Some time ago, I made a pledge to repeat certain essential Steiner quotations many times,

seeking to drive them home. If you come upon quotations you are already familiar with,

please just skip ahead.

◊◊◊◊

Some advocates of Waldorf education claim that the schools base their work on Anthroposophical principles, but they do not actually teach Anthroposophy to the students. This is, often, untrue. Waldorf teachers tend to consider themselves spiritual missionaries, seeking to guide children toward the true faith, Anthroposophy (albeit they term Anthroposophy a science rather than a faith).

Steiner laid down clear standards for Waldorf faculty members. He told the teachers at the first Waldorf school, “As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.” [12] And he said: “As far as our school is concerned, the actual spiritual life can be present only because its staff consists of anthroposophists.” [13] When kids are "educated" in an atmosphere of the “actual spiritual life” they will, of course, be influenced by it, they will internalize it, they will be indoctrinated. (The only sense in which Waldorfs generally stop short of indoctrination is that they often don't spell out the tenets that are being worked into the students' minds and hearts. They are often secretive about this and, hence, dishonest.)

Here’s how Steiner summarized his intentions for Waldorf teachers: “Among the faculty, we must certainly carry within us the knowledge that we are not here for our own sakes, but to carry out the divine cosmic plan. We should always remember that when we do something, we are actually carrying out the intentions of the gods, that we are, in a certain sense, the means by which that streaming down from above will go out into the world.” [14] The teachers, "true Anthroposophists," are on a messianic mission, operating Anthroposophical missions.

Steiner's "divine cosmic plan" concerns the future evolution of humanity. The way Waldorf teachers promote this is to try to assure that their students are on the "right" path for this evolution. They can achieve this only if the students internalize Steiner's doctrines (whether or not the students can verbalize the doctrines — there would little point in that, however, since verbalization is controlled by that organ of incorrect cognition, the brain).

“We can accomplish our work only if we do not see it as simply a matter of intellect or feeling, but, in the highest sense, as a moral spiritual task. Therefore, you will understand why, as we begin this work today, we first reflect on the connection we wish to create from the very beginning between our activity and the spiritual worlds.... Thus, we wish to begin our preparation by first reflecting upon how we connect with the spiritual powers in whose service and in whose name each one of us must work.” [15]

In short, the schools teach Anthroposophy. They don't just follow an Anthroposophical methodology, they teach the content of Anthroposophy. As Steiner said to Waldorf teachers, “You need to make the children aware that they are receiving the objective truth, and if this occasionally appears anthroposophical, it is not anthroposophy that is at fault. Things are that way because anthroposophy has something to say about objective truth ... Anthroposophy will be in the school when it is objectively justified, that is, when it is called for by the material itself.” [16] Steiner was clearly saying that the subject matter studied will contain Anthroposophical concepts: these will be included in "the material itself."

 

 

◊◊◊◊

 

 

The ways Waldorfs schools convey — and withhold — knowledge deserve scrutiny. Memory is obviously crucial for learning. Steiner quite sensibly said that students should not use their memories too little. But he also insisted that students should not use their memories too much. If a school follows this advice, it would limit how much the children learn.

Steiner placed special emphasis on limiting the use of memory (i.e., limiting the amount of learning) during crucial early grades, when the children are between 7 and 10 years old. And he did this on the professed basis of a quack medical opinion: “With regard to a child’s memory, the right thing for teachers to do is to ask neither too much nor too little of it. If teachers lack pedagogical sensitivity, however, and demand too much of the children’s memory between the ages of seven and ten, the excessive remembering that is artificially cultivated in the children’s souls will be played out in later life in the form of all sorts of physical illnesses.”  [17]

This is a preposterous doctrine, and potentially very damaging one. A child who falls far behind academically during grades 1-4 may have a terribly hard time trying to catch up later. Yet Steiner recommends retarding the academic progress of all children in these grades at Waldorf schools.

Learning is de-emphasized, and knowledge withheld, all the way through the Waldorf curriculum, not just in the early grades. At the first Waldorf School, the students themselves became worried about this. On April 28, 1922, a teacher said the following to Steiner during a faculty meeting: “The question has arisen as to whether the Waldorf School provides enough factual material. The students in the ninth grade made a comparison and saw that they do not know enough.” [18]

At the same meeting, a teacher also said: “In many of the subjects, the children do not learn enough to enter the eleventh grade. Many ninth graders are still at the very beginning in English.”  [19] (Note that the students were predominantly German, so English was, for them, a foreign language.)

Steiner made various recommendations, and he asserted “The problem is resolved.” [20] I myself have argued that a Waldorf school could have high academic standards if it tried hard enough (although this probably would entail junking some of Steiner’s educational directives). [21]

Despite Steiner’s claim, the problem was not resolved at the first Waldorf, at least not during Steiner's lifetime. When the senior students took a state-mandated exam, the results were poor. Steiner said: “We should have no illusions: The results gave a very unfavorable impression of our school to people outside. We succeeded in bringing only five of the nine students who took the test through, and they just barely succeeded.” [22]

I can attest that the Waldorf school I attended provided a poor education. While a student there, I also attended confirmation classes at a Lutheran church, where I had what amounted to my only contacts with students outside Waldorf. I was frequently struck by the greater academic knowledge the public school kids possessed. One day, one of the girls asked me a question about trigonometry — she assumed that, like any other kid our age, I would know something about this subject. But in fact I knew nothing at all about it. The same thing cropped up during our discussions of history, literature, and other subjects.

When I went on to college, I in effect needed remedial work in many subjects. I dropped out of the first university I attended, partly for this reason. Later, by cramming, I managed to pull myself up to something like academic equivalency with my peers, but it was tough. At the second university I attended, the professor started a course in Shakespeare's works by having all the students write answers to ten or so basic questions about the Elizabethan age, English literature, Shakespeare, and so on. He wanted to see where we all stood, so he could adjust the course accordingly. After reading our answers, he took me aside and recommended that I drop the course — he found me wholly unprepared.

Perhaps I'm just stupid. Or perhaps my Waldorf school truly gave me a very bad education. Please bear in mind, I was an "A" student at Waldorf, I was exempted from some courses because I was so far ahead, and I was a class valedictorian on graduation day. By Waldorf's very low standards, I was an academic star. By the real standards of the real world, however, I was an ignoramus. 

— Roger Rawlings

 

 

---

 

Paintings by Waldorf students

[courtesy of PLANS].

---

The Norse god Baldur.

The "correct" path Steiner laid out

winds through mythologies and legends.

None is more central to Waldorf schooling

than Norse myths.

[Elmer Boyd Smith.]

---

Waldorf reading matter.

(My class was assigned THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY,

and our science teachers recommended the other two books.

I dutifully read all three.)

---

 

 

 

 

From the Net

Here are some relevant messages posted on the Internet.

Be cautious about accepting them.

I substantiate my own work with careful documentation.

Messages like the following, more informal, are largely undocumented.

Still, these seem sincere, and they may be worth considering.

 

 

 

Many parents and students who have cut their ties with Waldorf schools tell of the low academic standards at the schools. Here is a message from a mother who withdrew her students from a Waldorf:

I live in California, but as far as I can tell, parents' complaints about poor academics at Steiner schools are fairly widespread. My children were hopelessly behind their peers when they transitioned to mainstream schools, my daughter at the age of 8 and my son at the age of 13. For example, my son had Spanish classes for seven years at his Steiner school. When he switched to a mainstream high school, he was completely out of his depth in Spanish classes. Yet the other students probably hadn't had more than a year or two of Spanish, if that. At the end of the first year of high school, he had to go to summer school for Spanish. After seven years of Steiner school Spanish classes!!!

The headmaster told us that three other students from the same Steiner school had attended his school in the past and all of them had needed major remedial work because, as he put it, they were "nice kids" but "they didn't know anything."

It's really important for parents to get a detailed explanation of the nuts and bolts of how they teach each subject at Steiner schools. No one should settle for the Steiner slogans and the unsubstantiated claims about Steiner's "child development" theories (nothing to do with child development as the mainstream world knows it and everything to do with supernatural hocus-pocus). If the way they teach foreign languages or math or English grammar is not the way you would want to be taught those subjects, it's probably not good for your child, either.  [23]

•••

Here's a message from someone who, like me, actually went to a Waldorf school:

I left a Waldorf school (that I had always disliked) after sixth grade. When I started at my new school, in seventh grade, I turned out to be far behind my new classmates in many subjects.

Actually, we (or my parents) started to realize that there was something totally crazy going on with when I was in 5th or 6th grade at my Waldorf school. I was so far behind the normal level for my age in mathematics. I was probably among the best in my grade at Waldorf, but the level of accomplishment was so low...

My parents thought that the problem was only mathematics, but it turned out to be all subjects. We began doing extra maths after 5th grade, and then continued on. I was still not where I should've been, because lots of really simple stuff was missing, I seem to remember. My mother bought 5th and 6th grade math books, and we did all the tasks/assignments, or whatever they're called.

It's good that we did. Otherwise transferring to a new school would have been a disaster. What's sort of interesting is that we had a good teacher at Waldorf: She was a qualified teacher, and had worked within the public school system before. Her Waldorf training was thus only added. Most Waldorf teachers had no teaching qualifications or experience except Waldorf. But despite this exceptional teacher, the Waldorf curriculum left me far behind where I should have been.

After transferring from Waldorf, it became obvious that I knew very little history, very little  science, very little grammar, very insufficient German and English... In Waldorf, though, my scarce knowledge of these subjects was more advanced than that of my peers. [24]

•••

A participant in the discussions at waldorf-critics.org describes himself as a former Waldorf school teacher, with 15 years experience inside the Waldorf community. In describing Waldorf education, he attempts to present both the positive and negative. He has made several statements of interest here. I'll quote a few:

Waldorf "schools in general teach anthroposophy directly and indirectly, and are Christian at their core." [25] The first part of this statement — saying that Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy to students — should be of great interest to anyone evaluating a Waldorf school. I disagree with the second part: You might look at my essay "Was He Christian?" here at Waldorf Watch.

On another occasion, the former teacher qualified the above statement somewhat, saying: "Anthroposophy is taught indirectly at least." [26] We can take this as essentially confirming the prior statement, since if Waldorf schools do more than teaching Anthroposophy indirectly (they teach it "indirectly at least") then they must also teach it directly.

In another message, he said "Waldorf teachers think of themselves as spiritual missionaries. The objective is Anthroposophical, and it's future-directed ... But teachers don't indoctrinate." [27] Missionaries seek to convert people to their faith. I agree with the proposition that Waldorf teachers operate in this way, covertly. I agree with some of this and disagree with some of it. I would argue that Anthroposophy is the religion for which Waldorf  teachers do missionary work (see the aptly titled essay here "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?") and that, in teaching Anthroposophy both directly and indirectly, Waldorf teachers do indoctrinate their students.

The ex-teacher's primary criticism of Waldorf schools is that they often do not tell students' parents that they teach Anthroposophy: "[P]arents aren't properly informed with regards to the Anthroposophy in the curriculum." [28] In my estimation, this is a devastating truth — many parents would be greatly distressed to learn that Waldorf schools often deceive them about the schools’ intentions and methods — particularly the inclusion of Anthroposophy in the curriculum.

In the same message, he also put his finger on the reason he would not consider teaching at a Waldorf school again: "The philosophy is too 'spiritual Third Reich' for me these days." When I asked for a clarification, he wrote: "Schools often have one master teacher who assumes the role of Adolf -- the dictatorial leader everyone tiptoes around and never questions. And they defend and protect Adolf and his/her regime from the Colonel Stauffenbergs on the faculty who would see the regime brought down." [29]