WC Observer: Spotlight on the Waldorf Critics

The confusion at waldorf schools actually speaks to a weak connection between anthroposophy and waldorf. Both the newsletter and the web-site of the Anthroposophical Society in America have included regular updates on the lawsuit, so any member of the Society would probably know the current status of the case.

Deborah

I would just like to make a correction, since I am the 'newcomer' referred to here. The 'teacher' who told me the case had been lost was actually a board member, not a teacher. That makes a difference in my humble opinion.

Welcome, Kim, and thank you for correcting me. This was not a teacher, just a board member.

But I'm sorry, I fail to see why this makes a difference. Most board members are even ~more~ removed from the current goings-on at other schools than a teacher, typically. This individual is guilty of thinking she knew the full story better than she did. It's no more complicated than that. It happens.

Thanks for the welcome Linda.

I think it makes a difference because I believe a board member (chair) should know what's going on. She also has a child in the school. If this person wants to use this as a basis for her reasoning regarding my request, then she should have her facts straight... in my opinion.
Kim

This board member (chair) may have a child in the school, but not in *the* school being sued.

Since you described that the Board Chair's account of the case was offered to you as "a little background" rather than "the basis" of her decision, it seems that the judgement rendered over your refund is in many ways perhaps as confusing as the judge's decisions have been in the PLANS case against the two school districts. This court case has nothing to do with this Board Chair's school.

Your school represented itself to you as nonsectarian, and that is not a dispute which has been brought to court, and it will not be decided in this upcoming court case. Nonsectarian does not mean "irreligious" or secular. For example, the Boy Scouts are nonsectarian, but we all know they pledge to follow God. There are nonsectarian prayers, blessings and verses, and they would not be allowed in a public school. The upcoming court case will address whether or not anthroposophy is a religion as the courts define religion, and if so, would next determine whether or not those two public schools are practicing it, teaching it, or excessively entangled with it. Whether Waldorf schools are sectarian or not will not be decided in this trial.

Regarding rumors about Eugene:
I feel a little funny about speaking for him, but maybe somebody should.
Yes, he did have disagreements at Sunbridge, and he has always been gentlemanly enough to keep the specifics to himself.
As for the idea that he is without respect from his peers and colleagues, that is absurd.
After Sunbridge, he was snapped up immediately by Green Meadow (which, by the way, borders Sunbridge, and what goes on in one institution is generally known about in the other) and parents and faculty alike were thrilled to have him.
Now that his class has graduated, he has moved into a high-profile administrative position and he continues to be in high demand as a lecturer, mentor and consultant.
And, yes, he is one of the warmest, funniest and most generous people I have ever had the honor to know.

Obviously she does not have a child in the school being sued. I never implied that.

She wouldn't need to have a child in 'that' school or be a board member in 'that' school to have correct information on something that may be quite pertinent to the Waldorf movement. How many other court cases are there at that level involving Waldorf schools. If everyone in the Waldorf movement/schools knows of the case, I would think they should have accurate information regarding the supposed outcome of the case. She was the one to bring it up in the first place. Not me.

There was an implication that the board was not considering my full request due to the fact that the case in CA had been 'settled'. Do I have that in writing? Not yet. I am supposed to be receiving a letter from the board regarding their decision. I'll keep you posted.

Kim

I would like to clarify that I never thought that the person I was speaking with *intentionally* lied to or misled me about the PLANS case. I don't think anyone on WC mentioned anything about a lie (I could be wrong). I just thought she didn't know her facts. I don't think my original email implies that I thought she was lying. I believe that is a spin you are putting on it, Linda.

I would also like to apologize if I was incorrect in my information regarding Mr. Schwartz' employment. This was something I had read, that was linked to the transcript of his talk and I have heard others mention it. In retrospect I admit that I don't have any way to check to see if that information was correct. If this was nothing more than a rumor, my apologies to Mr. Schwartz.

Thank you, Lemuria. There are plenty enough wild rumors tossed around. It would be great to see at least this one tossed in the dustbin.

Kim, thank you for clarifying that you weren't accusing her of lying. I didn't say you did either. However, you were being led to conclude this by others at the WC. Pete even went so far as to coach you how to "catch her" lie to you again about it! Went in to great detail, "Beware of the telephone!!" he says. "If someone wants to tell you something that is not true, or that they can deny, the telephone is the best way to do this - no witnesses."

Kim, the WC list is full of crazy talk like this. Hang out there for too long, and you risk losing the ability to judge crazy when you see it.

Linda,

I have honestly seen 'crazy talk' on lists from boths 'sides' of this issue. I don't feel that reading any internet discussions, or what have you, will have any bearing on my ability to determine what is 'crazy'. I trust myself too much for that.

Linda wrote:
"Kim, thank you for clarifying that you weren't accusing her of lying. I didn't say you did either. However, you were being led to conclude this by others at the WC. Pete even went so far as to coach you how to "catch her" lie to you again about it! Went in to great detail, "Beware of the telephone!!" he says. "If someone wants to tell you something that is not true, or that they can deny, the telephone is the best way to do this - no witnesses."

Kim, the WC list is full of crazy talk like this. Hang out there for too long, and you risk losing the ability to judge crazy when you see it."

You've got to be kidding Linda. I've had easily over 100 conversations with Waldorf teachers and administrators where they have lied to me directly. The vast majority of those have been one-on-one private phone conversations or face-to-face conversations. It's rare to catch them lying on paper or by email - but I have instances of those too. I really don't care how you characterize this type of behavior or my advice about how to spot it, the problem is the Waldorf representatives who consistently lie to people. People like me who have encountered this behavior so often and are willing to point it out so that others can be aware of it and recognize it are not crazy. People who call others crazy without knowing the circumstances and experiences that led to their observations, conclusions and suggestions seem pretty crazy to me.

Pete

"Beware the telephone"................. :-D

Why not just wiretap the phone? Kim should probably wear a wire for those face-to-face conversations as well.

Kim doesn't believe the board chair intentionally lied. You sure seem determined that Kim believes otherwise.

Thank you for illustrating for Kim that this isn't *my* spin on her story, but yours.

>The confusion at waldorf schools actually speaks to a weak connection between anthroposophy and waldorf.

If there's a weak connection, where can I find a school that will provide an anthroposophical education for my child?

It doesn't matter if the board chair "intentionally lied" does it? Having a record of conversations is good advice - especially when such conversations are intended to support an enrollment contract. And my suggestion was intended not just for Kim but for everyone dealing with Waldorf - and it is based on years of experience with dozens if not hundreds of people.

The fact is, Kim got false information from this person whether intentional or not. Somebody most likely fed this person the story - or at the very least the person was repeating gossip - I'm assuming they didn't just make it up but that's also a possibility. This is a case of a Waldorf admissions person misrepresenting the truth to a prospective parent. Imagine my surprize.

Pete

John Holland wrote:
"If there's a weak connection, where can I find a school that will provide an anthroposophical education for my child?"

That depends on what you mean by "anthroposophical education". If you mean, you want a school that will teach your child anthroposophy, then you will have trouble finding one. 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. So you will have a very hard time finding a school that teaches anthroposophy to children.

If you mean an "anthroposophical education" in the sense of an education that anthroposophists find appropriate for children, then most Waldorf schools do this to some degree or other. An 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. This appears to be 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 thing 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 seems very simple to me, yet it has confused the best minds at the Waldorf Critics.

If you are concerned about your child's education, get involved. Check out any school that you are considering. Investigate it intensively. Ask every question that you can think of. Listen to the answers. And if you don't like what you hear, look further.