 THE WALDORF CURRICULUM The Plan Like so much else about Waldorf schools, the curriculum can seem attractive, initially. But a closer look raises concerns, especially having to do with occultism. Not all Waldorf schools are alike — some abide by Steiner’s intentions more fully than others. But parents should certain dig deeply to understand what goes on at any particular Waldorf school. One occult premise of the general Waldorf curriculum is that children gain augmented spiritual capacities on a seven-year schedule. [1] A second premise is that children repeat, in their individual lives, the spiritual and cultural evolution that humanity as a whole has undergone. [2] Still another premise is that children represent four spiritual/psychological/emotional categories, four “humours,” so their schooling should be tailored to these categories. [3] Such concepts have little or no scientific support — they are primarily fantasies plucked from the air — but they generally control the operations of Waldorf schools.  Here is an outline of the curriculum you will find at many, if not all, Waldorf schools. [4] Very young children have memories of their lives in the spirit realm before birth. [5] They should be encouraged to preserve these memories as long as possible. In Waldorf preschools, students are immersed in an atmosphere of myths and legends, with such goads as gnome statuettes present in the classroom. [6] Because colors are deemed to have magical properties, only crayons of certain bright, cheerful colors are used — and only blunt crayons, to discourage realistic line drawings. [7] Reading, writing, are arithmetic are usually not be begun until children near the first seven-year milestone — around the time that most kids lose their baby teeth, ages six to seven. [8] The real world as apprehended by the ordinary senses and clear minds is held at bay. The miasma of myth and fantasy extends from preschool into the lower grades at a typical Waldorf. Fairy stories, legends, and fables are stressed in grades one and two. In grade three, more conventionally religious material is covered, especially Old Testament stories. In grade four, the emphasis shifts to Norse myths, with myths from other cultures moving center stage in grade five. [9] When the kids are eleven or so, study is directed to ancient Greece, and a year later, ancient Rome. [10] Basic math skills are introduced during the lower grades, but only lightly. [11] The same hold for other subjects — the introduction to life sciences, for instance, consists mainly of romanticized nature stories. [12] Exposure to foreign languages may begin in the lower grades, but usually without formal study of vocabulary or grammar. [13] Activities such as watercoloring, knitting, and gardening take up a good deal of time — these are deemed to have esoteric value, although parents are often not informed of this rationale. [14] Students in the middle grades are still not considered able to reach their own conclusions or even to grasp such elementary concepts as cause and effect, [15] so class work consists mainly of copying from the chalkboard lessons and drawings put there by the teacher. [16] Student art and class work is thus highly derivative, with little or no individuality, although different tasks are often assigned to kids having different "humours." Math study progresses a bit, with memorization of multiplication tables, for instance, and there is some elementary exposure to geography and physics, as well as continued “study” of life sciences. An underlying antiscientific bias often distorts these subjects, however. [17] The emphasis on art persists in the middle grades, because of Steiner’s belief that that the arts provide direct communication with spiritual worlds. Students are typically required to perform eurythmy, a form of dance with supposed occult powers. [18] Often, students are also taught to play recorders (simple woodwind instruments) and to participate in group singalongs or choruses. [19] Watercoloring continues, but it is now supplemented by clay sculpting and, eventually, drawing. The prohibition against crayons and pencils that can produce clear lines is gradually relaxed as the kids grow older, and gradually some scope is given for individual creativity in the arts. [20]  Throughout the curriculum, academic subjects are given less emphasis than at many other kinds of schools. A typical Waldorf day begins with a prayer followed by a long “main lesson” [21] — ninety minutes devoted to a subject, for example botany. The other events of the day are, to one degree or another, keyed to the main lesson. This creates immersion in a subject, but only briefly. Main lesson subjects change every three weeks or so — botany gives way to history, which gives way to something else. Subjects are thus dropped, only to be picked up again in following months or years, again for brief three-week exposures. [22] The cyclical pattern of this program is intended to reflect the cyclical nature of man’s spiritual evolution, as described by Steiner. [23] In grades seven and eight, subjects often include Medieval history, the Renaissance, and national history (in the USA, American history). But, as before, subjects are presented briefly, then dropped. Instruction is still largely rote, with an emphasis on stories told by the teacher. Biographies of great people, and tales of world exploration, may be emphasized. [24] Math and the sciences are taken to higher levels than previously, and among art studies there may be new emphasis on creative writing. The study of foreign languages, if not introduced earlier, may begin now. [25] Waldorf teachers stay with their classes for many years, shepherding them through a wide array of subjects. A class teacher may sometimes stay with the same group of children from first grade through fourth or even eighth grade. There are advantages to this approach — the teacher gets to know the kids well. But there may also be problems. Over the years, kids may wind up spending nearly as much time with a particular Waldorf teacher as with their parents, which can cause a diversion of loyalty. Also, teachers presenting multiple subjects over many years necessarily teach material they have not mastered — the education becomes all the more superficial. “The class teacher up to class nine is expected to be able to teach all the main lessons, and teach them with imagination and artistry.” [26] This goal is impossible to obtain, and while teachers strain to get there, students are denied exposure to a variety of opinions and approaches, particularly from experts in various fields. Students are not considered capable of abstract reasoning until they are at least fourteen (or, at a deeper level, twenty-one). [27] The high school curriculum built on this notion is a bit more conventional than the Waldorf schoolwork of previous years. The day will generally still begin with a main lesson, but after that students will separate, taking various electives. Textbooks may appear for the first time — teachers will still control the students’ knowledge to a large extent by writing and drawing lessons on the board, but students will also be assigned readings in various carefully selected texts. [28] Subjects covered in earlier grades (world history, national history, sciences) will be repeated, still in a cyclical pattern, although in greater depth, and some classes after the main lesson will extend for many weeks. There will continue to be a strong emphasis on arts, crafts, and such projects as gardening. Depending on pressures applied by the community in general and parents in particular, there may or may not be much college preparation. [29] Even during high school, an effort is made to preserve students from maturing too much: Steiner taught that premature aging can cause people to develop telepathy and telekinesis rather than the “higher” form of clairvoyance he advocated. [30] That, in general, is what to expect. The central truth is that Waldorf schooling is not primarily geared to formal education — it is a spiritualistic enterprise geared to the promotion of Anthroposophy. Usually this process is subtle and more or less hidden from view, but  Can a student attending a Waldorf school get a good education? This may depend on many factors, including the student’s innate abilities, the degree to which s/he resists Waldorf’s occultism, the resources available outside the school (at home, in the community at large, on the Internet), etc. I submit, however, that the academic success — or lack of academic success — of Waldorf students is not the key issue to consider when evaluating Waldorf education. Waldorf is rooted in occultism. Is that what you want for your child? AFTERWORD Steiner emphasized the feeling of veneration. Waldorf schools attempt to inculcate it in their students because Steiner said it is so important. “The student who is gifted with this feeling, or who is fortunate enough to have had it inculcated in a suitable education, brings a great deal along with him, when, later in life, he seeks admittance to higher knowledge.” [31] The “higher knowledge” Steiner refers to is not college or any regular form of higher education — he is talking about “admittance” to knowledge of the spiritual realm. Another word for “admittance” is “initiation.” The quote I have given comes from the book in which Steiner spells out the steps needed to achieve occult initiation. When Waldorf schools attempt to provide the “suitable education” Steiner prescribed, they are trying to start the kids on the path toward occult initiation. This is spooky, but it is indeed what Steiner wanted — it is what he meant when he said that Waldorf teachers are effectively priests: "The position of teacher becomes a kind of priestly office, a ritual performed at the altar of universal human life." [32] In passing, it is work noting the titles of the books from which I am quoting. So far we have seen KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT and THE ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION. Some people, Steiner said, are fortunate enough to have a natural tendency toward veneration. “There are children who look up with religious awe to those whom they venerate. For such people they have a respect which forbids them, even in the deepest recess of their heart, to harbour any thought of criticism or opposition.” [33] Such veneration is tantamount to blind faith: Critical thinking is forbidden. Perhaps this is a good attitude for children to have — and, quite obviously, perhaps it is a terrible, terrible mistake. In either case, it is what Steiner wanted. Kids may start with it or Waldorf schools may inculcate it. And, importantly, adults need to have it too, if they are to become Initiates. People who have it from the get-go will find the path to initiation easier, but no matter what, applicants for initiation need it. “What was once a childish veneration for persons becomes, later, a veneration for truth and knowledge. Experience teaches that they can hold their heads erect, who have learnt to venerate when veneration is due; and veneration is always due when it flows from the depths of the heart. [paragraph break] If we do not develop within ourselves this deeply rooted feeling that there is something higher than ourselves, we shall never find the strength to evolve to something higher.” [34] We should linger over this quotation. Let’s begin with points on which all of us, I hope, can agree. Yes, truth and knowledge should be held in high honor — they are our goals. And, yes, each individual should understand that there are things higher than one’s self. Unfortunately, agreement must break down at that point. What, for instance, do we mean by “something higher”? For many this may be God. For others it may be truth or knowledge. For some it may be the general welfare of all life on earth, or all human life anyway, or one’s nation anyway, or one’s tribe, or one’s family... For Steiner, it is the gods themselves and their evolutionary plan for us. Steiner’s conception of human evolution is baroque. I’ve discussed it elsewhere; I probably shouldn’t repeat that discussion now. [35] But an important characteristic of Steiner’s teachings on evolution is the rejection Darwin, scientific accounts of evolution, and indeed — to a great extent — the findings of ordinary (i.e., real) science in general. Steiner’s “veneration” of truth and knowledge was, in truth, extremely weak. He admired only his own teachings — his Gnostic “spiritual science” — and the previous forms of occultism he drew upon. His preference, always, was for ancient superstition over modern science. How solid are the findings of Steiner’s own “spiritual science”? Steiner indicates the answer in the quotation we have just seen: “[V]eneration is always due when it flows from the depths of the heart.” This is a pretty sentiment, but it is obviously untrue. Our hearts mislead us time after time. We often love foolishly; we often venerate where veneration is not “due.” We would like to trust our hearts, but in truth maturity and wisdom teach us that we must often overrule our hearts. Of course, Steiner was not talking about unschooled hearts. He meant hearts and souls that had been disciplined according to the spiritual exercises of Anthroposophy. But ultimately those exercises are intended to create powers of clairvoyance (highly developed “intuition”, heartfelt inner perception of Truth) and, unfortunately, clairvoyance does not exist. Steiner’s entire system, pleasing as it may seem, depends upon the impossible: becoming clairvoyant. This is, clearly, a fatal flaw. [36] In fact, Steiner demanded even a higher standard: We must develop “exact” clairvoyance: "Anthroposophy seeks for what may be called exact clairvoyance, again to borrow a term from scientific usage; that is to say it seeks to develop a knowledge and perception of the spiritual worlds which is no less exact, no less conscientious in the sense of exact science, than is the best tendency and striving of our natural scientific age." [37] But an ability that does not exist cannot be sharpened and made exact. A sad irony in Steiner’s teachings is that, although he stressed truth and knowledge, his approach rules these out. No truth or knowledge can be attained through the use of the imaginary capacity of clairvoyance.  A quick aside: Steiner wanted his followers to perceive and comply with ”the divine cosmic plan. We should always remember that when we do something, we are actually carrying out the intentions of the gods.” [38] Anthroposophists, including Waldorf teachers, should know this plan better than anyone else, if they develop exact clairvoyance. But consider how many other people are equally sure that they know the divine plan or the will of God. The Pope and his adherents think that they are right (which implies that Steiner is wrong in every tenet that deviates from Church dogma, and almost all of his tenets do). Protestants have a different take on this: They are quite sure that they are right. But Muslims know that they possess the truth. But so do Hindus. But so do... And think where all this certain knowledge has gotten us. War after war, genocide after genocide, atrocity after atrocity has resulted from true believers attempting to implement their sure and certain knowledge of God’s will. I’d suggest that we all take a deep breath, step back, and admit that we do not and probably cannot know “the divine cosmic plan.” A little humility would well become us. But Steiner said he was sure that he knew the truth — not completely, perhaps, but quite “exactly” — and Anthroposophists generally proceed as if he spoke the truth. “Have you ever paused outside the door of some venerated person, and have you, on this your first visit, felt a religious awe as you pressed on the handle to enter the room which for you is a holy place? If so, a feeling has been manifested within you, which may be the germ of your future adherence to the path of knowledge.” [39] Steiner was not claiming that he himself — or indeed any human being — should be worshipped. Adult veneration should be directed to truth and knowledge, he said. But he claimed an inhuman degree of knowledge, and he taught that spiritual seekers need to be uncritically accepting: To "unseal the lips of an Initiate" [i.e., a spiritual master] seekers must "begin with a fundamental attitude of the soul. In Spiritual Science this fundamental attitude is called the path of veneration." [40] The Initiate who stands at the center of Anthroposophy is Steiner himself. An Initiate will tell you some of his/her secret wisdom only if you truly deserve it: “You may enjoy in the fullest sense, the heart, the love of an Initiate, yet he will only confide his knowledge to you, when you are ripe for it. You may flatter him; you may torture him....” but he will hold his tongue. [41] This is the language of fanatical belief, reflecting precisely the attitude that has caused humanity so much grief. And note that it is surely not the language of science. Imagine this: “You may enjoy in the fullest sense, the heart, the love of a scientist, yet he will only confide his knowledge to you, when you are ripe for it. You may flatter him; you may torture him....” This isn’t how science works, but it is how religions — including Anthroposophy — work. Steiner’s own words lead us to the inescapable conclusion that he was describing a religion, not a science — although he himself seems not to have understood this. Devotion or worship is not “due” to Steiner himself, according to Steiner; but it is “due” to his spiritualistic teachings. We must suspend our critical judge, check our brains at the door. Once again, remember that this is the “path” Waldorf schools try to steer students toward. “Our children already criticize much more than they worship. But every criticism, every adverse judgment passed, disperses the powers of the soul for the attainment of higher knowledge, in the same measure that all veneration and reverence develops them.” [42] Steiner often said things he didn’t really mean (if we can figure out what he meant at all, which can be a chore). Here, he presumably doesn’t really mean that all devotion is good; he probably only means that due devotion is good. In any event, he advocated devotion and he derogated critical thinking, at least in the realm of spiritual truths. Critical judgment has its uses, Steiner said; but not in the realm of spirit (which, conveniently, means not in the case of his own doctrines). Let’s be generous. Perhaps Steiner’s point is correct. Perhaps the proper way to approach spiritual matters is with our critical minds shut down. I would be surprised if God or the gods or evolution equipped us with brains that are of no use in the most important sphere of life, but perhaps this is the case. But if so, then there can be no such thing as “spiritual science.” The very essence of the scientific method is the sharing of results that others can confirm or overturn. This requires critical thought: analysis, scrutiny, logic. Anthroposophists sometimes act as if they think “critical thinking” is negative, destructive. But the words mean something else: They mean careful, logical examination. Anything that is true should be able to stand up under this form of scrutiny. Steiner said as much, almost. “Man could never have attained to the science, the industry, the commerce, the legal advantages of our time, had he not applied to all things the standard of his critical judgment. But what we have thereby gained in external nature, we have had to pay for with corresponding loss of higher knowledge of spiritual life.” [43] Again, Steiner apparently doesn’t quite mean what he says. He does not advocate the use of critical judgment to investigate “all things” — he exempts the most important things, spiritual truths. Let’s remain generous. Steiner’s doctrines may be true; Anthroposophy may be the real deal. But there is nothing scientific involved. Steiner offered us a religion, which we can accept or not. Anyone who wants to be an Anthroposophist is free to do so. But s/he should not harbor any misconceptions: S/he is enrolling in a religion, not working in a field of science. S/he may believe the visions that arise in his/her “inner eye,” but that is my point. S/he believes. S/he started out believing (she felt “religious awe” or s/he was given lessons in such veneration), and s/he proceeded to believe more and more, both what s/he was taught and what “clairvoyance” revealed. But this is all belief. At best, it is religion. At worst, it is self-deception, possibly neurotic, possibly worse. “A first essential is a study of what has been given by the masters as spiritual knowledge, and this must be undertaken without preconceptions and misapprehensions.” [44] But how can we know that reputed “masters” really are masters? And how can we choose among the various masters in various traditions? Steiner tried to paper over the differences in the religious and mythologies he adapted, but it doesn’t work. Some masters are devoted to a single God; others to multiple gods; some teach the doctrine of reincarnation; others reject this utterly; some say there are places we may call Heaven and Hell; others say not... How can we choose, at the very beginning, which masters to approach? How can we know which door to approach reverently? How can we know anything amid this welter of contradiction and confusion? The reason to reject critical thought in such matters is to wish away the contradictions and confusions. But is this truly the path to knowledge and truth? To walk the occult path, you have to trust your gut, your heart, your psychic powers. Let’s say that you do feel religious awe, and you select a master to guide you toward Initiation. Let’s go further: Let’s say you choose Steiner or one of his Anthroposophical successors. And let’s say that you do all the imaginative exercises developed in Anthroposophy. And you recite Anthroposophical prayers and mantras. And you do all the other voodoo that Anthroposophists do so well. And let’s say that it works! You become wonderfully, exactly clairvoyant. You know the divine cosmic plan, and you perceive angels above you and fairies around you and goblins below you! Wow! But how do you know you aren’t hallucinating? How do you know that you aren’t fooling yourself, hypnotizing or otherwise deceiving yourself? The things you feel and know sure look like hallucinatory inventions. If all you have to go by is your subjective experience — and this is all you have, if you are following Steiner’s rules — then you cannot have any certainty at all. [45] You cannot distinguish clairvoyant vision from imagined possibility or from delirium. Critical thinking might help you out here, but such thinking is toxic, according to Steiner. I am sorry. It would be wonderful to have direct access to higher worlds (if they exist); it would be wonderful to be clued into the divine plan (if it exists). But Steiner did not show that these things exist, and he did not provide a method for learning that they exist. He provided a system that is indistinguishable from self-hypnosis and delusion. As a science, it is void; as a religion, it is hazardous if it lures us away from reality and into delusion. All of this is a bit depressing, I suppose. But it needn’t be. Having clear minds is a marvelous alternative goal for us to work toward. Attaining it is a high objective, one that very often eludes us. If we work on achieving it, we will may make great strides. But, sadly or not, this will mean rejecting fantasies such as those Steiner peddled. I’ll put this in the sweetest way I know. Steiner’s system is an elaborated version of a dream humans have long had. As Frank sang back in the 1950s: Fairy tales can come true, It can happen to you If you’re young at heart. [46] If only it were so. Steiner said that all fairy tales are essentially true. “Fairy tales are never thought out [i.e., invented]; they 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.” [47] But Sinatra and Steiner were wrong. (Puss in Boots indeed.) It’s time for us to grow up and smell the coffee. There’s a wonderful world out there for us to explore and enjoy — and save. I’d suggest we try being good stewards of the real world, and leave our fairy tales where they belong, in the nursery. — Roger Rawlings Steiner waffled a bit about whether students should be told the truth about various things. Should they, for instance, be told that islands and continents float in the ocean and are held in place by the force of the stars? [Colored version of image by Steiner; R.R., 2009.] The Waldorf school I attended was a center for Anthroposophical outreach in North America, although few students or parents knew this. Here is a handful of the many publications produced by Anthroposophists and their associates in and around our school. Parents should realize that Waldorf schools may be more interested in promoting Anthroposophy than in providing a genuine education. Much of the guidance for Waldorf schools around the world comes from the Goetheanum — which is, in effect, that Vatican for Anthroposophists. The Goetheanum [R.R., 2009.] A lovely wet-on-wet painting created by a Waldorf student, who probably was not told that such paintings are supposed to represent the spirit worlds and create a conduit from such worlds into the souls of Waldorf students. For a review of a recent book about Waldorf education, including the information that Waldorf schools still often follow the basic Waldorf curriculum, please see "Report Card". For more Steiner quotes about education, please see "More on Education". ◊◊◊◊ ENDNOTES [1] Taking the idea from Theosophy, Steiner taught that humans manifest nonphysical bodies on a seven-year schedule. Nonphysical bodies consist of spiritual rather than material forces and substances. Until age seven, a child is primarily a physical being, then an “etheric” body becomes well developed, followed at age fourteen by a developed “astral” body and, at age twenty-one, an “I.” “During the period from birth until about seven years of age, the etheric body undergoes a process similar to that undergone by the physical body before birth. Only at the end of that time can we say that the etheric body is ‘born.’ In the same way, the astral body is ‘born’ at the age of fourteen or fifteen....” etc. [Rudolf Steiner, THE EDUCATION OF THE CHILD, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 43.] Mature humans have four bodies. Steiner taught, however, that people who are not really human lack an "I". Think about basing a child’s education on such premises. [2] “The child recapitulates the cultural epochs of humankind.” [TAMARACK TALK, Nov. 21, 2006, tamarackwaldorf.org.] For Anthroposophists. “Cultural epochs” or “ages” are long stretches of time in mankind’s spiritual evolution. They are dated from the sinking of Atlantis (yes, Atlantis). [This posting seems to have been taken down since I first read it.] [3] See my essay "Humouresque". [4] For a brief, sympathetic presentation, see Stewart C. Easton, MAN AND THE WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 19989), pp. 395-8. [5] See my essay "Thinking Cap". [6] See joke 4, the afterword, and the addendum, "Top Ten Jokes Told by R. Steiner". [7] See Sharon Lombard, “Our Brush with Rudolf Steiner” [http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/lombard.html ] [8] See William Ward, LEARNING TO READ AND WRITE IN THE WALDORF SCHOOLS: “Formal instruction of reading in a Waldorf school begins in the first grade when a child is six, turning seven (older than first graders in the public school.)" [http://www.steinerbooks.org/learning.html ] Also see Roy Wilkinson, THE CURRICULUM OF THE RUDOLF STEINER SCHOOL (Robinswood Press, 1990), p. 7: “The first lessons in arithmetic, to children aged 6, are introduced in story form....” While there is variation among Waldorf schools, there is also impressive uniformity. Here’s from Australia: “Steiner schools wait until the early childhood phase before formally starting reading, writing, and maths in year one [i.e., first grade].” [Karen McElroy, “Education and Children’s Health,” THE DAILY (Queensland, Australia), Jan. 15, 2009.] [9] See my essay "Oh My Word". [10] MAN AND THE WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY, p. 396. [11] See H. v. Baravalle, TEACHING OF ARITHMETIC AND THE WALDORF SCHOOL PLAN (Publications of the Waldorf School, Adelphi College, 1950). [12] “Up to age 9 it is a matter of stories about familiar things which appeal to the imagination and feelings....” [“Nature Study and Science,” THE CURRICULUM OF THE RUDOLF STEINER SCHOOL, p. 13.] [13] Stewart C. Easton, MAN AND THE WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 1989), p. 396. One reason cliques develop at Waldorf schools is that Steiner’s instructions were often vague or, on occasion, bonkers. Teachers may come up with varying interpretations, which may lead to ideological arguments and groupings. For example, Steiner said “The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 558.] So, should French be taught? At my Waldorf, it was. At other schools, it may not be, or the issue may become a cause of dispute within the faculty. [14] See my essays "Magical Arts", "Biodynamics", and "Clues" at this Web site. [15] MAN AND THE WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY, p. 396. [16] Because of the “evil” quality of black, chalkboards at Waldorf schools are often any color except black. At my school (back in the day when most chalkboards were black), they were green. [17] See my essays "Steiner's Science" and "Clues" at this Web site. [18] “In having people do eurythmy, we link them directly to the supersensible world.” [Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 247.] [19] MAN AND THE WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY, p. 397. [20] “Tenth Grade ... block printing, weaving, clay, pottery, drawing....” [“Why Waldorf Works”, Feb. 3, 2009] Note that this Web site is deeply pro-Waldorf: It is sponsored by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America. Let the reader beware. Does Waldorf work? And if so, at what price? Consider the underlying occultism — I will return to this point. [21] MAN AND THE WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY, p. 396. At the Waldorf I attended, each day's main lesson ran from 8:30 until 10 a.m. At some Waldorfs, the main less may be two hours long. [22] “The Ascending Spiral of Knowledge" [“Why Waldorf Works,” Feb. 3, 2009] [23] To examine Steiner’s version of human evolution, see my essay "Everything". [24] See my essay "Oh My Word" — the history curriculum. [25] “Upper Grades 7-8 Creative writing, reading, spelling, grammar, poetry, and drama ... Mathematics, geography, physics, basic chemistry, astronomy, and physiology ... [K]nitting, crochet, sewing, cross-stitch, basic weaving, toymaking, and woodworking ... Foreign languages (varies by school): Spanish, French, Japanese and German.” [“Why Waldorf Works,” Feb. 3, 2009] [26] MAN AND THE WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY, p. 397. [27] Ibid., p. 396, and A. C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), p. 24. [28] See my essay "Unenlightened". [29] Theoretically, a Waldorf school could set high academic standards in basic subjects (history, math, and so forth) and reserve the school’s spiritualistic intentions for other parts of the day (arts classes, story hours, discussion groups, etc.). This might produce a solid academic record, depending on the caliber of the students enrolled and the degree of the faculty’s commitment Steiner’s intentions. Some Waldorfs today claim they exceed various scholastic standards and benchmarks. Considering how low standards have generally become in the USA, this claim could easily be true in at least some instances. And, of course, it may well be that some Waldorfs today place greater emphasis on academics than my Waldorf did. When College Board exams loomed for me, I realized that I was ill-prepared, so I bought some study guides and crammed. I still have one of them: Robert Sobel, THE COLLIER QUICK AND EASY GUIDE TO AMERICAN HISTORY (Collier Books, 1962), $1.50. [30] “Lower forms of clairvoyance, such as telepathy, telekinesis and so on ... are simply the result of this premature aging....” [Rudolf Steiner, SOUL ECONOMY: Body, Soul, and Spirit in Waldorf Education, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 2003), p. 132.] [31] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 11. A newer translation bears the clearer title: HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS (Anthroposophic Press, 1994). [32] Rudolf Steiner, THE ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 23. [33] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 10. [34] Ibid., p. 10. [35] See, e.g., “Evolution, Anyone?” at http://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/evolution-anyone [36] We’ve had this discussion, too. I cannot prove that clairvoyance does not exist. But no one has proven that it does exist. “After thousands of experiments, a reproducible ESP phenomenon has never been discovered, nor has any individual convincingly demonstrated a psychic ability [sic; emphasis by Myers].” [David G. Myers, PSYCHOLOGY (Worth Publishers, 2004), p. 260.] , p. 260.] The US Research Council, the Britannica, and essentially all serious sources concur in this. Many people disagree. They claim that psychic powers of various sorts certainly exist. Fine. Prove it. (To see some of the fruits of Steiner’s clairvoyance, see my essay “Steiner’s Blunders” at http://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-blunders.) [37] Lecture, "Knowledge and Initiation - Cognition of the Christ Through Anthroposophy", April 14, 1922. [38] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 55. [39] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p.10. [40] Ibid., p.10. [41] Ibid., p. 9. [42] Ibid., p. 11. [43] Ibid., p. 11. [44] Roy Wilkinson, THE SPIRITUAL BASIS OF STEINER EDUCATION, The Waldorf School Approach (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996.), p. 117. [45] In part, you are going on what your master has told you. But you choose the master on the basis of your subjective sense of religious awe, and you can ultimately test the master’s teachings only through your subjective heartfelt clairvoyant visions (which have no probative value). [46] http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+sinatra/young+at+heart_20055277.html [47] Rudolf Steiner, ON THE MYSTERY DRAMAS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1983), p. 93. Perhaps Steiner didn't exactly mean what he said in this case, either. His use of language was extremely sloppy — as was his thinking, IMO. But my form of thought is, of course, inadmissible. |
