religious organization btw).

Dan, since these "two small grants" represent the lion's share of the moneys paid thus far (as publicly disclosed, anyway), attempts to minimize it seem a little silly. In 1999, PLANS reports the first of the grants as an "earmarked" asset in their disclosure of financial resources to the IRS. The amount indicated in the first funding was $15000 (cost reimbursable grant), and a copy of the grant application was included. Media later reported that $18000 in grant money had been provided.

Dan also tries to downplay the role the witchcraft allegations played in this application, and once again offers his public the disingenuous denial, "I don't know where this impression came from". I say "disingenuous", because this isn't some new, outta the blue, issue. This is a very, very old story, reaching all the way back to PLANS very earliest days as leaflet passing, media-microphone blabbing, poster waving rabble-rousers, and he fully well knows the issue is still 'out there' because it continues to be raised in the media.

As evident in this initial grant application, PJI was explicitly told that the involved students were "required to fold their arms and chant, say a pledge to the sun flag, and other Wicca-based religious practices." PLANS had organized demonstrations at the Waldorf methods school in one of the districts being sued, and subsequent to these demonstrations, the media widely reported the witchcraft allegations. One local paper reported, "By 1997, administrators had to fend off claims that the school was teaching witchcraft. Dan Dugan, a Bay Area activist with a goal to rid public schools of all such Waldorf teachings, led the protest then and now."

Dan attempts to deflect from PLANS any measure of responsibility for the witchcraft allegations with a personal abstention: he didn't make the allegations, and he doesn't believe them himself. However, there is no question that in the grant application for the lawsuit, and in PR both then and ever since, Dan has benefitted PLANS by playing this both ways. He will assert PLANS represents those individuals who believed it, including those who made the allegations to TV and print reporters. This fact too was a representation made on behalf of PLANS in the grant application. Both he and others on the PLANS board stood right alongside those making the allegations, and in some measure, coordinated with them in the organized demonstrations. PLANS milked this nonsense charge for every drop it afforded, as the PLANS president, Debra Snell acknowledged at least once on the WC list. The "witchcraft" accusations brought PLANS much-sought media attention. They bought PLANS at least $15000 to apply toward legal expenses. And for the upcoming trial itself, PLANS added one of the most prominent individuals to have made the witchcraft allegations to their own WITNESS LIST!!

But gee, Dan.............."I don't know where this impression came from"??????????????? Cut it out, already, before your nose grows so long it attracts woodpeckers.

I haven't finished all the remaining 'unfinished business' from Paragraph One. The rest will have to wait. But before I sign off on this installment, I thought I'd comment that the WC list continues to roast an unidentified "Board Chair" of a private Waldorf school someplace for her failure to be currently and accurately informed on the status of the PLANS lawsuit. After all, list members argue, it's "her job" to be informed of issues which pertain to the Waldorf movement.

Ironically, it's clear PLANS founding board member Dan Dugan is demonstrating a few key knowledge "gaps" of his own regarding his own organization.

Posted by Linda at 9:19 PM | Comments (1)

August 28, 2005

Waldorf Critics display ignorance

A great delight of my life as an undergraduate was studying Ancient Greek for 3 years. Reading Homer, Aristotle, Herodotus, Plato and Euripides in Greek (very badly, I admit) was a thrill. In addition, my fellow students were a diverse and fascinating bunch.

But I digress.

Are Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf Schools `Non-Sectarian'?
Dan Dugan and Judy Daar

was published in Free Inquiry in 1994. I'm not going to take the time to analyze the entire article (already taken care of), but there is one goody I wanted to point out. At the very end of the article it says:

"The four temperaments" refers to Steiner's revival of medieval psychology. Waldorf teachers classify personalities as sanguine, melancholic, phlegmatic, or choleric, and treat children differently according to their types.

Now it is true that scholars in the Middle Ages still used these terms, although during that period they had little to do with psychology: these concepts were actually central to medieval medical practice.

My amusement arises from two sources. First, the fact that Dan and Judy are unaware of the true source of the temperaments in Ancient Greece. The ideas were derived from Aristotle's work with the elements and transformed into medical practice by Galen (2nd century A.D.) Everyone calls them "medieval" so at least their ignorance is common currency.

The second source of amusement is the following quote:

A psychology colleague at Oxford remarked recently that, as a classification of personality types, the four humours are as good as any that has ever been offered.

[p.153]

From Greek Fire: The Influence of Ancient Greece on the Modern World by Oliver Taplin. Macmillan, 1989.

I'd much rather study the work of someone like Rudolf Steiner, who had the good sense to recognize a useful set of concepts, develop them further and put them into practice; than hang out with the Waldorf Critics who, in spite of all the ranting about ad homs, just toss out the word "medieval" and feel no need to think further.

Ignorance and closed minds.

Posted by Deborah at 7:25 PM

What is an "anthroposophical education"?

I came across a potentially confusing phrase today, "anthroposophical education". It is potentially confusing because it could be understood two ways. It could mean: a school that will teach children anthroposophy. Or it could mean: a curriculum that is consistent with the principles of anthroposophy, even as it does not teach anthroposophy.

Rudolf Steiner explicitly and repeatedly stated that the Waldorf Schools SHOULD NOT teach anthroposophy to the students. He said at one point that a healthy child would have a natural repulsion to anthroposophy if they encountered it. This is something that those familiar with anthroposophy take seriously; it is not for children. You will have a very hard time finding a school that teaches anthroposophy to children; no Waldorf school should be doing it.

What is found at most Waldorf Schools is an "anthroposophical education" in the sense of an education that anthroposophists find appropriate for children. An "anthroposophically appropriate" curriculum is one that takes the anthroposophical knowledge of the human being, such as the stages of childhood development, and uses this knowledge to shape a curriculum that addresses the child where she is at, in each phase of development. That is, you use the understanding gained by a study of anthroposophy to create something new, a whole curriculum, or a daily lesson plan.

Using one thing to create another is a distinction lost on many at the Waldorf Critics list. When Joseph Beuys used Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy as inspiration to create his artwork, the results are not "anthroposophy" just because the inspiration behind their creation was anthroposophy (FWIW I am aware of the debate in art history circles about how much or little Rudolf Steiner actually influenced Joseph Beuys). Likewise, when a Waldorf teacher uses anthroposophy as a guide to creating a lesson plan, the resulting lesson plan is not "anthroposophy". It is the same principle as creating a lesson plan using Backwards Design Principles. The resulting lesson plan is a lesson plan consistent with the principles of Backwards Design. It is not "Backwards Design" itself. This principle of using something (anthroposophy) as an inspiration to create something else (a pedagogy) seems very simple to me, yet it has confused the best minds at the Waldorf Critics list.

Posted by Daniel at 1:09 PM | Comments (0)

August 27, 2005

No Progress to Report

I'm delighted to report that PLANS has made no progress at all in correcting the lies on their web-site.

The piece about children having to all embroider the same design has not been modified (as suggested by Dan Dugan) with the word "usually." The unsubstantiated claims that children "meditate" in school have neither been substantiated nor removed.

My highlighting of the outrageous cutting of Eugene Schwartz' talk has been ignored. There it still sits, missing over 700 words, kindly represented by 4 sets of dots. Still no link to his complete talk. Still no apology for the blatant misrepresentation of his meaning. No withdrawal of the rumor mongering about the end of Mr. Schwartz' employment at Sunbridge.

Now, the WC has provided a good explanation of why they don't have to correct any of the lies we have been pointing out. It is because we aren't pointing them out on the WC list. Right. Sure. Okay. Who could possibly argue with logic like that?

Posted by Deborah at 1:46 PM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2005

Newcomers getting seasoned for the WC stew

It's more of the same at the WC list. Behold them today as they help nurture each new visitor with well-rehearsed paranoia and rumored conspiracies, blowing hot air on each honest concern raised and helping set each ember ablaze. Ahh...behold as a brand-new anti-Waldorf spitfire is brought to life.

The WC are quite pleased to see their timeworn Eugene Schwartz propaganda infect another as well. Though I'm sure that most at the WC believe their own propaganda about Mr. Schwartz, I know very well that most of them understand completely how a Waldorf teacher could be confused about where things stand at this moment in their court case.

A teacher apparently told the PLANS-Ousted "near" Waldorf parent that a judge or jury had found that the school was not sectarian or religious, though of course the PLANS court trial is poised to begin in a few weeks. Ah! Further evidence that Waldorf Lies Lies Lies! Or is it?

This is what the judge did say:

"PLANS argues that “excessive entanglement” exists merely because teachers from public and private Waldorf schools attend the same classes, and because public Waldorf teachers are often hired from private Waldorf schools. PLANS presents no curriculum evidence from either school at issue to support such claims, and, notably, the court’s pretrial order specifically lists the curriculum in the two schools as a “disputed fact".

And the judge ruled: "Therefore, PLANS’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. "

The case was thrown out by a judge at one point even before this, and it was dead about a year until PLANS succeeded at the appellate level to have the case reinstated.

Of course, these rulings proved to be just one of many chapters in the case. The order quoted above was for PLANS motion of summary judgement only, leaving PLANS free to proceed onward for a full court trial. But it isn't hard to understand why a teacher someplace would be confused by all the legal nuances and falsely assume that this particular judge's ruling was final. I'm sure most Waldorf teachers aren't watching this case closely at all. Waldorf and anthroposophy aren't being sued, the case doesn't impact Waldorf schools or Waldorf teachers. It's a public school lawsuit, not a Waldorf school lawsuit. But funny thing is, I know teachers in one of the school districts being sued, and they hadn't heard of the case either. It is very easy to understand how someone like this teacher would be mistaken. To the casually curious, it would be easy to misunderstand what's going on.

Misunderstandings about this particular potentially misleading court ruling have been a topic of discussion on the WC list many times before now. Dan himself has dealt with them before, and has explained essentially the same thing that I just did about this court ruling, yet now he expresses almost shocked surprise about rumors like these. "It's always interesting what the Waldorf rumor mill conjures up," he says. "No judge has ever ruled on that issue!"

The court ruled PLANS hadn't demonstrated the school was religious or parochial in anyway. Since PLANS had asked the court to find that Waldorf was so, and failed, it isn't too tough to see how a conclusion like this teacher's could be "conjured up".

This mistake is not part of some secret conspiracy to fool the public, though the WC crowd there now appears quite content to leave this impression. It was a mistake made by a teacher who has better things to do than obsessively track every twist, turn and tiddle this case has taken over the past, what is it, nine years?

Now on to the subject of Eugene Schwartz and his supposed firing as "punishment" by the Waldorf movement for speaking "the truth". How many critics repeat this story now? Over and over again? None of them know what happened, if anything did, or why. Several years ago, Dan Dugan shared information from the one and only communication Mr. Schwartz reportedly sent to him regarding this question, and Mr. Schwartz did NOT say that he was "fired for telling the truth" in this communication, not in the account given then. Sunbridge denied this happened as well, again according to Mr. Dugan at the time. And nobody has come forward there since to report this either. Apparently nobody has ever confirmed or substantiated this rumor, but the WC have been actively spreading it for years!!

Contrary to the impression one might form reading these critics, Eugene Schwartz is hardly a pariah in the Waldorf movement. He's probably one of its most respected, most honored, and most warmly received educators! His books are widely distributed. One of my children's teachers last year distributed several articles written by Schwartz to parents, and spoke of him in something just less than awed tones. He's widely admired for his views about Waldorf education, and he is enormously liked. Through some admirers who've known him personally, I understand him to be very warm, funny, likable --with a depth of wisdom about children. He is still very firmly planted in the Waldorf movement, as a Waldorf teacher, a teacher of Waldorf teachers, a very popular speaker and author, and a widely respected authority on Waldorf education.

To paraphrase Dan himself, it's always interesting what the Waldorf Critics rumor mill conjures up.

Posted by Linda at 5:25 PM | Comments (16)

August 21, 2005

Waldorf Critics and why Eurythmy is not "Anthroposophy"

Over in the commnts of my posting on the Influence of Books, Peter "Pete" K. has taken me to task for misunderstanding Rudolf Steiner's indications about how Eurythmy=Anthroposophy, and accused me of using "Waldorf Speak" to obfuscate the fact, parrotting a "party line" because I disagree with him. He is mistaken, as I labor to demonstrate in my response, which I copy below. Peter wrote:

Daniel, I'm quite aware of the party line on Eurythmy. That you say it is not Anthroposophy is, well, bizarre. But, I have no desire to come here to your site and teach you about what Eurythmy is. Here is what Steiner said about it - and I would recommend you read the entire lecture before suggesting Eurythmy is nothing more than an art form. Some of us who are accustomed to Waldorf-speak have better things to do than to be instructed by you on what you apparently know very little about, or if you do, are unwilling to discuss honestly. Here - talk to Steiner:

"I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy.

It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception."

From Rudolf Steiner's "Lecture on Eurythmy" August 26, 1923 And please, take the time to read the entire lecture. http://wn.rsarchive.org/Eurhythmy/19230826p01.html

Pete

It is not my intention to parrot any sort of "party line". First, no one has ever suggested that I do so, much less told me what such a line should be, and second, I'm not the type of person for parties or conformity. You appear frustrated that you find so few people who agree with you, but I would suggest that this is because the facts are against you, and not because of some sort of Waldorf conspiracy.

I have read the entire lecture in question (and several others). More importantly, I have about 15 years experience practicing Eurythmy (I can also sing fairly well, play three instruments, draw, paint, and knit, thanks to a Waldorf education). So when I talk about what Eurythmy is or isn't, I can talk as one who has done the movements and exercises (just as I have practiced scales on my cello, and done life-drawing exercises in graphic arts). I have experienced about 10 different Eurythmy teachers on three different continents, observed their different approaches to teaching Eurythmy, and observed several professional performances. I have also studied a lot of anthroposophy. None of my Eurythmy classes ever talked about anthroposophical subjects; they described the movements and what they were looking for as far as forms. And they really tried to get us to have a feeling for what we were doing, so that the movements would come from the heart, and not be mechanical. A parallel is perhaps applicable in music. Beethoven's piano sonatas are renown for being fairly simple to play. Yet they are one among the more difficult pieces to perform, because you really have to feel them properly in order to have them sound satisfying. Done improperly, they sound plodding and mechanical. It takes a real artist to bring them to life. Eurythmy is the same, and I say this from experience.

I've had a lot of real Eurythmy teachers (it is a four-year training, seven for Curative Eurythmy), I don’t need you to "teach" me what Eurythmy is, because, frankly, you are not qualified.

Rudolf Steiner said a lot about Eurythmy, five volumes worth, in all, including the lecture I quoted. You have taken two further paragraphs from it, and apparently misunderstood them, because you have drawn a conclusion from them that is not supported by what is there. Rudolf Steiner said:

I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy.

It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception.

According to Rudolf Steiner, all of the arts originated in spiritual impulses, Eurythmy like the rest of them. Steiner is explicitly NOT saying that Eurythmy is Anthroposophy. He is saying that Eurythmy, like literally everything else in the world, originates from a spiritual impulse. Steiner was an Idealistic philosopher (in the technical sense); he believed that everything in the material world had its origin in the spiritual world. Now this spiritual world is not "Anthroposophy". The term "Anthroposophy" is not synonymous with "spiritual world". Anthroposophy is a method of investigating what exists, it is not the thing investigated. (For some, Anthroposophy is the results of such investigations in the form of hypotheses, or "Steiner says" quotes, but these are really just shadows of the real thing.) Now, according to Rudolf Steiner as cited above, the art of Eurythmy has its origin in a spiritual impulse, one that is closely related to the Anthroposophy. But this does not change the fact that the result of this impulse is an Art, an Art just like the other arts. Now that it exists, it is possible to study Eurythmy and perform it entirely without reference to its origins, as is done in Waldorf schools.

You are quite combative with your opinions, but that does not change the fact that they are hasty and ill-informed. You presume to "teach" me about Eurythmy, but you can't take the time to read and understand two paragraphs. So I'm sorry if everyone who has actual experience with the subjects we are talking about contradicts your opinions. If several people disagree with you, it may simply be because you are wrong, and not some "party line" designed to fool you. If I could recommend anything, it would be to slow down and study a subject before becoming an instant expert in so-called "Waldorf Speak". Get your basic facts correct, please.

Posted by Daniel at 8:25 PM | Comments (0)

Lying by omission (or how to misuse ellipsis)

Here is a wonderful example of how PLANS (with malice) distorts a quote. This excerpt from a talk is available on the PLANS website. The poster inserted 4 ellipses. As you can see by my inserts in brackets, these ellipses represent substantial amounts of missing content, a total of 730 words snipped. Although this is certainly not correct usage * this blatant chopping is not, by any means, the worst bit. What makes the entire thing totally outrageous is that the entire talk by Eugene Schwartz is posted on the PLANS site. Two minutes of effort would have provided a link to the complete content, making it possible for the reader to experience the unsnipped remarks for him/herself. Nope. Unless the site browser is smart enough to realize that the editing has changed the meaning and smart enough to try to track down the actual talk, this bit of blatant deception will go undetected. No one can possibly claim that this sort of “editing” happens by accident. Nor can it be claimed that the meaning of the material is not changed by quoting a few carefully selected words and leaving out 730.

You can read Mr. Schwartz’ complete talk here:
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/schwartz.htm

There are some further distortions in the frame added by the poster. Although it is perfectly true that Schwartz is no longer the director of teacher training at Sunbridge College, the underlying thrust is that his frank speaking pushed him to the fringes of the waldorf movement in the U.S. His biography and C.V. are available here:
http://www.millennialchild.com/bio.htm
Note that his books continue to be published by SteinerBooks, he has been continuously employed as a Waldorf teacher and he works as a consultant, working with 20+ Waldorf schools every year. This doesn’t seem to be a movement that can’t handle frank speaking.

Mr. Schwartz said, near the end of his talk: “Let's leave the quoting and back-quoting and citation and finding new obscure manuscripts ...”
PLANS is as much in the habit of quoting (well, mostly misquoting) as they were six years ago. There just seem to be some folks who get stuck and can’t move forward. Eugene Schwartz isn’t one of them. By and large, the teachers and administrators and parents who make up the Waldorf movement aren’t stuck either. But the folks who created the PLANS site and who post on the WC are, with a few exceptions, the quintessence of stuck. They are the malevolent lunatic fringe of the Waldorf education movement.

2. Waldorf Is Based on Occult Theory

On rare occasions a leader in the Waldorf movement has called for full disclosure to parents concerning the Anthroposophic basis of the schools. Eugene Schwartz, a respected Waldorf master teacher and former director of teacher training at Sunbridge College in Spring Valley, New York, says, in a lecture at Sunbridge, November 13, 1999, regarding his own daughter's experience in Waldorf: "I'm glad my daughter gets to speak about God every morning: that's why I send her to a Waldorf school [175 words]. . . I send my daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience . . . [127 words] when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children religious experiences, we are denying the [whole] basis of Waldorf education . . .[417 words] 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. . . Tell everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them know [actual wording: Stop pussyfooting around. Tell everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them know then.]...[11 words]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." Schwartz was replaced as director of teacher training at Sunbridge shortly after making these public remarks. Perhaps other Waldorf leaders are not ready for this level of openness.

*Ellipsis indicate an that part of a quotation has been omitted. Be certain that the omission does not change the sense of the excerpt. If the part of the passage following the ellipsis begins mid-sentence, capitalize the first word and place it in brackets.

Four ellipses alone on a line Indicate that an omitted portion of the text is a paragraph or more. David Toomey - 481 Bartlett Hall - Department of English - University of Massachusetts - Amherst MA 01003)

Posted by Deborah at 12:46 PM | Comments (1)

August 20, 2005

Is Eurythmy Anthroposophy?

As an example of anthroposophy in a Waldorf classroom, someone recently brought up Eurythmy. Eurythmy is taught in Waldorf schools to the students. Is not Eurythmy a perfect example of anthroposophy in the classroom? I can see how, if you knew nothing about Eurythmy, this idea might seem to have some validity. But a proper understanding of what constitutes Eurythmy will show that this is not so.

Eurythmy is an art, like modern dance or sculpture. In a slightly modified form, it can also be applied therapeutically, similar to the way the painting can be applied as a form of therapy, known as Art Therapy. Eurythmy is not anthroposophy. It is possible to practice Eurythmy while knowing nothing whatsoever of anthroposophy, either as an adult or as a child. Anthroposophy is a path of knowing, a way of looking at the world, or a body of teaching. Anthroposophy is a conscious path, through the exercise of thinking. It involves a working with concepts, and applying rational logic. Eurythmy, on the other hand, is artistic expression, in the form of movement. It presupposes no knowledge, no doctrine, no theory. You simply have to do it. Is it good for you? Of course, and so is painting, and so is sculpture, and so is choral singing. This does not make any of the above into anthroposophy. Only by defining anthroposophy as "that which anthropsophists do" is it possible to consider Eurythmy as "anthroposophy".

While it is true that Eurythmy is primarily found around anthroposophical initiatives, such as Waldorf schools, this fact alone does not change the nature of the art form. I know at least three people who work as consultants teaching Eurythmy to business groups as a form of team building. When you create a Eurythmy form in movement with other people, it is absolutely necessary to know where each other person is in their path through the form, in order for you to create your movements in proper harmony with the whole. Interestingly, this awareness of what other people are doing is something that businesses also find valuable. And I also heard a number of comments by coaches about how well Waldorf basketball teams perform, attributed to their training during Eurythmy in keeping track of the movements of other people in a group. So yes, practicing Eurythmy confers benefits. But this does not make Eurythmy "anthroposophy". A quote from Rudolf Steiner may be elucidating:

Rudolf Steiner:
... But some little time after the founding of the Waldorf School, it was discovered that Eurythmy can serve as a very important means of education; and we are now in a position to recognise the full significance of Eurythmy from the educational point of view. In the Waldorf School, [The original Waldorf School in Stuttgart of which Steiner was educational director] Eurythmy has been made a compulsory subject both for boys and girls, right through the school, from the lowest to the highest class; and it has become apparent that what is thus brought to the children as visible speech and music is accepted and absorbed by them in just as natural a way as they absorb spoken language or song in their very early years. The child feels his way quite naturally into the movements of Eurythmy. ... The Waldorf School has already been in existence for some years, and the experience lying behind us justified us in saying that in this school unusual attention is paid to the cultivation of initiative, of will — qualities sorely needed by humanity in the present day. This initiative of the will is developed quite remarkably through Eurythmy, when, as in the Waldorf School, it is used as a means of education. One thing, however, must be made perfectly clear, and that is, that the greatest possible misunderstanding would arise, if for one moment it were to be imagined that Eurythmy could be taught in the schools and looked upon as a valuable asset in education, if, at the same time, as an art it were to be neglected and underestimated. Eurythmy must in the first place be looked upon as an art, and in this it differs in no respect from the other arts. And in the same way that the other arts are taught in the schools, but have an independent artistic existence of their own in the world, so Eurythmy also can only be taught in the schools when it is fully recognised as an art and given its proper place within our modern civilisation.
Lecture of 26th August, 1923 (GA 279)

So the supposition that, "only anthropsophists do it, so it therefore must be anthroposophy" is both factually incorrect and logically in error. Quite a few non-anthroposophists practice Eurythmy. And practicing Eurythmy is not anthroposophy, it is simply art.

Posted by Daniel at 11:27 AM

August 18, 2005

The influence of books

On the Waldorf Critics list it has been suggested that you can tell how much Anthroposophy is taught to the students in a Waldorf School by the types of books in the school library. Beyond the basic illogic of the entire premise, I have to ask the question, which library? At the school where I teach, we have a student library, and a Faculty Library. All the anthroposophical books are locked in the Faculty Library, and students are not allowed access to them. It is probable that not all Waldorf Schools have dual libraries; however, using the above test, the students at my Waldorf School must be entirely free of anthroposophical influence simply due to the library arrangements.



I don't recall any anthroposophical books at the Waldorf Schools that I attended, either. The whole subject was entirely uninteresting to me until I was past school-age; probably a healthy situation. In any case, the mere presence of books is not going to have much effect. To demonstrate influence, you would have to show that students were actually reading such books. I have a hard time picturing a 5th grader getting more than one page into a Steiner book. Heck, most Waldorf Critics can't get that far, much less read an entire book! But they would have us think that school-aged children are reading Rudolf Steiner?

Posted by Daniel at 10:48 PM | Comments (6)

August 16, 2005

More on Dan's evidence for soggy meditations (wet-on-wet)

Or is it soggy evidence? I'm beginning to think that Dan's reasoning is all wet.

Last night I chatted with my sister, who spent, if I remember correctly, four years in a waldorf school. I asked her if she thought that wet-on-wet painting was a form of meditation exercise. She was just as incredulous as my brother. What makes this response amusing is my sister's religious orientation: she is an extremely devout and devoted born-again Christian. She doesn't approve of anthroposophy, although she tolerates me and I tolerate her (this is an achievement for both of us). But she is quite positive about waldorf education, is pleased that her great niece and nephew will be attending a waldorf school and has good memories of her years at the waldorf school.

So, do waldorf schools produce anthroposophists? This is one of the assertions that has been made on the WC.

In my family:
I attended waldorf two years as a teenager - several years later I started studying anthroposophy - mostly through the influence of my aunt who was a long-time anthroposophist

my sister was at a waldorf school for about 4 years (5th - 8th?) and became a born again Christian

my brother was at a waldorf school for about 6 years (3rd - 8th?) and is, as far as I can tell, cheerfully agnostic

my daughter was at two waldorf schools for a total of 13 years (nursery through 7th, 10th-12th) and eventually decided to study anthroposophy. She was at least 28 or older when she decided to take it seriously. Considering that she had a great-aunt who was a totally dedicated anthroposophist, a mother who was and still is very involved in anthroposophy it doesn't seem likely that her "exposure" at school was a deciding factor. On the other hand, the fact that she liked her education is definitely the deciding factor in her choice of school for her children.

I'll have to ask my daughter about her recent high school reunion. How many of her former classmates are involved with anthroposophy, I wonder?

DK

Posted by Deborah at 7:42 PM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2005

The RULES according to the WC and PLANS

THE BASIC RULE: Only negative stuff counts when it comes to waldorf
education.

In practice this means:

Positive newspaper stories are automatically the result of
deception, etc., but a negative newspaper story is the result of a
penetrating and thoughtful investigation.

Positive waldorf anecdotes are always isolated stories, but negative
waldorf anecdotes can be combined into a convincing narrative of
horrors that prove how awful waldorf is.

And so on...

ADDITIONAL RULE: Critics are capable of objectivity about waldorf
due to the strong emotions arising from the terrible experiences
suffered by their children, but waldorf supporters are totally
subjective due to the strong emotions arising from the wonderful
experiences of their children.

Please add additional rules that occur to you...I'm sure I haven't covered all the possible variations!
Deborah

Posted by Deborah at 4:39 PM | Comments (0)

Is wet-on-wet painting in waldorf schools a form of meditation?

Just a quick recap: I grabbed a brief quote off of the PLANS web-site which included the statement:

many of the "artistic" activities in Waldorf are more accurately described as religious rituals, such as meditation on symbols important in Anthroposophy.

I made fun of this statement and Dan offered up the claim that wet-on-wet painting exercises actually were meditation exercises.

I responded:

Please offer up a quotation from Steiner or from a waldorf
teacher using the word meditation in connection with wet-on-wet
painting exercises for children.

Dan’s response fell extremely flat in my opinion. I simply asked for the word meditation used in connection with wet-on-wet painting exercises. He offered two quotes, neither including the word meditation (nor can anything within the quotes be interpreted to imply meditation) and claimed that this matter proved his point. [I’ve included all of Dan’s material at the bottom so that everyone can examine it for themselves.]

To finish off the subject, he includes a quote from Steiner about a color meditation. The work quoted is not a teacher training text, does not describe an exercise for children and isn’t even a painting exercise. (This exercise could be done while contemplating fabric, construction paper, oil paints, pastels or any other color medium. From the actual wording it sounds to me as though it is supposed to be done as an inward exercise, with no color medium whatsoever.) Then he shows some painting samples from a parent which could, possibly, be construed as having something to do with the exercise in question. On the other hand, the painting samples could be the result of perfectly straightforward color work for children. Remember that the children in waldorf schools mostly paint with the three primary colors, so the fact that some of the paintings include red and blue is not exactly an amazing coincidence. Nor are solid backgrounds with a single color in the center conclusive evidence. Many of my daughter’s painting were painted with a single color and many more with just two colors. It is certainly, faintly possible that a teacher at that particular school was indeed trying to influence children by exposing them to a color exercise meant for adults, but I think I’d want a bit more evidence on the point before I formed a final judgement on the matter.

As an example of PLANS research this is pathetic. As “proof” that all of the wet-on-wet painting classes at all of the waldorf schools in the entire world are actually meditation exercises...words fail me.

As part of my “research” on this topic I called up my younger brother who spent several years at a waldorf school. He isn’t an anthroposophist and isn’t terrifically devoted to waldorf (nor does he loathe it). I’d call him cheerfully neutral.

I asked him if he remembered doing wet-on-wet paintings.

B: Yeah, we did a couple a week or so.
D: Do you remember ever doing anything that could possibly be interpreted as a form of meditation in connection with painting?
B: Huh?
[I explained that it was a serious question.]
B: Well, I suppose when we were trying to decide what to paint it might be called a form of meditation...
D: Well, what do you remember about doing these paintings? Did your teachers show you how to do stuff or what?
B: I remember one class where we learned how to paint mountains in the distance.
D: Describe.
B: Well, first you diluted your paint until there was just a little paint, but mostly water and covered the whole paper. Then you took a little more paint, but still fairly dilute and started further down the page and laid down a second layer. Then more paint and a third layer further down. If you made the tops of the layers a little jagged it looked like mountains going off into the distance.
D: Okay.

First, he describes thinking about what to paint. Whoops, creativity and freedom of choice rearing their ugly head. Then he describes a perfectly straightforward class in technique. Hmmm..

My brother’s teacher was a very serious anthroposophist: but somehow he missed the class on making the kids meditate during their wet-on-wet painting classes. Damn!

Deborah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan, thanks very much for including correct citations with each quote. You made my librarian's heart rejoice :-)

Dan offered the following material:

"Art is taught in the Steiner schools independent of contemporary
trends and tastes ... Art is taught, not to make the children into
artists, but to expose them to the healing influence of color, to
exercise their creative wills, and to counteract the tendency of our
time to set the imagination apart from other learning activities."
[Richards, Mary Caroline. Toward Wholeness: Rudolf Steiner Education
in America. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press,
1980, p. 26]

"What we first and foremost want to achieve is to open the mind of
the child for the true quality of the colors, to give him the
exciting experiences of red and blue and yellow and green, and to let
him partake as fully as possible in the healing truth: "Color is a
manifestation of life revealed by the spirit." [Pusch, Ruth, Editor.
Waldorf Schools: Volume I: Kindergarten and Early Grades:
Thirty-three articles from "Education as an Art", Bulletin of the
Waldorf Schools of North America 1940-1978. Spring Valley, NY:
Mercury Press, 1993, p. 111]

Grounding us in Steiner, a meditation on colors:

Concept of a blue circular disc with red surrounding. Then
transformation into a red disc with blue surround. Reconversion to
the original state. Do this seven consecutive times. Conceive through
inner observation how thinking thereby becomes mobile and free in
itself and ultimately is raised to the condition free from the body.
[Steiner, Rudolf. From the History and Contents of the First Section
of the Esoteric School 1904-1914: Letters, Documents, and Lectures.
Edited by Hella Wiesberger, Trans. John Wood. Hudson, NY:
Anthroposophic Press, 1998, p. 71]

And finally, an example of this very exercise, as given to Sharon
Lombard's daughter at the Viroquoa Waldorf School:

http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/artgallery/talismans05-13.html

Posted by Deborah at 3:49 PM | Comments (2)

August 8, 2005

Lies on the PLANS website

After thrashing with critics on PLANS discussion list, off and on, for a few years now, I relish the opening to contribute something to Dan Dugan's challenge to "point out the lies" on his website. A very entertaining assignment :-).

At PLANS's official website, waldorfcritics, things begin well. It's hard to find anything wrong with its opening sentence: "Welcome!". But things immediately slide downhill from there.

Second sentence at this official website begins: "People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is a world-wide network of former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators and trustees who come from a variety of backgrounds." Really? Who are they? Where are they? Very few I met there over the years would admit to being part of PLANS. In fact, I was scolded and lectured on several occasions for presuming anyone to be so. Besides those individuals (seven) who are identified as members of the board of directors of PLANS, I found just *one* other person willing to admit to actually being a member of this supposed "worldwide network". Of those eight members identified, six are from Northern California. A total of four of the eight are former Waldorf education parents, one of them also a former trustee. Two are public school teachers, one of them with no apparent link to Waldorf education. The other did actually teach for a time in a public school which had adopted Waldorf methods in the classroom (though this particular teacher did not). So four of the eight (including the teachers) are decidedly NOT "former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators and trustees." In fact, none of the eight have publicly identified themselves to be a former Waldorf student, although one of them (one of the teachers) did serve a very brief stint (a couple days?) in a "Waldorf for Public School Educators" training program before dropping out.

The individuals PLANS has identified as "supporting advisors" have no relationship to Waldorf either. Instead, I think it would be fair to describe them as borrowed 'guns' from Dan Dugan's "Skeptic's Society" circle. At least Mr. Randi's presence on the "advisory" panel broadens the "skeptic" panel beyond Mr. Dugan's Northern California backyard, where the rest of them all live. I think Mr. Randi comes all the way from Florida.

PLANS is not a "world-wide network" organization-it's a motley handful, most of them living close enough that they could lunch together. And this motley crew beckons attention with just these three fingers.

1. A lawyer, who has been funded by a religious organization which was deceived into believing that Waldorf schools engage in witchcraft. Of course, along with this lawyer, PLANS has a lawsuit, initiated against two public schools for incorporating Waldorf methods in the classroom. One of those schools no longer exists, the other no longer incorporates Waldorf methods~~yet the lawsuit lives on.

2. A website~~one filled with laughably alarmist graspings, such as "Nature Table or Altar" and "Wet-on-Wet Painting as Talisman", as well as some very "unfunny", shameful and disgusting tabloid garbage like, "DENVER SKINHEAD'S FAMILY PROFESSED SOPHISTICATED VERSION OF ARYAN SUPERIORITY MYTH".

3. And lastly, a public discussion board~~which has, over the course of seven or eight years, lured a very limited number to come and post complaints they have toward Waldorf, a surprisingly sizeable number of these people having had no real experience with Waldorf at all. That's right--no real experience, neither as student, parent or teacher, but rather they're what I'd call the garden variety "internet opinionators", who despite having no experience or related qualifications, do enjoy giving a good sermon from the soapbox.

Wow. I managed to say a lot, and I haven't even gone past PLANS's first paragraph! Maybe I can write another chapter later, one on the claim made in paragraph two, "Together, we have performed exhaustive research on Waldorf schools"--the "exhaustive research" which uncovers all manner of reportedly Secret Truths about Waldorf education that nobody who is actually *IN* the Waldorf movement knows anything about.

And in this, I see an intriguing paradox. Which is the *real* Waldorf? And which is the *lie*? The Waldorf that is actually practiced in real schools, by real Waldorf teachers? Or the archetype Waldorf school pieced together via PLANS "exhaustive research" as their "researchers" cherry-pick for odd quotes through the voluminous writings of Rudolf Steiner, reassembling the queerest fragments and filaments into a bizarre monster that the overwhelming majority of Waldorf educators dissociate themselves from immediately, a (luckily) thus far wholly abstract institution which has no real counterpart in existence outside the hallowed walls of the PLANS Research Lab?

Linda Clemens

Posted by Linda at 4:55 PM | Comments (0)

Why have this blog?

The description of the WC-Watch blog is as follows:

A lot of nonsense gets repeated on the WC list (that's "Waldorf Critics") as simple fact. Yet those who challenge these erroneous statements are frequently banned on the flimsiest of pretexts. This blog will examine the facts in an unrestricted forum.

Now I'm sure that some people are scratching their heads. I mean, the Waldorf Critics list is an unmoderated list, right? They have listed themselves as an unmoderated list over at Topioca. (List Type: Unmoderated discussion). The site description sounds rather liberal:

A free-speech public forum operated by PLANS, Inc., as an information resource for anyone interested in Waldorf education who wants to hear views from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. Subscription is open to the public, and postings are not reviewed in advance. Not for the overly sensitive.

Wow. Public. Free-speech. I mean, what how can this cause any sorts of problems? Well, there are rules (on a "free-speech" list).

No ad hominem arguments. This means that you speak freely about the topics, but not about the other subscribers. ... Violation of either of these rules will result in immediate suspension of subscription privileges for a week, and repeat offenders may be permanently banned.

This is where the peculiar interpretation of "ad hominem" comes in. The fancy Latin describes a type of argument based on the premise that the speaker can't be trusted, a kind of "don't listen to what he says, just look who he is". In classical logic, this was considered a fallacy. On the Waldorf Critics list, it is grounds for dismissal. Except that Dan Dugan interprets "ad hominem" slightly differently. To Dugan, an "ad hominem" argument is one that shows a rabid Waldorf Critic to be in error. Saying "you're wrong" is an "ad hominem" to Dugan. Of course, you have to say it more directly, for example, try saying "Peter Staudenmaier is a liar." This will get you banned. It doesn't matter if you have just proven that very point, with quotes, citations and references. Once you come to the logical conclusion, you have just committed a Dan Dugan "ad hominem": you have demonstrated a Waldorf Critic to be in error, to know that they are in error, and then to claim not to know that they are in error. For that, you are banned, from a "free speech" forum!

Additionally, I should point out the basic illogic of having any rules at all on a "free-speech" forum. Either it is free-speech, or it has rules. It can't be both. But that is how PLANS works: not through logic, but by propaganda – using attention-getting words in close proximity (just look at how many times Hitler's name comes up in proximity with Rudolf Steiner on the flimsiest pretexts).

So that is why this Blog is necessary. Over at PLANS' moderated "unmoderated", censored "free-speech" Waldorf Critics mail-list, they can't handle the truth.

Posted by Daniel at 1:29 PM | Comments (4)

August 7, 2005

More "truths" from the PLANS web-site

I was fascinated by the question and answer quoted below. Like most of the material coming out of PLANS it isn't totally false, but there is very little resting on solid ground, to put it mildly.

Most of the waldorf parents I've known, confronted with this sort of "explanation" would be irritated, disgusted, or, I must admit, amused at such bare-faced exaggerations and distortions.

So, I'll take it bit by bit.

First, throughout, the writer acts as though the "school" and the "parents" are two very separate entities. This is odd because most waldorf schools are founded not by teachers, nor by groups of anthroposophists, but by groups of parents. These parents choose to start a waldorf school. They raise money, find a location, hire a teacher or teachers, take care of administration, incorporate, join the board, do everything involved in creating the waldorf school except teach. And, due to the extreme shortage of waldorf teachers in the U.S., some budding schools send someone (usually a parent) off to a teacher education program so they will have a teacher.

Schools that have been around for a few years are also full of parents. The majority of the staff are parents. Most of the teachers are parents. The board consists largely of parents. If "the school" is hiding something from parents "the school" includes...parents! And parents in positions of power and authority.

What sort of people are waldorf parents? Helpless victims who will continue to keep their children in schools that are failing them year after year (and paying high tuition for the privilege besides)? Well, they are a varied group. Many are self-employed entrepreneurs, bossy, domineering, argumentative and very clear on what they expect and want from a school. Others are successful professionals, many are educators (lots of Chicago Public School teachers had their children in the Chicago Waldorf School), some are eccentrics, some are ex-hippies, some are devoutly religious, and so on and on. I've never met any who saw themselves as helpless victims of a waldorf school. This rare species seems to thrive only in online circles.

I suppose I should deal with a few of the actual points raised.

It is true for example, that children in a waldorf school would have trouble transferring for the first 3 or 4 years, due to the different approach to teaching reading. I've never heard of any waldorf school that wasn't totally upfront with parents on this matter and parents are warned that there could be problems transferring their children in the lower grades. It isn't a problem in the upper grades. Children frequently transfer in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and very often after 8th grade. I suppose children occasionally have problems, but most of the families I've known had no difficulties at all. At the Chicago school the 8th grade students moved on into the best high schools (private and public) in the city and suburbs. The school newsletter would have several articles a year telling about one student or another who had won an award, starred in a play, received a scholarship and so on. The demand for waldorf graduates by other schools actually undermined the first few years of the waldorf high school: parents who were offered a generous scholarship by another school with a well-established high school usually took it.

On the retention rates: While I was working at the Chicago Waldorf School we began our accreditation process. This involved simultaneous accreditation through the regional private school association and AWSNA. After we joined the regional group we gained access to their numbers: tuition, attrition rates and lots of other interesting stuff. Our attrition rate was slightly below that of most of the other schools in the region. If I remember correctly, we lost 7% per year, most schools were hovering around 8%.

The most obvious point is that waldorf schools couldn't stay in business if they were as bad as PLANS makes out. Not only are most of the waldorf schools in North America doing quite well, new ones keep opening, year after year.

My daughter recently attended her 20 year class reunion at the Toronto Waldorf School. Twelve out of sixteen graduates managed to make it to the reunion. All of them had positive memories of their waldorf experience, all of them have done well in life, several of them have children in waldorf schools.

Happy parents and happy students and happy graduates are the norm. The victims described below are the exceptions. Whoever they are...they have my sympathy.

Many parents decide not to get involved in the religious nature of the school (Anthroposophy study groups, various workshops, etc.)

One more comment: this represents a catch-22 for waldorf schools. If they do offer information on anthroposophy they are imposing their beliefs on the parents, but if they don't offer information on anthroposophy they are hiding the awful truth. A perfect example of damned if you do and damned if you don't. And typical of the careful reasoning offered by PLANS.

Deborah

Question: Why don't parents simply pull their children out of Waldorf schools when/if they learn of the occultism? Answer: Many parents do pull their children from Waldorf schools. PLANS would like to see data from Waldorf Schools for a statistical comparison with other independent schools' enrollment/retention records. Waldorf education differs from other schools in many ways. It is difficult to simply pull a child and enroll him/her elsewhere. For example, Waldorf discourages reading until the second grade; a child arriving in a public school for grade two after a year at Waldorf would find it very difficult, academically, to catch up. Many ex-Waldorf students require private tutors. Waldorf Education involves learning-by-copying in the elementary years - virtually every lesson is copied from the teacher. Changing to another school can be difficult for young children. Many parents decide not to get involved in the religious nature of the school (Anthroposophy study groups, various workshops, etc.) They leave their children in Waldorf - hoping it will all work out. Waldorf schools do not have a reputation for answering questions or being forthright with information about the connection between themselves and Anthroposophy. Eventually, when the religious/occult nature of the school is seen, many parents feel their options are limited. Some parents simply put up with it and others get more involved in Anthroposophy, changing their lifestyle and losing touch with old friends. They call their schools Waldorf communities. Some parents become engulfed by their school, spending many hours volunteering, attending meetings. Some parents end up donating most of their spare time (and money) for their school. Many parents who leave Waldorf schools find it difficult to adjust and refer to their time there as time spent in a cult. It is not at all unusual for parents and children to seek professional help after leaving a Waldorf Community.

Posted by Deborah at 7:21 PM | Comments (0)

PLANS - accurate? Responses and comments thereon (cont further)

Walden wrote:

And this is it? This is the propaganda???

in reference to my first blog on this topic. I've been observing Walden's style on the WC and he has this tendency to put words into people's "mouths."

Cheer up Walden. I've only just begun. I'm rather impressed with the number of distortions that have turned up from the analysis of one short paragraph from PLANS. Doesn't look as though the site is actually the result of careful thought and research, does it?

Most of what Walden points out has already been covered in my exchanges with Dan (see the earlier blogs on this site).

He does write:

Better still, there is a very informative book on the esoteric background of Waldorf Education - "oddly" enough, the book has those words right there in the title. I doubt the author is attempting to smear the movement. See: "Esoteric background of Waldorf Education - The Cosmic Christ Impulse" by R. Querido

Ah, Walden, please note the word "background" in the title. Nobody I've come across in these discussions has been trying to pretend that waldorf education has no connection to anthroposophy and anthroposophy is full of esoteric material. The argument is whether children are indoctrinated with esoteric material as part of their education at waldorf schools. The paragraph I originally quoted (here it is again)

Parents should be told that although Waldorf bills itself as "arts-based" education to attract holistically minded parents, creativity is actually discouraged, and many of the "artistic" activities in Waldorf are more accurately described as religious rituals, such as meditation on symbols important in Anthroposophy. Children spend a lot of time copying the teacher's work directly off the board. Fourth graders embroidering a purse
must all use the same pattern (often with esoteric symbols).

tries to describe waldorf education as using religious rituals, meditation on symbols, embroidering symbols, suppressing creativity...but so far neither you nor Dan nor the PLANS site has actually done a reasonable job of backing up any of these smears.

Further, Daniel Hindes has demonstrated over and over and over again that various materials on the PLANS site include fake quotes, falsified quotes, purposeful mistranslations, distortions and other outrages against scholarship and truthfulness. Your response? To pretend that none of this material exists.

Serena was right when she talked about heads being buried in the sand.

Deborah

Posted by Deborah at 12:23 PM | Comments (0)

August 6, 2005

PLANS - accurate? Responses and comments thereon (cont)

Continuing my exchange with Dan, he quoted me:

No creativity? At another school I know well, the eighth grade class spends their craft periods learning to design and sew clothing. At the end of the year they put on a fashion show. Every garment is different: different fabric, different choice of design, different items of clothing. Dresses, jackets, skirts, pants, shirts, blouses, everything from formal wear to swimwear. The parents and children at that school would be quite surprised to discover that creativity is supposedly discouraged at waldorf schools.

Dan's response:

Now DK has switched to eighth grade, where,
everybody knows, some creativity -is- allowed.

Our conversation had begun with this quote from PLANS web-site:

Parents should be told that although Waldorf bills itself as "arts-based"
education to attract holistically minded parents, creativity is actually
discouraged, and many of the "artistic" activities in Waldorf are more
accurately described as religious rituals, such as meditation on symbols
important in Anthroposophy. Children spend a lot of time copying the
teacher's work directly off the board. Fourth graders embroidering a purse
must all use the same pattern (often with esoteric symbols).

Dan's response is quite silly. "everybody knows" His preferred audience for the PLANS website is parents who are researching waldorf. Many of them don't know anything and are trying to find out a bit. Further, the bit I quote from the web-site says absolutely nothing about grade levels except to mention fourth graders. There is nothing in the quote to indicate that anything is different in the upper grades of a waldorf elementary school. Based on the material I was quoting, it was completely appropriate to mention 8th grade activities. In addition, any creativity manifested by an 8th grader in a waldorf school could be reasonably attributed to their previous educational experiences, right?

Carrying on with my discussion with Dan:
Dan wrote:

I agree, paranoia feeds on confirmatory evidence,
often trivial. But that doesn't mean any observed
pattern like the use of occultist symbols in
Waldorf student art isn't meaningful.

You have observed this pattern. I haven't. You offer no data to support your observations. I don't either. PLANS has spent 10 + years researching waldorf education. I find the total absence of any organized data from PLANS on any topic connected to waldorf rather telling. Asserting something doesn't prove it. Claiming that lots of people have "told" you stuff isn't all that impressive either.

Then I wrote:

After over 40 years of exposure to waldorf education I can’t think of a
single incident of children being asked to meditate in class or out of
class. Teachers do sometimes ask children to be quiet...perhaps this is
being misinterpreted by a creative member of PLANS?

Dan responded:

Deborah doesn't realize what the endless
wet-on-wet painting exercises were for.

Oh my. Please offer up a quotation from Steiner or from a waldorf teacher using the word meditation in connection with wet-on-wet painting exercises for children. Otherwise I'll continue to believe that the painting exercises are really painting exercises, involving color experiences and the mastery of painting techniques.

Dan ended:

Deborah is welcome to make her points in person, here.

First, there is no such thing as "in person" in cyberspace. I am as much here as I would be there and I like the fact that my comments "here" (and my e-mail address) will not end up, sans my permission, in the WC archive on the PLANS site. But thanks for the generous invite, I'm sure it is kindly meant and that you have nothing but good intentions towards me and my comments.

Later, or tomorrow, I'll tackle Walden's responses to my original post.

Deborah

Posted by Deborah at 1:15 PM | Comments (0)

August 4, 2005

PLANS - accurate? Responses and comments thereon

Dan Dugan quoted me (8-3, on WC)

Like most of the material on the PLANS site, the above remarks are not
backed up by any citations or documentation.

and then responded:

The claims made on Waldorf web sites are backed
up by citations and documentation?

PLANS claims, more than once, to be presenting the results of "research." Research can be (and should be) backed up by citations and documentation.

Next I offered an example of 4th graders doing original designs in craft class. Dan responded:

OK, DK got us. Any categorical statement like
"fourth graders embroidering a purse must all use
the same pattern" is bound to be falsified by one
counter-example.

There are a lot of categorical statements on the PLANS website. I plan to spend the next few months falsifying them one by one. Unless Dan would like to change all the categorical statements into something less absolute?

Dan continues:

Of course not. My son's teacher, for example,
wasn't rigid at all. But you know, Detlef, that
it's the rule in the early grades that all the
kids do the same art. This smoke screen is too
transparent.

How about adding the word "usually" before
"fourth graders"? Would that be sufficient
qualification?

Unfortunately he starts directing his comments to Detlef, who is an innocent bystander. Detlef simply copied my post to share with the WC.

Now Dan does raise an interesting point. Kids do similar artwork in the early grades. What is this about? Does something sinister lurk (weird music please)?

It is mostly about mastering technique. When I joined a waldorf class, in the 8th grade, everyone could draw really well: except me. As the beneficiary of many different public schools across several states I'd never learned how to draw. Once someone learns how to draw pictures it is quite difficult to keep them from drawing anything they want to draw. I know one waldorf kid who does super-heroes (exquisitely). However, if you never learn the basic techniques, only the kids with a natural, god-given (or hereditary) talent will be able to draw well. Same thing applies to painting, knitting, crochet, sewing, embroidery, felting. Before you can be creative you need to master the basic techniques.

My daughter learned how to knit in the first grade. Everybody knitted the same projects (but hey, they did get to choose their colors). Knitting was revisited in the third grade where everyone made hats and the super knitters got to make scarves too. This time they got to choose two colors and figure out their own stripe arrangement. Knitting was revisited again in (5th?) a higher grade where they did a project involving knitting in the round on multiple needles.

You can, I hope, see the development here. Increasing skill level, increasing complexity, increasing design freedom. My daughter, as an adult is a highly skilled knitter, capable of figuring out almost any pattern and also quite capable of designing a knitted item from scratch. She can work with incredibly complex color arrangements, too. One vest she created is such a work of art that no one ever believes she made it herself.

If you believe that the foundation to artistic creativity is handing kids a blank piece of paper and some crayons, then waldorf indeed stifles artistic creativity. So do all the art classes in the world because all of them (whoops, I'm getting categorical) involve training in technique. This applies to music, singing, drawing, painting, composing, dance...

Enough.

I'll continue my comments on Dan's and Walden's responses tomorrow or perhaps Saturday.

DK

Posted by Deborah at 1:38 PM | Comments (0)

August 2, 2005

PLANS - accurate?

quoted from PLANS:

Parents should be told that although Waldorf bills itself as "arts-based" education to attract holistically minded parents, creativity is actually discouraged, and many of the "artistic" activities in Waldorf are more accurately described as religious rituals, such as meditation on symbols important in Anthroposophy. Children spend a lot of time copying the teacher's work directly off the board. Fourth graders embroidering a purse must all use the same pattern (often with esoteric symbols).

Some comments from DK (waldorf student, waldorf sibling, waldorf parent, waldorf staff member, waldorf grandparent)

Like most of the material on the PLANS site, the above remarks are not backed up by any citations or documentation.

To tackle one piece of the above nonsense: My daughter did cross-stitch in the fourth grade along with the rest of her class. Every child did an original design and had a choice of making a pillow or a backpack. I still have the pillow almost 30 years later. It has a nice picture of a house, some trees, grass with flowers and a blaze of sunlight in the corner. The teacher didn’t make any suggestions at all about the design or the choice of colors.

It is certainly possible that in at least one fourth grade at one or another waldorf school, somewhere in the world, the teacher told the children what to embroider...but I find it hard to believe that all of the disgruntled parents who have passed through PLANS and the WC have all encountered this same rigid teacher.

No creativity? At another school I know well, the eighth grade class spends their craft periods learning to design and sew clothing. At the end of the year they put on a fashion show. Every garment is different: different fabric, different choice of design, different items of clothing. Dresses, jackets, skirts, pants, shirts, blouses, everything from formal wear to swimwear. The parents and children at that school would be quite surprised to discover that creativity is supposedly discouraged at waldorf schools.

Esoteric symbols is another odd one. No examples are given (this is typical of the material on the PLANS site, vague smears are always preferred over facts that could be verified), but I suppose some of the symbols that turn up in children’s notebooks could be interpreted as esoteric. The difficulty here is how broadly you interpret the term. The sun, for example, has been used as an esoteric symbol at various times and places. My daughter’s pillow includes a sun in the design. Aha, proof positive! The moon, the signs of the zodiac, angels, stars, flowers, symbols used for the elements and much more could legitimately turn up in children’s work...but is the presence of such symbols actually proof of occult indoctrination? Only for people who are easily, very easily, convinced.

Years ago I had a friend who had spent many years studying the “New Age Conspiracy.” Everything she encountered in life was neatly slotted into her theories as evidence of this all-pervasive conspiracy. I think she managed to cook dinner without obsessing about it, but it is hard to think of anything else that was allowed to exist without being linked. The folks who believe that waldorf is an evil conspiracy seem to operate the same way. Are there stars in the sky in a picture in a second grader’s notebook? They must be occult symbols, not simply an attempt to indicate that it is night in the picture. And so on and on...

After over 40 years of exposure to waldorf education I can’t think of a single incident of children being asked to meditate in class or out of class. Teachers do sometimes ask children to be quiet...perhaps this is being misinterpreted by a creative member of PLANS?

Reading about waldorf on the PLANS site is like a trip through the looking glass! I need to practice believing six impossible things before breakfast. After a couple of weeks of this profound spiritual exercise perhaps it will stop sounding so silly.

One short paragraph. I didn't even cover every point. But every statement (supposedly a careful critique of an aspect of waldorf education) is distorted, exaggerated, and undocumented.

Posted by Deborah at 4:03 PM

August 1, 2005

Anthroposophy and its Defenders - first impressions

Posted by Daniel at 12:54 PM