 ACADEMIC STANDARDS AT WALDORF or “The Results Gave a Very Unfavorable Impression” by Roger Rawlings Afterword by Margaret Sachs The curriculum at the Waldorf school I attended wasn’t primarily meant to educate us, at least not as the term “educate” is usually understood. We students did homework, and took tests, and wrote papers. We picked up some knowledge of standard academic subjects. Yet all of that was, in a sense, incidental. No one could have mistaken Waldorf for a hotbed of intellectual excellence. Our teachers had different, overriding concerns: “From the Waldorf perspective, attaining knowledge is one purpose of the learning process, but just as important — and perhaps even more important — is to educate the heart and the will of the child, so that knowledge is joined with reverence and action.” [1] Reverence can be good, and action is necessary. But if the amount of real knowledge conveyed to Waldorf students is low, the genuine education of the students will suffer. You can’t be reverent toward something you don’t know, and you can’t act on information you do not possess. The problem of low academic standards at Waldorfs goes far back. The teachers at the first Waldorf worried that they were not preparing their students adequately for standard final examinations in the 12th grade. Asked what subjects should be dropped to make time for lessons with more academic content, Steiner answered, “Sadly, technology and shop, as well as gymnastics and singing. We cannot drop eurythmy or drawing. Religion will have to be limited to one hour....” [2] Later, Steiner added, “The question of final examinations is purely a question of opportunity. It is a question of whether we dare tell those who come to us that we will not prepare them for the final examination at all, that it is a private decision of the student whether to take the final examination or not.” [3] Weeks after that, when the exam results were in, he said, “We should have no illusions: The results gave a very unfavorable impression of our school to people outside.” [4] Academic standards at my Waldorf were below par. I took math classes every year, for instance, and I always passed. But I never developed even the rudiments of mathematical literacy. Accept my assurance, please: This wasn’t a result of native stupidity. Waldorf came close to practicing social promotion. Although occasionally a student was held back, ordinarily we didn’t need to master much subject matter in order to proceed from grade to grade. The resulting harm to our intellects is hard to gauge. Waldorf was a private school, with selective admissions. Most of us were bright, and some of us were distinctly privileged, coming from homes bristling with encyclopedias, home libraries, magazines, newspapers, and parents who pressed us to excel. We had advantages. How much did Waldorf set us back? I know some Waldorf graduates who found themselves almost completely unprepared for college; others, like myself, made several false starts at higher education before gaining traction; and some marched straight through. It is quite likely that today, in the era of No Child Left Behind, some Waldorfs put more emphasis on academics than they did before. But the schools cannot move very far in that direction unless they are prepared to reject Rudolf Steiner’s stated intentions. One way to evaluate the situation at a Waldorf school is to learn how much time the kids spend knitting, crocheting, making pottery, woodworking, gardening... Waldorfs emphasize such activities, which they consider important parts of the curriculum. If a lot of time is spent on these activities, and if that time is taken away from academic subjects, there is cause for concern.  Rudolf Steiner had little interest in helping children learn how to use their brains. He said that real thinking does not occur in the brain. “[T]he brain and nerve system have nothing at all to do with actual cognition....” [5] Real cognition, he said, is clairvoyance. Just this side of clairvoyance, he said, are three types of thinking that are far better than brainwork or logic. “1) the Imaginative stage of knowledge, 2) the stage of Inspiration and 3) the stage of Intuition.” [6] But does such “thinking” really lead anywhere? Let’s say that a child imagines that s/he has invisible friends. S/he mulls it over and suddenly receives an inspiration: The unseen friends are the ghosts of the Pilgrim Fathers! This insight is so persuasive that afterwards the child is able to intuitively know that the Pilgrim Fathers are present at all hours of the day and night because they live nearby, on the Moon. The problem with such “thinking” is that it is based on no concrete facts of any kind. It all comes out of the child’s head. And, obviously, it can produce serious delusions. (In case you think I am going too far, consider some of the things Steiner knew, such as “[T]he moon today is like a fortress in the universe, in which there lives a population that fulfilled its human destiny over 15,000 years ago, after which it withdrew to the moon ... This is only one of the ‘cities’ in the universe, one colony, one settlement among many.” [7]) Steiner’s other strange doctrines include reincarnation. His followers believe that children come into the world with memories of past lives, especially memories of their most recent lives in the spirit realm. An important goal at Waldorf schools, then, is to help young children to remain young, mentally. And later, as the children grow older, they should be helped to keep any remnants of the “memories” and styles of “thinking” they had as young children. “[O]ne of the tasks of the [Waldorf] teachers is to keep the children young.” [8] Notice where this leads: Steiner wanted to move children toward a mental power that basically boils down to clairvoyance: “[F]ormative forces that were active in the first years of life have withdrawn [i.e., they go to sleep as children age] ... If we bring them forth again in later life and imbue them with Imagination and Inspiration, we will then have the Intuitive powers of supersensible knowledge.” [9] “Supersensible” knowledge is information that we cannot get through our senses — we get it, theoretically, through psychic powers or, in a word, clairvoyance. If clairvoyance really exists, helping people to develop it would make sense. But since clairvoyance almost certainly does not exist, an educational program aiming at it is, at best, a colossal waste of time. (How can I say that clairvoyance is probably poppycock? Think of the “knowledge” Steiner gained through his “clairvoyance,” for example the moon fortress.) The crucial question for any parent is whether children can be safely entrusted to teachers who accept Steiner’s beliefs. Waldorf students are directed away from logic and toward spiritual experience that is supposed to be self-evident — no proof required. It is questionable whether this is genuine thinking at all or merely a form of wishfulness. Here’s what a leading Waldorf educator has written: “To what extent will [a child’s] thinking become purely logical and colorless, unenriched by imagination, uninformed by experience? ... More than ever, therefore, should the attempt be made with our adolescents to preserve from the earlier stage of childhood those [intuitive] capacities which are natural to it, and to unite them with the new gift of intellectual thought. For this means to transform thought from what it is at present — the capacity for abstract hypothesis — into the capacity for self-evident spiritual experience.” [10] But forming abstract hypotheses is precisely what real, mature thinking is all about. You gather evidence, figure out what it seems to show, and then test your conclusion. This is thinking, reasoning, logic. It is what we all need. Yet it is what Steiner wants to steer students away from. Ask yourself what a child’s education should be accomplish. What do you want for your children? Should we teach children to live rationally in the real world or to have unsubstantiated intuitions of unseen worlds? Waldorf schools often lean toward the latter. [11] ◊◊◊◊ AFTERWORD by Margaret Sachs My daughter and son attended a Waldorf school. For many years, we were enthusiastic about the school in spite of many red flags. Ultimately, however, we became disillusioned, in particular by what we considered to be Waldorf’s low academic standards. When we first enrolled, we were told that taking children out of the school between the beginning of 1st grade and the end of 3rd grade could be a problem because many Waldorf students don't learn to read before the end of 3rd grade. But by the end of 3rd grade, we were told, Waldorf students are even with or ahead of students in other schools. That was not our experience, nor that of many other people I know.
When my daughter went from Waldorf 3rd grade to public school 4th grade, her new teacher told me she was two or three years behind grade level. Later in the year, she corrected that estimate and said that my daughter had been more than three years behind grade level. Walking around the public school classroom on parents' night, looking at the children's work, said it all. The children had written essays that were easy to follow, even with the occasional mistake here and there. Our daughter's essays were incomprehensible. She had made brave attempts to write words, guessing at the letters involved, but not succeeding in spelling a single word correctly. The other children's work was the result of four years of public education. Our daughter's was the result of four years of Waldorf "education." Our daughter worked extremely hard and, as she began to progress, she told us that she liked having grades and knowing whether she was learning how to do things right or not. When she finally started getting good grades in subjects other than art and PE, she took pleasure in her own sense of accomplishment. During and immediately after our “Waldorf daze” (a phrase invented by a father who found similar problems at a different Waldorf), I knew several parents who had taken their children out of the school and shared with me the struggles their children were going through to try to catch up to the appropriate grade level. Then, some years later, when the Internet became popular, I discovered that people from Waldorf schools all over the world were having similar problems. When my son, whom we had also sent to Waldorf, interviewed for high school at a private college prep school, the director told my husband and me that they had had three students from Waldorf in the past and that while they were all nice children they "didn't know anything" and needed a lot of remedial work. While our daughter was at Waldorf, we became more and more aware that the academics did not meet our expectations. We believed, however, that the social and "spiritual" environment was healthy and compensated somewhat for what we considered the school's academic weaknesses. When we sent our daughter back to the Waldorf school a few years later at the beginning of her 10th grade year (for what we believed would be a better social environment), we and she learned the hard way about the dark side of Waldorf that we had not recognized in all those previous years. My description of that experience can be found at the PLANS Web site. I would recommend that you read all of the first-person accounts of Waldorf experiences posted at that site: http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles.html#FormerWal ◊◊◊◊ Waldorf schools downplay academics to varying degrees. Some may actually have reasonably good academic standards. The school I attended tried to seem conventional, ordinary, unobjectionable.  I don't remember being lethargic, but my teacher says I was, so who am I to argue? I got a little better, I think. I show you these reports just to show that indeed I attended a Waldorf school. ◊◊◊◊ ADDENDUM by Roger Rawlings On April 29, 2009, I posted the following message at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/10074. Evaluating Waldorf education and its effect on students is complex. The usual measures of a school are such things as standardized test scores, percentage of students who graduate, and percentage who go on to college (especially prestigious colleges). There is no insuperable reason why a Waldorf school might not do well by these measures. Steiner's antiscientific bias complicates things; his anti-intellectualism, as well. But a shrewdly designed Waldorf curriculum could have fairly high academic standards, if the faculty were willing to ignore or work around some of Steiner's stated intentions. My own sense of things is that the academic performance of Waldorf students is almost beside the point. If a particular Waldorf school gave a good, solid academic education, but if it also inculcated the kids in mysticism — and especially if it did this without openly informing the students' parents — I would still oppose the school. In reality, all Waldorf schools that abide by Steiner's intentions face big problems giving a academically sound education, but I would assign this secondary importance in evaluating the schools. There are also tertiary issues, to my way of thinking. The bullying that crops up in Waldorf schools from time to time would fall into this category, in my view. (Bullied students and their parents might, of course, consider this a major problem and assign it greater weight.) A further complication: The Waldorf school I attended was an elitist institution. It was a private school with limited funds for scholarships. (In US terms, a "private" school receives no tax revenues for its operations. Also, it can select students for admission rather than taking everyone from a defined geographic area.) Thus, many kids at the school came from families that were well-to-do. These kids had many resources available to them outside the school that enabled them to gain knowledge and skills not imparted within the school. Also, many of the students selected for admission were quite bright — probably well above average intelligence. As a result, many Waldorf graduates emerged from the school fairly well equipped for college despite the sub par education Waldorf gave them. The same situation may prevail at numerous other Waldorfs. Also, because my school was private (i.e., implicitly prestigious) many students were accepted by excellent colleges — better colleges, I think, than College Board scores, etc., would warrant. Bear in mind, the transcripts for the kids came from Waldorf teachers; ditto, letters of recommendation, etc. The school was small, so the faculty could lavish considerable attention on such matters, with the clear purpose of improving the students' chances for college admission. (The prestige of the school was enhanced by its name: The Waldorf School of Adelphi University. We were located on the university campus, but otherwise there was little connection between Waldorf and the U. But the name looked impressive.) At least some of these factors may prevail, in various forms, at other Waldorfs. Despite all this, many kids emerged from our school confused, ill-prepared for college, deeply enshrouded in a mystical mindset, and simply unprepared for life in the real world. These are hard conditions to measure, however — in part because many Waldorf grads don't recognize these conditions, at least for a while, and some are defensive, especially those who wind up electing to travel down an Anthroposophical or other esoteric/occult road. I don't mean that there is no way to evaluate Waldorf schools, or that the effort should not be made — I'm just pointing out some of the factors that, I think, would have to be taken into consideration. ◊◊◊◊ How well Waldorf graduates do in college and later in life may also depend, of course, on how smart they are. A high percentage of my old schoolmates were quite sharp, I believe. Many of their parents sought a “superior” education for them for this very reason. The records these students made in college might be taken as proof of Waldorf’s educational excellence — but in reality the students may have excelled in spite of Waldorf’s influence, not because of it. Here’s an example. A press release in May, 2009, tells of a Waldorf graduate who achieved a perfect 4.0 grade point average at the University of California at Berkley. [http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/12_medalist.shtml ] Surely Waldorf deserves some of the credit, right? Well, probably not. The article states that the brilliant Waldorf alum had rebelled against Waldorf while a student there. “Emma Shaw Crane spent her teens riding horses and making mischief at her Waldorf school in Santa Rosa, Calif.” and “From preschool through the 12th grade, she attended Summerfield Waldorf School & Farm in Santa Rosa, where she frequently ran wild, but managed to keep up academically. She met her high school sweetheart while in after-school detention.” The school may take pride in her achievements after graduation, but this pride would seem to be unmerited. Ms. Shaw appears to be brilliant, but Waldorf apparently did little to engage her brilliance — except, perhaps, by providing her with something to rebel against.  [R.R., 1999] A MEMO TO WALDORF TEACHERS Here's how to make your school seem academically respectable while still working toward your occult ends. Thoroughly acquaint yourself with Steiner's teachings. You will want to slip these across to the kids (usually without their knowing it) as often as possible. But cut yourself some slack. Remember, "The moment we rise to the truths of the spiritual world, we can no longer speak of 'true' and 'false'...." [Rudolf Steiner, DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 1983), p. 29.] Since, broadly speaking, every truth Steiner ever voiced is a spiritual truth, nothing Steiner ever said is either true or false. So relax. If, for example, materialistic-thinking parents or public officials absolutely insist that kids be taught to read before age 7, go ahead, do it. Don't worry. You’ll have plenty of other opportunities to retard and screw-up the kids in other areas of the curriculum, both before and after their seventh birthdays. Teach core academic subjects more or less straight — i.e., pretty much like they would be taught in materialist-minded schools. BUT absolutely load all other activities with Anthroposophy. In particular, make the arts — especially eurythmy, watercoloring, and the study of myths — as Anthropop as possible. You probably shouldn't be explicit about this — keep your mystery knowledge from the uninitiated — but otherwise go hog wild. How much you can distort the content of academic subjects — "slipping across" Steiner stuff — will depend. Mainly, you need to be subtle, always keeping an eye on the school's reputation. That's the main thing, really. You're trying to help the school by projecting a false image, which means misleading the public, parents, and the students themselves. So be clever, i.e., tricky. The crafts curriculum can be a big help, here. Think of knitting, crocheting — you know, all the lowbrow stuff Waldorfs love to waste time on — think of these as providing flexibility for the school. When the kids seem to be more or less up to standard grade level with their academics, fool around with crafts to your heart's content. But if the kids are way behind academically, or — even more crucial — if important tests loom over the horizon, cut back on the nonsense and use the time instead for cramming. These will be difficult periods for you, so keep them as brief as possible — cram knowledge into the students only for as long as needed to assure good test scores, then back off again and resume wasting everyone's time. Science classes will present your biggest challenge. Here's what to do. Devote most of the science curriculum to straight, materialistic science, the kind taught in the real world. Inform the kids, truthfully, that this is the material they will be tested on. Set high academic standards and enforce them. BUT reserve a small portion of the science curriculum for "advanced concepts," stuff that conventional science has not yet confirmed but that it certainly will confirm eventually. Here, without naming Steiner or using the word "Anthroposophy," lay out Steiner's wacko "scientific" teachings, including his insane views on astronomy, physics in general, and physiology. Tell the kids they won't be tested on this stuff, and tell them they probably should keep most of it under their hats since it is so advanced. But strongly imply that it is the real scoop, the inside dope. Those students who have ears to hear will know what you're driving at. In all other areas of the academic curriculum, look for ways to squeeze in little hints of Steinerism without lowering academic standards. In literature classes, for instance, go heavy on myths and the works of spiritualistic-minded authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Milton, and Tolstoy. Fill the kiddies' heads with mystical hokum while exposing them to apparently unobjectionable literature. Insist that the kids learn to write well-crafted papers, including, in high school, research papers. Remember, you're not trying to get the students to be able to recite Anthroposophical dogma — you're trying to soften up their souls, loosen their grip on reality, and plant deep within their psyches Anthroposophical weeds that will sprout and flourish in future years. Whenever — in science classes or elsewhere — you openly present bits of Anthroposophical codswallop (usually without mentioning Steiner or Anthroposophy, of course), pretend that you are doing it for the sake of broadmindedness. Act as if the Anthropop tidbits are tentative stuff, just ideas for the kids to mull over, drink in, maybe accept, maybe not. I'll stress again: Be clear: Tell the kids this is not material they will be expected to master for standardized tests or for most college courses. But you should keep at your roundabout, sly efforts incessantly, year after year, working more and more clandestine bits of Anthropoop into the curriculum, kindly luring the students into unconscious submission to occultism, even as — sadly — you also convey some real information about the real world. The basic point to bear in mind at all times: A good occultist should be able to function successfully in the real world. S/he believes (consciously or not) the most outrageous rubbish, but s/he also knows how to fool the ordinary, beetle-browed, general population. In other words, each Waldorf graduate, ideally, should be able to function and succeed in ordinary undertakings — despite being, deep inside, a completely messed-up nut job. One of the big Anthropops associated with my Waldorf school, Dr. Franz E. Winkler, wrote "Our Obligation to Rudolf Steiner in the Spirit of Easter" (Whittier Books, 1955). Our obligation to Steiner, Winkler said — (for the moment I’ll pretend to be an Anthroposophist) — our obligation to Steiner is to succeed in the ordinary, outside world so that we are admired, so that people will want to think and act like we do, so that they will ultimately join us in brainless, slavish allegiance to Steiner. (I'm paraphrasing.) Keep this golden idea always in mind. I give further guidance on some of these points at http://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/light-and-dark. Have fun. It’s easier than it looks. — Roger Rawlings ◊◊◊◊ Rudolf Steiner, thinking. ◊◊◊◊ AND A RESPONSE After reading my “memo,” above, Pete Karaiskos posted the following reply at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/10076 Karaiskos is a former Waldorf parent with extensive knowledge of Waldorf schools and Anthroposophy. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge what Waldorf teachers are ALREADY doing just right. 1) Eurythmy: Eurythmy IS Anthroposophy, according to Steiner. "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 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Eurythmy/19230826p01.html ] Waldorf teaches Eurythmy from pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. It is REQUIRED of every student in every grade and is apparently worth 4 units in the high school... so it's pretty important. Waldorf teachers have already done an excellent job of hiding the spiritual significance of Eurythmy from parents. While students are usually wise to the fact that they are getting something weird (and generally begin to resist Eurythmy at some point) eventually the hypnotic droning and syncopation of the verses read to them glazes their eyes and prepares them for the spiritual infusion of Anthroposophy. Well done! 2) Creation Myths: Again, one of those recurring themes in Waldorf curriculum — exploring a variety of creation myths from early childhood through high school softens the Waldorf graduate's mind to Steiner's bizarre ideas about creation. Keeping the kids "open" to receiving Steiner's ideas without making it seem that Anthroposophy is involved AT ALL is something Waldorf teachers are doing well in this instance. Parents actually think it's about "diversity" — LMAO! 3) Racism: This is a tough one to teach and still fly under the radar. Good ways to teach racism have already been uncovered by Waldorf teachers. There is enough of this already starting as early as kindergarten — not allowing black crayons, for example. Dolls depicting angels are almost always blond with blue eyes. Actually TEACHING racism is done by dividing children by physical traits according to what Steiner called "temperaments" — then it's just a matter of showing the children how different groupings by physical differences are possible. This is brought to light in the Greek Olympic games around the 5th grade. By 10th grade physiology, it is quite easy for the "science" teacher to suggest that racial groups belong together and to connect this to blood types. Again, well done! [12] 4) Esoteric Christianity: Again, parents think what Waldorf teachers teach about the religions of the world is about diversity. But in truth, Waldorf teaches many strains of religious thought in order to challenge Christian and other religious concepts — EXACTLY as Steiner did. If kids were taught purely Christian ideas, for example, they wouldn't be prepared to accept Steiner's ideas about reincarnation. THAT'S why other religious streams are taught to Waldorf children, NOT because they are teaching diversity. But again, parents are happy to know their children are learning ALL the different major religious streams— they just don't realize that Anthroposophy is one of them. Slipping the Anthroposophical wool over the parent's eyes in the name of "diversity.” Genius! — Pete Karaiskos ◊◊◊◊ ENDNOTES [1] Lawrence Williams, Ed.D., OAK MEADOW AND WALDORF — see oakmeadow.com/resources. Conveying real knowledge about the real world was low on Rudolf Steiner’s list of educational priorities. The Steiner lectures in SOUL ECONOMY AND WALDORF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 1986) present Steiner’s contention that students should not be required to learn too much. As the publisher puts it, "Too often a zealous attempt to impart information is substituted for the development of human faculties in modern education. This can lead to overexertion of memory and inner exhaustion of the student...." [Ibid., rear cover.] Clearly, it is wrong to exhaust students. But bear in mind that foremost among the “human faculties” Steiner wanted people to develop is clairvoyance. [See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944). Steiner claimed that he himself was able to employ “exact clairvoyance.”]) Any Waldorf school that is faithful to Steiner will aim to develop unreal faculties, too often as a substitute for providing a real education. [2] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 688. [3] Ibid., p. 712. [4] Ibid., p. 725. Efforts by Waldorf schools to justify their educational approach deserve careful scrutiny. Consider, for instance, an announcement put out by a Waldorf school in 2009: "Three New Studies Support Educational Methods Used in Waldorf Education" [waldo.villagesoup.com , March 3, 2009]. The piece cites two studies that advocate “free play” or “less work and more play” for young children, and a study that says the use of personal computers may hurt kids’ grades. Taken in moderation, the results of these studies are probably correct. But despite the headline, none of the studies explicitly addresses or praises the specific educational practices in Waldorf schools. At the most, such studies buttress arguments against excessively demanding schoolwork in all schools and over-reliance on technology in all schools. Clearly, however, reducing academic work for play time, and restricting computer use, could be harmful for children's education, if taken too far. When a Waldorf school offers such “support” for itself, parents should proceed with caution. The subtext may be a rejection of high academic standards, intellectual development, and modern science and technology. (Waldorf schools are often deeply opposed to science and technology: See “Steiner’s ‘Science’” at this Web site. For an examination of the sort of thinking Waldorf schools generally stress, as opposed to intellect, see “Thinking Cap” at this Web site. Besides emphasizing play, many Waldorfs also emphasize crafts such as knitting, at the expense of academics. See my essay "Clues".) There are bound to be differences between Waldorf schools, on academic matters as well as other issues. And, of course, in evaluating schools, people will have varying perspectives, intentions, and standards. Here are three comments posted online late in April, 2009: • "As a teacher at a local high school, I can report that the students who come from these 'experimental' elementary and middle schools -- Waldorf, Santa Barbara Charter, Open Alternative (that one is the worst!), are almost always poor readers, writers, and thinkers." • "I will agree with [the previous writer] that the worst prepared students that arrive at my classroom are Waldorf and Open Alternative; I will also add Montesorri and Santa Barbara Middle School to that list." • "As a teacher at a local high school, I see the benefits of the solidly grounded pedagogy of schools like Waldorf, Santa Barbara Charter School and Open Alternative School. Besides often being top of the class, the students from all three of these schools are willing to express an opinion and back it with solid, well articulated facts." [http://www.thedailysound.com/opinion/042309cheri ] [5] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 60. [6] Rudolf Steiner, THE SPIRIT OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL (Anthroposophic Press, 1995), p. 76. [7] Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER SPEAKS TO THE BRITISH (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 93. [8] A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), pp. 15-16. [9] THE SPIRIT OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL, p. 79. [10] PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL, pp. 23-24. [11] The Waldorf approach has many distinctive features. In criticizing a rationalist, Steiner once said: “He did not want any fairy tales told to children, or to teach children anything other than scientific trash....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE RENEWAL OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 94.] Mull that over for a moment. “Scientific trash.” Steiner preferred fairy tales for the amazing reason that he considered them to be true. “Fairy tales are ... the final remains of ancient clairvoyance, experienced in dreams by human beings who still had the power. What was seen in a dream was told as a story — for instance, 'Puss in Boots' ... All the fairy tales in existence are thus the remnants of the original clairvoyance.” [Rudolf Steiner, ON THE MYSTERY DRAMAS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1983), p. 93.] Mull that over for a moment. “ALL the fairy tales in existence...” If a Waldorf school follows Steiner’s wishes, the academic content of the education may suffer in various ways. Waldorf schools often use few, if any, textbooks. One reason is that mainstream texts would introduce ideas foreign to the occult philosophy underlying Waldorf education. Another reason is that at Waldorfs, students may be diverted into “artistic” endeavors that are meant to have spiritualistic effects. (See my essay “Magical Arts” at this Web site.) The Waldorf approach often entails having students create their own, handwritten lesson books. Generally, these consist of text and pictures copied from the blackboard — that is, copied verbatim from the teachers. But sometimes a bit of individual creativity is allowed. The following is from a newspaper account published in February, 2009. I will withhold the name of the school and administrator in question: ““At [X] Waldorf School, all forms of the arts are completely integrated with every aspect of the curriculum, in line with Waldorf methodology, which emphasizes arts and the ‘inner life.’ “Art, music, handwork and woodwork are all part of a child's daily school experience at Waldorf. “For example, students create their own main lesson books in all the academic subjects. “If the topic is chemistry, they study the subject in a broad way that includes history, literature and biographies of chemists in addition to the laboratory science itself. “‘Out of that, they create their main lesson book. They hand write and illustrate it, and that is one way that visual arts is worked into chemistry,’ says [Y], school administrator." [Calgary Herald, Feb. 12, 2009.] There can be advantages to this approach, but there may also be clear disadvantages. The Waldorf school in question, here, may be excellent — I don’t know anything about the school beyond what the newspaper reports. But there are elements in the report that may cause concern. For Rudolf Steiner, the “inner life” is subjective spiritualism, based on clairvoyance. He emphasized art, as I have already mentioned, for occult, not aesthetic, reasons. And he de-emphasized science. Consider how much hard science a student may learn if s/he spends “science” study time reading “history, literature and biographies” and then creating a hand-lettered report, complete with time-consuming illustrations. How much time is spent actually studying science or working in a science lab? [12] There are connections between temperament and race in Steiner’s teachings. They aren’t entirely straightforward (little in Anthroposophy is) but they strengthen the proposition that dividing children by temperament is akin to dividing them by race or nationality. Steiner sometimes spoke explicitly of connections between temperament and race or nationality.1 Speaking of people in the past, Steiner said “[T]hey were interested in the color of the skin, in the racial temperament.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE CYCLE OF THE YEAR AS BREATHING-PROCESS OF THE EARTH (SteinerBooks, 1984), p. 65.] "Racial temperament." Steiner said that groups such as nations, peoples, and/or races have their own souls. One example: “[W]e can distinguish the Swiss Folk Spirit ... The Folk Spirit is something quite different from the people ... [It is] a spiritual Being....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 24.] The soul or spirit of a people is not the people themselves; it is a real spiritual being that has its own separate existence; it is a spiritual entity living in the spirit realm. From there, it guides the people who are under its sway.2 The soul of a group affects the temperament of the group — it does this through its “aura”: “Here lies the source of the multiplicity of types we meet with in Russia, Norway and Germany [for example]. The national characteristics are determined by that which works into the temperaments [i.e., the character of a nation is created by the aura of the national soul working itself into the temperaments of the citizens] ... National temperaments, therefore, vary in accordance with the extent of the interpenetration of the folk-aura.” [THE MISSION OF FOLK SOULS, p.40.] Different nations have different national temperaments, depending on how their souls’ auras penetrate them. "Racial temperament." "National temperaments." These are Steiner’s words. Our group souls make us what we are, more or less, and they assign us tasks we must undertake, more or less. "In the truest sense, every individual receives his allotted task from his family, national or racial Group Soul." [Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), pp. 141-142.] Our tasks are linked to our temperaments (note how Waldorf teachers assign tasks based on temperament), and our group souls assign us both our temperaments and our tasks. Of course, there are always individual variations. Steiner repeatedly said that racial evolution and individual evolution are different: A race may be moving in one direction, e.g., downward, but a member of that race may move in the opposite direction. Nonetheless, there is a link between race, task, and temperament. If you want to refuse the task assigned you by your racial soul, you have a big problem on your hands. You may be able to free yourself from your racial soul, but it takes work.3 To summarize: While the connection between temperament and racial identity is not simple, it is real. The races have different soul qualities, different “characteristics.” Calling these temperaments is somewhat misleading, but the differences are real and important — according to Steiner (who was, as usual, wrong). In reality, there are cultural differences between various populations, but there are no inherent, spiritual differences between nations or races. Talking about cultural differences makes sense; talking about national or racial temperament does not. The latter is racism. — Roger Rawlings 1 Steiner said that a national group such as the Swiss is not the same as a race. “A nation is not a race. The concept of a nation has nothing to do with that of a race. A race may divide itself into many different nations; races are different communities from folk communities.” [THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS, p. 65.] You may notice a contradiction, here, typical of Steiner. Nations and races may not be identical, but Steiner contradicts himself when he says “The concept of a nation has nothing to do with that of a race.” Steiner himself explains how the concept of a nation is related to the concept of a race. What he means is that a race is larger than a nation: Many nations (such as the nations of Europe) may all be parts of the same race. |
