“[T]he spiritual can be brought to man without becoming poison. First you have the diagnosis, which finds that our age is infested with carcinomas, and then you have the therapy — yes, it is Waldorf School education ... [O]ne must regard education as medicine transposed into the realm of mind and spirit. This strikes us with particular clarity when we wish to find a therapy for civilization, for we can only conceive this therapy as being Waldorf School education.” — Rudolf Steiner, HARMONY OF THE CREATIVE WORD (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2001), pp. 216-217. 

[R.R. sketch 

based on sketch on p. 216 of

HARMONY OF THE CREATIVE WORD.]

Here is an excerpt from

"Why Waldorf Schools Are Not Suitable for Public Funding"

by Dan Dugan

[http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/dugan_dan_csr0202j.htm]

Waldorf teachers are different from teachers in any other kind of educational theory. It is expected that they will participate in a group spiritual life. "What is unique in these schools is the inner path of the teacher" wrote artist and Waldorf teacher Mary Richards. "The teacher's personal path is to enter into a consciousness of the human being and universe and to enter into teaching as a practice of this consciousness. A community is thus created among the teachers by the fact that they are students together and are connected through a meditative life" (Richards, 1980, p. 16).

Norman Davidson, Director of Teacher Training at Sunbridge College, the principal Waldorf teacher training program on the East Coast, explained:

"What we are offering is really a personal transformative experience. The student studies the world and human life fundamentally from an Anthroposophical point of view. He or she learns to experience things from a spiritual-scientific approach. At the same time, he or she is given the opportunities for artistic and practical activity that help effect an inner spiritual development." (Koetszch, 1996, p. 37)

The teacher training colleges are more like religious seminaries than teaching colleges. A letterhead from Rudolf Steiner College, the largest West Coast school, describes it as "A Center for Anthroposophical Endeavors."

The full-time teacher training program is a two-year course. The first year, called the "Foundation Year," is a survey of Anthroposophy, and is also offered to anyone interested in learning more about Steiner's philosophy. 

...I can't help noticing the conventional designations of the courses. "History 102" is the life and work of Rudolf Steiner. "Psych 102" is about karma and reincarnation. These course numbers would look like a real educational program on a transcript, as long as the actual course titles were omitted.

The second year of teacher training addresses education, but students are required to have taken the Foundation Year first, or to demonstrate that they have equivalent indoctrination in Anthroposophy. 

A MEMO TO WALDORF TEACHERS

Addressed Especially to the True-Blue Anthroposophists

Who Typically Form the Inner Circle at Waldorf Schools

Few, if any, Waldorf schools operate as I describe here. 

Generally, they downplay academics far more than I propose. 

So this is just a thought experiment, a hypothetical what-if. — R.R.

Here's how to make your school seem academically respectable while still working toward your esoteric ends.

Thoroughly acquaint yourself with Rudolf 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 — judged by this standard — 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 seven, go ahead, do it. Don't worry. You’ll have plenty of other opportunities to influence 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 load all other activities with Anthroposophy. In particular, make the arts — especially eurythmy, watercoloring, and the study of myths — as Anthroposophical as possible. You probably shouldn't be explicit about this — keep your mystery knowledge from the uninitiated — but otherwise go full out.

How much you can amend the content of academic subjects — "slipping across" Anthroposophical renditions — will depend. Mainly, you need to be subtle, always keeping an eye on the school's reputation. That's important. You're trying to help the school to project a certain image, which means find-tuning appearances for the public, parents, and the students themselves. So be artful. The crafts curriculum can be a big help, here. Think of knitting, crocheting — all the manual, unintellectual activites central to the Waldorf approach — 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, increase the emphasis on crafts to your hearts' content. But if the kids are way behind academically, or — even more crucial — if important tests loom over the horizon, cut back on crafts 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 your esoteric pursuits.

I don't mean to downplay the problems you will confront. The cosmology you embrace — the phantasmagoric fantasy called Anthroposophy — is utterly at odds with truth. To be an Anthroposophist, you have to reject the findings of physics, chemistry, astronomy, botany, biology — that is, all real sciences and, indeed, all rational academic disciplines of every type. You think mankind's history is fundamentally different from what historians have learned, for instance. So every time you convey a mainstream, materialistic-worldly "true" lesson to your students (i.e., every time you give them information that will help them to score well on standard examinations), it will violate your deepest convictions. You would much rather convey Anthroposophical concepts or at least inclinations and perspectives, but these would hunder your students in their college work. So your task is indeed complex: You will try to tell your students conventional "truths" (which you consider false) so that they can get into college, but you will also try to fortify your students with unspoken Anthroposophical "truths" (which the outside world consisders false) so your students may evolve in the ways Steiner laid out. Otherwise, your students may lose their souls.

Science classes will present your biggest challenge. Here's a suggestion. Devote most of the science curriculum to straight, materialistic science, the kind taught in the outside world. Inform the kids, truthfully, that this is the subject matter 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, you allege, it certainly will confirm eventually. Here, without naming Steiner or using the word "Anthroposophy," lay out bits of Steiner's "spiritual scientific" teachings, including his unconventional 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 accept these advanced ideas only provisionally. But imply that these constitute the real scoop. Students who have been made receptive by many years' attendance at Waldorf will infer 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 by spiritualistic-minded authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Milton, and Dante. Fill the kiddies' heads with mystical possibilities while exposing them to apparently unobjectionable literature. Assign literary classics whenever possible; no one could object to these selections; then "interpret" them in uniquely Anthroposophical ways, if possible, now and again. Insist that the kids learn to write well-crafted papers, including, in high school, research papers. None of this will necessarily damage your ultimate Anthroposophical objectives. Remember, you're not trying to get the students memorize Anthroposophical dogma — you're trying to soften up their souls, loosen their imprsonment in physical reality, and plant deep within their psyches Anthroposophical seeds that will sprout and flourish in future years. So give the kids a conventional education, to at least some degree, while you also nudge them toward apprehension of higher realities.

Whenever — in science classes or elsewhere — you openly present small bits of Anthroposophical doctrines (usually without mentioning Steiner or Anthroposophy), indicate that you are doing it for the sake of broadmindedness. Act as if the Anthroposophical tidbits are just ideas for the kids to mull over, play with, maybe accept, maybe not. Tell the kids this is not material they will be expected to master, and they will certainly not find it confirmed in most college courses. But give them the sense that your are opening special vistas for them, helping them to glimpse greater and finer possibilties. If you and your colleagues keep at this year after year, the benefits for your students should ghradually accumulate and eventually become large.

To succeed, a Waldorf teacher should typically have a doubled focus: S/he should understand what the outside world thinks and "knows," and s/he should understand the essence of Rudolf Steiner's teachings, which is to say, Anthroposophy. S/he should convey the former (what the outside world thinks and "knows") to the students, while also steering them to a preference, deep down, for the latter (the substance of Anthroposophy). This should enable the students to function more or less successfully in the outside world, while also empowering them to eventually turn to the higher, finer world that you and Steiner offer. A doubled focus can cause problems. There may be dissociative stress. But you must hope that your students will ultimately resolve this stress by rejecting the "knowledge" of the outer world and moving gladly into the alternative reality of the Anthroposophical universe.

A leading Anthroposophist who was associated with my Waldorf school, Dr. Franz E. Winkler, wrote "Our Obligation to Rudolf Steiner in the Spirit of Easter" (Whittier Books, 1955). By "us," of course, he meant Anthroposophists. "Our" obligation to Steiner, Winkler said, 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 allegiance to Steiner. (I'm paraphrasing.) Let this objective guide you in your own work. Fulfill your obligation to Rudolf Steiner.

— Roger Rawlings

SHE IS TORN

The following is a message 

posted late in October, 2010

by the parent of a child who attended

a Steiner (Waldorf) school.

[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/1068725-Falling-back-to-Reception].

I have edited the message slightly.

My daughter is 5.10 years old [i.e., five years and ten months]. At age 4 we sent her to a Steiner school, where there was no numeracy or literacy whatsoever. It was our intention to continue within the Steiner system. Steiner schools deliberately avoid reading, writing, numeracy until the age of 7. 

We moved to a new area in April this year when our daughter (J) was 5.4 yrs old. We decided to put her into a mainstream i.e. not Steiner, fee-paying school [Reception]. She started in Reception in April. Having never had any numeracy or literacy, she was now exposed to the normal curriculum in Reception. We did a lot at home too especially over the summer. She grasped the basic phonic scheme and is able to read by herself (Oxford Tree level 2). Numeracy was more difficult but she can count in order to 20. She is now in Year 1.

Her class tutor indicated at parents' evening (2 weeks ago) that J is not able to cope with Year 1 work. It is too advanced for her. She said that the gaps in her basic learning and understanding because of her delayed start mean that she cannot keep up. In addition to that, J, who used to love school (both the Steiner and Reception) has been saying for a few weeks that she finds it hard and cannot do the work, she gets a little upset and sometimes says she does not want to go as she finds the work "tricky". Her form tutor has taken to giving her Reception work sheets in class, which she CAN do and which she really enjoys. 

We are faced with a dilemma. Do we continue her in Yr 1 and hope that the school helps to bring her up to speed, knowing that she cannot engage with the work she is being given? Or do we allow her to go back to Reception at a lower grade level (we've only had 6 weeks of it so we are near the beginning), so that she build a solid foundation? She may be ahead of the other kids in literacy as she has gone through the Phonics work books several times since April. She will fall back 1 year and lose her immediate circle of friends. She would love to go back to Reception as she has said so many times — long before it was on the agenda.

The school have suggested that a return would be sensible and would be more than happy to accommodate it. 

What do you think? I am torn. I know that going back 1 year would be better for her educationally but a part of me resists it (probably because of the guilt associated with cocking it all up).

The school was made fully aware of J's Steiner background and said they would work with her. I'm not sure if I should be asking them to do more to support J in Year 1, rather than putting her back a year. 

The other option is to change schools, something less academic or perhaps a return to the Steiner system. But we can't keep moving her around, stability is very important.

R.R. comment:

Steiner schools generally do not teach reading and math until children reach at least age seven. This is because they want children to remain as long as possible in the misty “consciousness” they brought with them from the higher worlds where they lived before birth. The schools also wait until the "etheric body" incarnates at about age seven — an event that is supposedly signaled by the loss of baby teeth. 

Advocates of Steiner education claim that by the end of high school, students at Steiner schools fully catch up with students at ordinary schools. The truth is when they leave a Steiner school, many students discover — at whatever age or grade level — they are far behind their contemporaries who were educated at non-Steiner schools. Thus, children who leave Waldorf at the end of middle school or junior high are likely to trail their new classmates in conventional schools.

"Far too many Waldorf students finish eighth grade with a decided weakness in the basic subjects." — Waldorf teacher Richard Atkinson, Waldorf Clearing House Newsletter (Waldorf School of Adelphi University, winter 1968), p. 14.

Likewise, many students who stay in Waldorf schools all the way through high school enter college ill-prepared for standard college work. As I have written elsewhere [see "Who Gets Hurt"], Waldorf graduates often find that their Waldorf education has left them woefully unprepared for college. I have known many Waldorf grads who dropped out of college, bounced from college to college, and/or struggled mightily in their post-Waldorf educational endeavors. 

Fundamentally, the Waldorf approach is anti-intellectual and oriented to a fantasy universe, not reality. Waldorf grads often confront the painful realization that much of what they were taught is untrue or, at best, irrelevant to real life in the real world.

 — R.R.

[Waldorf-like art, R.R.]

ELECTRONICS AND AHRIMAN

TVs and computers are potentially powerful teaching tools. 

They also pose dangers to kids who use them too much, 

especially if the kids are tuning in dimwitted entertainment programs

and/or playing nasty shoot-'em-up computer games. [1]

Waldorf schools generally abhor TVs and computers: They urge parents to unplug them, keep the kids away from them. This may be wise, in some cases. But the Waldorf view does not reflect levelheaded caution — it arises from the occult belief in demons. I kid you not.

In theory, Anthroposophy is forward-looking, focusing on the future evolution of humanity. But in reality, Steiner’s brainchild is mired in backwardness: medievalism, demonology, and superstition. Anthroposophy is a form of Ludditism, averse to modern knowledge and modern methods. 

Steiner taught that modern science is wrong [2], modern technology is evil, and the modern world is dominated by the arch-demon Ahriman. Taking these lessons to heart, Anthroposophists often view computers with dread, seeing them as the handiwork of Ahriman. [See "Ahriman" and "Spiders, Dragons and Foxes".

Centralized computer systems operated by governments and corporations can be dehumanizing instruments, limiting human freedom. But privately own computers (which are often more powerful than the mainframes of just a few years ago) can be liberating and empowering. Anthroposophists cling to the first of these truths while disputing the second.

Here are excerpts from the description of an Anthroposophical booklet about computers, taken from the website of the Rudolf Steiner College in early June, 2010: http://www.steinercollege.edu/?q=node/384. [3] The booklet in question (38 pages long) is THE COMPUTER AND THE INCARNATION OF AHRIMAN, by David Black. The following is from the sales pitch for the booklet:

“The computer is transforming our society and our way of life. At first confined to the central offices of large corporations, scientific research institutions, and government agencies, computers are finding widespread application in automobiles, appliances, and small businesses.

“...Many people have grown concerned about the changes resulting from the spread of computers. While few would maintain that having armies of clerks adding columns of figures is better (for the clerks or for the rest of us) than having the computers do the work, people complain that they are being dehumanized, reduced to a number or a machine, being made servants of inhuman masters, and in general feeling their lives changed in ways they cannot control and do not like. 

“...Some people have the idea that things with the computer are getting out of control, that the machines are acquiring a kind of autonomy.

“...After programming computers at an advanced level for many years and watching what happened to me and to others who developed intimate relationships with the machines ... I felt my reasoning powers being boxed in and limited, and I found it difficult to be as rational about all of my experience as I wished to be.

“...The computer is special because of its relation to the spiritual being here called Ahriman. The name Ahriman comes from the Zoroastrian god of darkness, the being eternally opposed to the god of light, who is called Ormazd. In Rudolf Steiner’s conception, Ahriman is opposed to Lucifer (literally, light-vessel), and the two of them together are opposed by the redeeming power of the Christ ... The general idea, which it is the point of this book to explain in detail, is that the world has been coming increasingly under the sway of this being Ahriman in the course of the last two millennia, with an ever-increasing pace in recent centuries, and that the computer represents the vanguard of this development.”

Medievalism, demonology, and superstition.

Footnotes for this Item

[1] Another problem sometimes ascribed to the dire influence of computers is multitasking. [See THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 7, 2010, p. A1.] But computers don't cause multitasking. Plenty of people use computers in a perfectly rational way, doing one thing at a time. And bear in mind, many people were multitaskers long before computers were invented — frenetic people, people with ADD, harried people. Multitasking is not caused by computers. And it certainly is not caused by an imaginary demon lurking inside computers.

[2] Steiner waffled on this point, a bit. After all, he called his own philosophy, Anthroposophy, "spiritual science". (He took the term from Theosophy, the source of many of his teachings.) But essentially he opposed “scientific simpletons” with their “scientific trash” and their “logical, pedantic, narrow-minded proof of things.” He deplored “primitive concepts like those...of contemporary science.” What is wrong with science? "[S]cience speaks under the influence of the demonic Mars-forces." Hence, "[W]hen we listen to a modern physicist blandly explaining that Nature consists of electrons...we raise Evil to the rank of the ruling world-divinity.” [◊ Scientific simpletons: Rudolf Steiner, THE KARMA OF UNTRUTHFULNESS, Vol. 1 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 276. ◊ Scientific trash: Rudolf Steiner, THE RENEWAL OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 94. ◊ Pedantic proof of things: Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 240. ◊ Primitive concepts: Rudolf Steiner, HOW CAN MANKIND FIND THE CHRIST AGAIN (Anthroposophic Press, 1984), p. 54. ◊ Demonic Mars forces: Rudolf Steiner, “The Spiritual Individualities of the Planets” (THE GOLDEN BLADE 1966). ◊ World-ruling divinity: Rudolf Steiner, "Concerning Electricity", ANTHROPOSOPHIC NEWS SHEET, No. 23/24, June 9, 1940.]

[3] Do you notice a contradiction? What are Anthroposophists doing, putting their sacred truths in formats accessible only by demonic computers? Anthroposophists gingerly employ Ahriman’s vile contrivance in their battle against Ahriman. That is, like others who have thought they had a morally transcendent mission, Anthroposophists tend to believe that for them the end justifies the means. Then, too, because of schismatic tendencies within Anthroposophy — not all of Steiner's followers share the same understanding of his teachings — some are less worried about computers than others are.

— R.R.

DOCUMENTATION

Waldorf schools downplay academics 

to varying degrees —

some are better schools than others.

The school I attended tried 

to seem conventional,

teaching at least some ordinary subjects 

in approximately ordinary ways,

and issuing grades and report cards.

This presumably reassured our parents, 

who did not experience

the subtle but pervasive 

Anthroposophical tenor of our days.

(Our school was located on the 

campus of Adelphi College. 

When the college became a university, 

our school's name became all the more august. 

We had been The Waldorf School of Adelphi College; 

we became The Waldorf School of Adelphi University.

College admissions officers were, 

I presume, duly impressed.)

[These are from my eighth grade and tenth grade reports.

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.]

Looking at my old report cards (an embarrassing exercise), I notice how, again and again, I was given decent grades in classes that, really, I should have flunked (that is, I had learned almost nothing in those classes). But standards were low — and our teachers had more urgent priorities than conveying ordinary information or assisting us to master ordinary topics. The school went through the motions, grading our work and sending home report cards, but no one took the process very seriously. Often, there seemed to be no clear or demonstrable connection between the grades given us and the work we did (or didn't) do. Consider the following, the grade and progress report given to me in eighth grade by our French teacher, Denise Coombs:

Madame Coombs (whom I liked; her son was my friend) was being more than generous. If I made any "progress," I can't imagine what it was. I took French every year prior to high school, but I never learned to speak French, nor to read it, nor to comprehend it when it was spoken to me. And yet I got reasonably good grades, year after year. The same was true in math classes and science classes — I got passing grades without learning much if anything. In a few classes, such as English and Latin, I received high grades and probably deserved them. But there's no way I deserved a B- in eighth grade French, or B+ in math (above), or A's in physics and chemistry. Even the C in German is questionable (I learned essentially no German until I spent a month in Germany, where learning a smattering of the language became a necessity — although, really, I only learned to translate German reasonably well decades later, when I studied German privately, alone, sitting here at home).* 

Things were much the same for my classmates. We were rarely expected to actually learn the subjects we "studied." Getting fairly good grades was easy at our school, since our teachers were not primarily interested in providing a regular education. Some students were occasionally held back, either in a single subject or, sometimes, in all subjects — that is, they were required to repeat a year. How could this be, in view of the school's lax grading practices? How could any child flunk if grades were handed out so generously? Even at the time, I sensed that something strange was going on. Kids who were required to repeat a class or an entire year didn't seem to be particularly dull or uninformed — they may not have been the brightest kids in the school, but they were not obviously less bright or knowledgeable than many other students who sailed along unchallenged.

Knowing what I do now about Waldorf pedagogy, I understand that grades and promotion often had less to do with academic performance than with other considerations — distinctly unworldly ones. If our teachers followed Steiner's precepts, they made "clairvoyant" decisions about us, focusing on our "temperaments" and "karmas" and states of "incarnation." According to Anthroposophy, a being is "abnormal" if s/he fails to keep pace with the evolution of similar beings. An "abnormal" angel is an angel that does not keep pace with other, upwardly evolving angels. By analogy, an "abnormal" eighth grader is one who is not as spiritually evolved as his/her classmates. Therefore, this boy or girl really ought to stay in eighth grade until s/he becomes spiritually "normal." This is how Steiner urged Waldorf teachers to think.

Bear in mind, not all Waldorf teachers are devoted Anthroposophists, and I don't know all the criteria my teachers used when awarding grades. Nor am I saying that my teachers used terms like "abnormal eighth grader" in their private deliberations. Still, the evidence suggests that the teachers at our Waldorf school operated as Steiner would have wanted them to operate, placing much less emphasis on academics than on other — deeply occult — considerations.

◊

* Here at Waldorf Watch, you will find some material that I have translated from German to English and from French to English. This is work I have done long after graduating from a Waldorf school, and I have been able to undertake it largely due to factors unrelated to my Waldorf education. I have undertaken private study of German, so that I would be more capable of reading Rudolf Steiner's works in their original form. Equally important, I have had the assistance of numerous friends who know German and French far better than I; I have also made use of online translation services that, crude as they are in their present form, have helped me prepare rough initial drafts of some translations; and — when translating Grégoire Perra's writings from French — I have had had direct contact with Perra, whose guidance was of course invaluable.

For more about academics at Waldorf schools,

see "Report Card".

To examine how Waldorf schools 

create an Anthroposophical atmosphere

and lure students toward 

Anthroposophical beliefs, see, e.g.,

"Sneaking It In",

"Waldorf's Spiritual Agenda",

and 

"Mistreating Kids Lovingly".

To examine how Waldorf schools 

extend their indoctrination efforts beyond students

to their families and to new faculty members, see

"Indoctrination".

FROM THE WALDORF WATCH NEWS

1.

January 12, 2019

DAMNING REPORT 

BE DAMNED 

From DevonLive.com [Devon, UK]:

Parents launch bid to secure 

future of Steiner Academy 

after damning Ofsted report

By Anita Merritt

Families from the Steiner Academy Exeter have launched a campaign seeking to secure its future following a damning Ofsted [Office for Standards in Education] inspection which stated the school was failing on every level.

[The campaign] asserts the need for an all-through Steiner school in Exeter which provides an outstanding education for primary and secondary age pupils.

The 441-pupil school was shut down for more than a week following a visit from inspectors in October who discovered a catalogue of failings at the school including leadership being 'dysfunctional at every level', Kindergarten pupils being physically restrained by teachers and a lack of support for vulnerable children…

Following all the recent changes and talk of the future of the school, 234 parents and carers from the school have signed an open letter to officials…

The letter states the academy was opened in 2013 and is growing year on year until it is expected to reach its full capacity of 624 pupils in 2021.

Steiner free schools began in the UK in 2008 enabling Steiner education to be inclusive of all children for the first time, regardless of their background or ability…

Parents and carers, who are supporting the Moving Forward, Steiner Academy Exeter campaign, say they are committed to core Steiner principles…

The parent body said: "We are confident that under the leadership of the new principal Paul Hougham, and with the support of external agencies, rapid and significant changes can be made which will provide an outstanding education for the future and critically, an inclusive all-through schooling option for families in Exeter.”

[1/12/2019   https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/parents-launch-bid-secure-future-2419500   This article originally appeared on January 11.]

◊

Waldorf Watch Response:

Perhaps the most striking thing about the new campaign is the disjunction between its hopes and the realities found by the school inspectors. The campaign says Exeter deserves to have a thoroughgoing Steiner schools that “provides an outstanding education.” But is this a realistic goal? 

The inspectors found that Steiner Academy Exeter has problems in virtually all areas of school life, including bad teaching. Indeed, the Academy itself has reportedly accepted the finding that its teaching staff generally does a poor job in the classroom. Thus, a previous news story in DevonLive included the following:

Exeter's Steiner Academy says it has 'deep regret' over the standard of teaching offered to children...

A spokesperson for the school said:

"...There is clear and deep regret that the education provided to children at the school has not been of the high standards or integrity required."

— DevonLive, "Exeter's Steiner Academy speak of 'deep regret' following sudden closure", October 12, 2018 [https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/exeters-steiner-academy-speak-deep-2101167]

It is quite understandable, of course, that some parents may rally to the support of a school they chose for their children. Admitting that they made a serious error in sending their kids to the Steiner Academy would undoubtedly be a bitter climb-down.

Then, too, we must acknowledge that some students and some parents genuinely love Steiner education. Steiner schools generally are full of lovely art, the teachers seem to take great interest in their students, little academic pressure is put on the kids, some lovely values are affirmed at the schools (imagination, love of art, green values, etc.), there's lots of free time for playing and making art, and so on. Attending a Steiner school can be quite pleasant.

But this is not to say that Steiner schools provide a good education. In general, they do not. Academic standards are often low at Steiner schools, principally because the belief system on which the schools stand puts its focus elsewhere. Specifically, the Steiner belief system — Anthroposophy — is a gnostic religion, and this faith is what true-believing Steiner teachers care about most. Thus, we find Waldorf teachers making statements such as the following:

◊ “Waldorf education strives to create a place in which the highest beings [i.e., the gods]…can find their home....” — Waldorf teacher Joan Almon, WHAT IS A WALDORF KINDERGARTEN? (SteinerBooks, 2007), p. 53.

◊ "Waldorf education is based upon the recognition that the four bodies of the human being [the physical, etheric, astral, and ego bodies] develop and mature at different times.” — Waldorf teacher Roberto Trostli, RHYTHMS OF LEARNING: What Waldorf Education Offers Children, Parents, and Teachers (SteinerBooks, 2017), p. 4.

◊ “[T]he purpose of [Waldorf] education is to help the individual fulfill his karma.” — Waldorf teacher Roy Wilkinson, THE SPIRITUAL BASIS OF STEINER EDUCATION (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), p. 52.

◊ "Must teachers be clairvoyant in order to be certain that they are teaching in the proper way? Clairvoyance is needed...." — Waldorf teacher Eugene Schwartz, THE MILLENNIAL CHILD (Anthroposophic Press, 1999), p. 157.

◊ "The reason many [Steiner or Waldorf] schools exist is because of the Anthroposophy, period. It's not because of the children. It's because a group of Anthroposophists have it in their minds to promote Anthroposophy in the world ... Educating children is secondary in these schools." — Former Waldorf teacher "Baandje", 2006. [See "Ex-Teacher 7".] 

Steiner schools can be pleasant places. But as educational institutions, they are often seriously deficient. They are usually not, in other words, good schools. Instead, they are disguised Anthroposophical religious institutions, aiming to spread the Anthroposophical faith. 

So improving the poor teaching at Steiner Academy Exeter may prove to be extremely difficult. The fact is, Steiner schools are not fundamentally interested in providing a good education, as this concept is usually understood. They are interested in karma, and clairvoyance, and the incarnation of invisible bodies, and so forth. They are interested in occult fantasies that, sadly, they mistake for reality. 

Giving kids a real education — that is, informing kids about the real world and preparing them for productive lives in the real world — is difficult if not completely impossible for thoroughgoing Steiner schools. Their focus is elsewhere.

[For more on these matters, see, e.g., “Here’s the Answer”, “Schools as Churches”, and “Academic Standards at Waldorf”. For more on the unfolding story of Steiner Academy Exeter, see “S. A. Exeter”.]

— R.R.

. 

. 

 .

. 

. 

. 

2.

September 21, 2011

INFORMAL Q & A

Informal online chatter, often anonymous, is far from authoritative. Read it skeptically. Bring your own knowledge to bear, and withhold judgment where you are unsure. If a comment made during an online chat is consistent with authoritative information you have gleaned elsewhere, then perhaps it has merit. Perhaps. But if not...

One way or another, for context, is here some of today's confabulation.

Q. “I just want to hear what kind of take Dopers [i.e., correspondents at The Straight Dope] have on Waldorf Schools ... My niece is in the 8th grade and has attended a Waldorf school since Kindergarten ... I would really like to hear what others here have to say before I pipe up.”

A1. “...if we're going to discount an educational tradition just because its underlying belief-system is whacky, well, heck...”

A2. “...The schools were started on a philosophy called Anthroposophy. This rejects modern medicine and psychiatry and promotes a belief in things like astrology and spiritual mysticism.

"But how much a school accepts this varies. One of the [Waldorf schools] in my town has all the teachers wear long flowing skirts everyday and talks a lot about reincarnation as plants. The other takes a gentler than average method of education, but doesn't get all into the woo.”

A3. “I have an anecdote about a friend of my mother's. He had his children in a Waldorf school, and worked out a deal where he would teach a semester of physics in exchange for a break on tuition (they had a semester of chemistry followed by a semester of physics). 

"Sometime during his first week, he made a casual reference to the periodic table, and no one knew what he was talking about. He probed a bit, and discovered that they had spent an entire semester of 'chemistry' learning about the healing properties of different kinds of crystals. Even more disturbing, the administration was completely unaware that they were not learning mainstream chemistry (and were horrified when they found out, but still, it seems like the sort of thing that should come to the attention of a principal before the class is over).

"He ended up teaching both chemistry and physics for his semester, then withdrawing his kids from the school.”

A4. “Not teaching your children to read until they're older is a turn-off for me [Waldorf schools usually postpone reading until age 7].”

A5. “Statler schools are slightly better, but neither is especially charming or forgiving.”

A6. “...I went to one of these schools for two years of elementary school (after I'd learned to read). While I can't say for sure that it would have been the optimal place for me long term, it was certainly a delightful portion of my childhood. There was definitely a lot of woo going on (which annoyed me), but I was adequately educated...”

A7. “...My kids go to an ordinary public school and got that [math] starting in first grade. Not in a complex fashion, but the concepts. 

“They started getting the concepts of algebra in 3rd grade.”

A8. “[I]t makes a huge difference if the child has a learning disability or some such issue. A huge difference. I'm afraid too many kids could easily get lost in the woo.”

A9. “...I have little faith in the public schools catching and correcting [learning] problems. 

“Anyone considering one of these [Waldorf] schools can find plenty not to like about them, but the reading thing is seriously minor... “

A10. “...sounds like a better education than you'd get from the Full Gospel Pentecostal Day School...”

A11. "Bananas, celery, walnuts, grapes!"

A12. [the original questioner] “Thanks for the input. I have a niece who attends a Waldorf school and I am shocked at the lack of real core education. They sort of seem to pretend to have math and language, but my niece knows almost nothing for her age, it's tragic as she is a smart kid and my sister and her husband are shelling out all this money for her 'education'.

"When I was there for a visit earlier this year her teacher assigned my niece a biography of Turkey. A BIOGRAPHY. Of a COUNTRY. I was flabbergasted. I was sure my niece misspoke, but I looked at her papers and sure enough, he refers to what is a standard research paper on a country/culture as a biography. The teacher doesn't seem to know the definition of 'biography'. WTF? It still completely baffles me as I sit here and write it.

"This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm pretty good at math, and tutoring her drove me nuts as her assignments just didn't make any sense. Often vital data were left out, making the problem unworkable, unless one assumed things which weren't given. Each and every time, it turned out that the teacher expected it to be assumed, because it was 'obvious'. It was maddening. Again, TIP OF THE ICEBERG.” 

[9-21-2011 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14281140]

. 

. 

 .

. 

. 

. 

3.

January 21, 2019

MORE INSPECTIONS, 

MORE FAILURES 

In recent days, news articles in the British media indicated that inspectors have found severe problems in several Steiner schools operating in Britain. These articles referred to reports written by the inspectors, but they were generally unable to quote directly from the reports, which had not yet been officially released.

This is now changing; the reports are being released to the public. The following item is from The Bristol Post, and it focuses chiefly on the Steiner Academy Bristol. But the problems found there seem to be typical of those that have been unearthed at other Steiner schools, both public and private. [1] The defensive responses of Steiner supporters in Bristol also seem typical.

The inspectors were sent to the schools by Ofsted, the UK government’s Office for Standards in Education.

"Pupils are not safe" -

damning Ofsted report reveals

concerns about 'inadequate'

Bristol Steiner Academy

But parents are fighting for a fairer assessment 

after being outraged by Ofsted's findings

By Sarah Turnnidge

Details of an Ofsted report, which have threatened the future of state-funded Steiner education in Bristol [2], have been published — revealing that the school has been graded as inadequate in every area of inspection…

Fellow Steiner Academies in Frome and Exeter also received 'inadequate' ratings, while the fourth school in Hereford was rated as ‘good'.

The report, which was released to parents on Monday before being published on Friday, lists a number of observed failings.

The first of these concerns regards safeguarding [3] …

"The school's work to promote pupil's [sic] personal development and welfare is inadequate," the report [says]. "Pupils are not safe.”

Although the report states that a rise in records of bullying incidents [4] could be due to the implementation of a more effective system of record-keeping, incidents are still acknowledged to be 'too frequent’…

The Ofsted report details five areas of inspection; effectiveness of leadership and management; quality of teaching, learning, and assessment; personal development, behaviour, and welfare; outcomes for pupils; and early years provision — each of which have been rated as inadequate… [5]

Despite the damning report, a large number of parents with children at the academy have rallied around the school, claiming that the report is unfair and does not accurately reflect the experiences of their children…

More than 850 people have signed a petition entitled 'Demand a Fair Ofsted Inspection of Steiner Academy Bristol', started by parents of children at the school, which alleges that the inspection process itself was "unfair and biased”… [6]

[1/21/2019    https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/pupils-not-safe-damning-ofsted-2447330]

◊

Waldorf Watch Footnotes:

[1] See, e.g., “Failure”, “Complaints”, “RSSK”, and “S. A. Exeter”.

[2] Steiner Academy Bristol and its sister schools — Steiner academies in Exeter, Frome, and Hereford — are "free schools." That is, they are independent schools that receive public financing. (In the USA, these would be called charter schools.) The fate of Steiner free schools — and perhaps the fate of all British Steiner schools, public and private — may be significantly affected by the current controversy. In addition, the fate of the overall free school program in the UK may also be impacted.

[3] Steiner schools and Waldorf schools have often been accused of lax oversight of students. The Steiner/Waldorf attitude toward the protection of students is tied to belief in karma and guardian angels. Rudolf Steiner taught that children arrive on Earth with karmas that must be enacted. And, he said, children have guardian angels who accompany them at all times. Steiner/Waldorf teachers may deduce from these doctrines that they should not interfere in the children’s behavior, even violent behavior, since it reflects the children's karmas; and the children's guardian angels can be relied on to prevent any serious harm. [See the entries for “karma” and “guardian angels” in The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.]

[4] Bullying has allegedly been a serious problem in Steiner/Waldorf schools. [See “Slaps”.] Tolerance for bullying may arise from belief in karma and guardian angels. But other forms of abuse have also been reported in Steiner/Waldorf schools. [See, e.g., “Extremity”.]

[5] This, clearly, is the most important finding in the report: The school failed to meet required standards in every part of its operations, including management of the school, quality of teaching, and outcomes for students. 

[6] Some people love Steiner/Waldorf education, and they will often defend it vigorously. Whether this affection and support are based on a clear-eyed understanding of the Steiner/Waldorf system may be questionable, however. [See, e.g., “The Upside”, “Glory”, and “Oh Humanity”.]

It is certainly true that judging Steiner/Waldorf schools by ordinary standards may be miss a lot about these schools. Steiner/Waldorf schools have different aims and different practices from those found in ordinary schools. Here are a few in indications of this. The following statements were made by knowledgeable followers of Rudolf Steiner:

◊ “[Waldorf] education is essentially grounded on the recognition of the child as a spiritual being, with a varying number of incarnations behind him….” — Anthroposophist Stewart C. Easton, MAN AND WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 1989), pp. 388-389.

◊ “Waldorf education strives to create a place in which the highest beings [i.e., the gods]…can find their home....” — Waldorf teacher Joan Almon, WHAT IS A WALDORF KINDERGARTEN? (SteinerBooks, 2007), p. 53.

◊ "Waldorf education is based upon the recognition that the four bodies of the human being [the physical, etheric, astral, and ego bodies] develop and mature at different times.” — Waldorf teacher Roberto Trostli, RHYTHMS OF LEARNING: What Waldorf Education Offers Children, Parents & Teachers (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), pp. 4-5.

◊ “[T]he purpose of [Waldorf] education is to help the individual fulfill his karma.” — Waldorf teacher Roy Wilkinson, THE SPIRITUAL BASIS OF STEINER EDUCATION (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), p. 52.

[For more such statements, see, e.g., “Here’s the Answer” and “Who Says?”]

— R.R.

. 

. 

 .

. 

. 

. 

4.

February 11, 2020

◊ NEWS BRIEF ◊

From the Belgian newspaper De Morgen [Brussels, Belgium]:

Education

Steiner school students 

perform worse in college

Pupils from Steiner schools have lower study success in higher education than the average graduate from general secondary education ... This is apparent from an answer provided [in Parliament] by the Flemish minister of Education Ben Weyts...

Steiner schools are gaining popularity. ... [But] critics have questions about the effectiveness of the Steiner method, particularly with regard to the learning attained by students...

[M]any graduates from Steiner schools do not proceed to college. For example, only 44 percent of the students from Steiner secondary education enrolled in academically oriented bachelor degree programs, while for other secondary students the average is nearly 68 percent.

It also appears that the Steiner students have a lower study efficiency. [Students from Steiner schools complete fewer of the college courses they undertake.] "They complete 71.44 percent of their professional courses and and 60.8 percent of their bachelor-degree courses, well below the Flemish averages of 81.1 and 68 percent respectively," says [Member of Parliament Roosmarijn] Beckers.

"Steiner education simply does not focus enough on the acquisition of knowledge, which is detrimental to the further study opportunities of their students and their options in the job market. I also received disturbing signals from parents who had enrolled their children in a Steiner school, but who departed after a few months because their children themselves said that they did not learn enough at school," Beckers says.

[2/11/2020   https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/leerlingen-steinerscholen-presteren-slechter-in-het-hoger-onderwijs~b3fe832f//   Translation by Roger Rawlings, relying heavily on Google Translate. Note that similar stories appear in various other Belgian/European news media today.]

◊

Steiner or Waldorf schools have long had a reputation for low academic standards. For recent news coverage bearing on this issue, see "academic standards, providing a good education" in the Waldorf Watch Annex Index — scroll down.

. 

. 

 .

. 

. 

. 

5.

February 11, 2020

"Steiner Education Simply Does Not 

Focus Enough on the Acquisition of Knowledge"

We reported here, a few days ago, on a news item out of Belgium indicating that Waldorf schools fail to prepare students adequately for college or for the students' future careers [1]. This item has now appeared, in various versions, in numerous media [2].

A news item such as this, arising out of a single country, may not tell us much. But if the essence of the item is confirmed by other accounts from other countries, the overall import may be highly significant. And indeed considerable corroboration can be found elsewhere. So, for instance, education experts inspecting Steiner schools in the United Kingdom (UK) have determined that these schools are often marred by poor teaching and poor student outcomes [3].

From the days when Rudolf Steiner personally oversaw the development of the first Waldorf school, Waldorf education has had a reputation for low academic standards [4]. The underlying problem is that the Waldorf worldview devalues modern science and scholarship [5]. Waldorf schools tend to put their focus elsewhere [6]. Waldorf students are rarely required to memorize much factual information, or to master complex subjects, or to exercise their intellects in sustained concentration [7].

We have touched on some of these matters here during recent weeks. For a refresher, see, e.g., "A Workshop in India & a Primer on Waldorf" [8], "Facts vs. Fallacies: Realities vs. Waldorf" [9], and "Steiner School Crisis: Bad Move in Bristol?" [10]. 

With all this in mind, perhaps we should take another look at the Belgian news item that has brought these issues once again to public notice. Here is a longer version of the item, this time from the newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws {The Latest News} (Anthwerp, Belgium):

Pupils from Steiner schools 

perform worse in higher education

Pupils from Steiner schools do less well in higher education than the average graduate of general secondary schools (ASO) [11]. This appears from the answer Flemish Minister of Education Ben Weyts [12]...gave in response to a question from...Member of Parliament Roosmarijn Beckers.

Steiner schools are gaining in popularity. Over the past six school years, the number of enrollments for secondary education at the Federation of Steiner Schools [13] has increased by about 24 percent. But critics have questions about the effectiveness of the Steiner method, especially with regard to the learning success of students...

Figures requested by...Roosmarijn Beckers...show that many graduates from Steiner schools in fact do not go on to higher education. For instance, only 44 percent of the students from the ASO variant of Steiner education enter an academically-oriented bachelor's program, while for other ASO students the average is almost 68 percent.

Furthermore, it appears that the Steiner pupils have a lower study efficiency. The student return is the ratio of the number of credits acquired to the total number of credits taken. "With 71.44 percent in the professional tract and 60.8 percent in the academic bachelor's tract, [Steiner graduates'] study efficiency is well below the Flemish averages of 81.1 and 68 percent respectively", says Beckers.

"Steiner education simply does not focus enough on the acquisition of knowledge, which is detrimental to the further study opportunities of their students as well as to their options on the labour market. I also received disturbing signals from parents who had enrolled their children in a Steiner school, but who withdrew after a few months because their children themselves said they were learning too little at school," Beckers states...

Paul Buyck, spokesman of the Flemish Federation of Steiner schools (VFS) [14], emphasizes that the school boards of the secondary Steiner schools are in serious discussion with the cabinet of Minister Weyts about their submissions concerning the objectives of Steiner schools. "We know that the Minister considers it important that the knowledge element on the one hand and the verifiability of the new educational objectives on the other hand should be given sufficient attention...", says Buyck. "The Minister responded to the parliamentary question from that perspective and we agree that a number of improvements could be made [15]."

According to the federation, statements concerning study results must be framed in the context of the modernization of secondary education. "The Steiner schools have been busy internationally over the past two years with the re-profiling of the Steiner pedagogy" [16]...

According to him, education is not only about cognitive development. "The cognitive is important, but so is the creative and the socio-emotional. In that sense, it is not appropriate now to use figures from the past to analyze a reorganization for the future ... Actually, we can only evaluate possible effects within 10 years at the earliest, when everything is fully rolled out," says Buyck [17].

The Steiner schools have been asking for some time that the transfer figures be calculated in a different, more complete way. "By only focusing on the students [who go directly into college], all those who go abroad for a year after secondary school are not counted. And there are very many in the Steiner schools ... It is very tedious to have to counter the impression that they are 'not successful'," concludes the spokesperson of the federation [18].

[2/15/2020    https://www.hln.be/nina/familie/leerlingen-steinerscholen-presteren-slechter-in-het-hoger-onderwijs~a3fe832f/     This item originally appeared on February 11.  Translation by Roger Rawlings, using DeepL Translator and Google Translate.]

◊

Waldorf Watch Footnotes

[1] See News Briefs, February 11, 2020: "Steiner School Students Do Worse in College".

[2] See, e.g., https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200211_04843360,    https://nl.metrotime.be/2020/02/12/must-read/leerlingen-van-steinerscholen-presteren-slechter-in-het-hoger-onderwijs/,    https://sceptr.net/2020/02/leerlingen-uit-steinerscholen-scoren-slechter-in-hoger-onderwijs/,    etc.

[3] See "The Steiner School Crisis".

[4] See "Academic Standards at Waldorf".

[5] See, e.g., "Materialism U."

The Waldorf worldview is Anthroposophy. See the entry for "Anthroposophy" in The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.

[6] Their focus is essentially spiritual or religious. See, e.g., "Soul School" and "Schools as Churches".

[7] Steiner disparaged the brain. [See "Steiner's Specific".] Waldorf schools seek to be "holistic," elevating the heart and the hands to at least equal importance with the brain. [See "Holistic Education".]

[8] February 6, 2020 — scroll down.

[9] November 21, 2019.

[10] February 7, 2020.

[11] ASO stands for "algemeen secundair onderwijs" {general secondary education}.

[12] Belgium consists of three regions: the Dutch-speaking Flemish region in the north, the French-speaking Walloon region in the south, and the bi-lingual Brussels-Capital region. The Flemish Minister of Education has responsibility for schools in the northern region.

[13] This is the Belgian Federatie Steinerscholen, the umbrella organization for Steiner schools in Belgium. [See https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://www.steinerscholen.be/&prev=search.] The growth figure, 24%, applies to Steiner schools in Belgium overall.

[14] This is the Flemish portion of the Federatie Steinerscholen (Vlaamse Federatie Steinerscholen).

[15] When Steiner schools are criticized, some become defensive and combative while others attempt to respond (or appear to response) in a cooperative manner. Mr. Buyck seems to take a cooperative stance, agreeing that "improvements could be made." Presumably he means, in part, that Steiner schools can improve at least in the way they respond to official requirements. (Note, however, that his reply does not indicate agreement with the Minister's priorities. He says, "We know that the Minister considers it important that" certain things be emphasized; but he does not endorse the Minister's view.) 

[16] This has been, arguably, a public relations (PR) effort, not an actual overhaul of the Steiner approach. The Steiner/Waldorf movement often employs canny PR strategies. [See "PR".] Actual changes in Steiner practices are rare. Rudolf Steiner's followers tend to defer to Steiner in almost all things, treating his pronouncements as virtually holy writ. [See "Guru".] In general, Waldorf proponents oppose efforts to "modernize" their schools; they prefer to keep the schools essentially as Steiner said they should be. [See, e.g., "Apologies and Promises" Student Safety Was Secondary", February 13, 2020.]

[17] Buyck seems to promise real changes will occur in Steiner practices, but — for the reasons given above — this is unlikely. The practical effect of Buyck's position would be to excuse Steiner/Waldorf schools from close scrutiny for at least a decade, and probably longer. In general, Steiner/Waldorf proponents believe that outsiders are incapable of correctly judging anything that happens within the Anthroposophical milieau. Much that occurs in Steiner/Waldorf schools derives from knowledge that only esoteric initiates are considered able to comprehend. [See "Inside Scoop".] Hence, much is wrapped in secrecy. [See "Secrets".]

[18] Steiner/Waldorf representatives often find outside inquiries tedious or even unendurable. They often argue that their schools should be exempted from ordinary requirements. But the claims they make in an effort to buttress their position are often specious. So, for instance, many students from non-Steiner schools in Europe also spend a year abroad after completing their secondary education. There seems little basis for arguing that Steiner schools are unique in this way or that official statistics are unfair to Steiner schools and their graduates.

— R.R.

 .

 .

 .

 .

.

.

P.S.

Some Waldorf schools refuse to issue report cards.

Steiner himself dismissed the idea of such reports.

“Progress reports? Giving in to someone like Mrs. X. 

(a mother who had written a letter to the faculty) is just nonsense."

— Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER 

(Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 408.

The Waldorf school I attended made use of report cards,

although often the process seemed purely pro forma:

Please do not attach any particular importance to my own experiences or history as a student at one particular Waldorf school. Whether Waldorf schools in general are good — and, especially, whether they would be good for you and your children — depends on far larger considerations. 

Read Steiner. Gather as much information as you can about Waldorf schools in general. Then, if you find yourself drawn to a specific Waldorf school, visit it, look around carefully, ask probing questions — and make you own decision about that specific school.

— R.R.

[R.R.]