Standard textbooks are generally no good; maybe Waldorf teachers can create their own.

“It would be a good idea if the Waldorf teachers would work on creating decent textbooks that reflect our pedagogical principles. I would not like to see the current textbooks in the classroom. It would be somewhat destructive to put such reading books in the classes. There are, of course, collections that are really not too bad. One such collection is by a Mr. Richter. It is a collection of sagas. It is neither trivial nor beyond the children’s grasp. Even in Grimm’s fairy tales, you always have to be selective, as there are some that are not appropriate for [our] school.” [p. 440] 

Standard textbooks contain real knowledge about the real world — precisely what Steiner rejected.

.

.

.

a) The little boy R.R.; and b) E.T.:

“In the first grade, there is a boy in the first row in the corner, R.R. He needs some curative eurythmy exercises. He needs to consciously do the movements he now does for a longer period and at a much slower speed. Have him walk and pay attention to how fast he moves, and then have him do it half as fast. If he takes twenty paces in five seconds, then have him take twenty paces in ten seconds. He needs to consciously hold back. He needs to do some curative eurythmy, then these exercises, then curative eurythmy again.

“You also have that boy in the yellow jacket, E.T. That is a medical problem. He could certainly do the ‘A, E, I exercise.’ Also, he should eat some eggs that are not completely cooked. He needs to develop protein strength. In many cases, it is possible to know what we need to do to heal something. People cannot say something untrue about us if what we say needs to be done cannot be done. We need to take up a collection so the boy can have two eggs a day, at least four times in a week. He would need eight eggs. The Cologne News costs twenty-five marks, but it does not have the same nutritional value.” [p. 456 - also see p. 625.]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

More on Sunday services; the sacraments.

“A teacher:  ‘Should Miss R. and Mr. W. hold the services?’

“Dr. Steiner:  ‘They should both celebrate the sacraments. That is an obvious condition for the independent religious instruction.

“‘I would like to say something more. Experience has shown that the Independent Religious Instruction consists not only in what we teach during religion class, not only what we teach through feeling, but that a certain relationship needs to develop between the religion teacher and the student. You can develop that through the celebration of a sacrament. If someone else does the service, then, for the student who receives the sacrament from someone else, a large part of the intangibles necessary for teaching religion are missing between the students and the religion teacher. The reverse is also true. If someone gives the sacrament without teaching religion, that person falls into a difficult position that can hardly be justified. It is easier to justify teaching religion without leading a service than it is to justify leading a service without teaching religion. Through the service, we bring religious instruction out of empty theory. It is based upon a relationship between the religion teacher and the students. As I have said in connection with the sacrament, you should decide.’” [p. 465 - also see pp. 84-86 and pp. 303-304.]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

The human ear contains a metamorphosed intestine, as it were.

“You need to understand the small bones within the ear, the hammer, stirrup, the oval window, the anvil, as small limbs, as arms or legs that touch the eardrum. A sense of touch enters the understanding of tone. The spiral, which is filled with liquid, is a metamorphosed intestine of the ear. A feeling for tone lives in it.” [p. 469]

Anthroposophical medicine, which is often practiced in or around Waldorf schools, is often based on an occult conception of the human organism that finds no basis in real medicine. [See "Steiner's Quackery".]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

The study of religion, literature, and history: 

“In teaching religion and history, what is important is how you present things. What is important is how things are treated in one case and then in another. In teaching religion, three stages need to be emphasized ... In teaching literature and history, you need to draw the children’s attention to how one stage arises from an earlier one and then continues on to a later stage. You could show how it was proper that common people in the ninth and tenth centuries followed the priests in complete dullness.” [pp. 480-481 - also see p. 46] 

Steiner taught that humans are involved in a spiritual evolutionary process, moving through distinct stages. He also taught that religion has been necessary in human evolution — as when people blindly followed priests — but religion will become unnecessary because of his own teachings, which he claimed are scientific. He called his doctrines "spiritual science."

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

a) Students should accept whatever their teachers say, without judgment or discussion. b) Direct questions can be answered. c) Religion teachers should have special authority.

“It is important that the youth of our Waldorf School talk less about questions of world perspective. The situation is that we need to create a mood, namely, that the teacher has something to say that the children should neither judge nor discuss. That is necessary, otherwise it will become trivial. An actual discussion lowers the content. Things should remain with simply asking questions. The children even in the tenth and eleventh grades should know that they can ask everything and receive an answer. For questions of religion and worldview, we need to maintain that longer. The religion teacher needs to retain a position of authority even after puberty.” [p. 494 - also see p. 65 and p. 118].

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Anthroposophy suffuses the curriculum — it is “in the school.” 

“The older students often mentioned that we emphasize that the Waldorf School is not to be an anthroposophical school. That is one of the questions we need to handle very seriously. 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. It is the material that causes what is said to be anthroposophical. We certainly may not go to the other extreme, where people would say that anthroposophy may not be brought into the school. Anthroposophy will be in the school when it is objectively justified, that is, when it is called for by the material itself.” [p. 495 - also see p. 118 and 494]

Because of Anthroposophy’s supreme importance, “the material” will almost always justify including Anthroposophy is every class.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Painful committee deliberations:

“If we had only the proposal of the committee, we would need only to agree to or reject that proposal. Now we have two proposals, and we will have to have a debate about them. If there is another proposal, it should also be made. We created this preliminary committee with a great deal of pain. We believe it made its proposal only after mature consideration. Taking our trust in them into account, we now need to either verify or reject the proposal. The question is whether someone has something to say that is germane to the proposal. Is there perhaps a third proposal? Now the question is whether there is something to be added or whether a third proposal will be made.” [p. 517]

There’s no escaping some problems. Waldorf schools generally strive to be less bureaucratic than other schools, but the effort does not always succeed.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Sugar, parents, and art:

“There are parents who overfeed their young children with all kinds of candy and so forth. When such children come to school, from the perspective of the soul and spirit, and thus also physically, they are concerned only with themselves. They sit and brood when they do not feel enough sugar in their organism. They become nervous and irritated when they have not had enough sugar ... If a child shows too little capacity for synthetic imagining, that is, for constructive imagining where the child cannot properly picture things, if he or she is a little barbarian in art, something common in today’s children, that is a symptom that the metabolic-limb system is not in order. You must, therefore, provide assistance in the other direction, in the area of sugar.” [p. 535]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

a) Don’t overestimate the value of intellect; b) use material means on children, since everything material is imbued with spirit; c) remember the gods (plural):

“People today have too little respect for material measures, and they overestimate abstract intellectual measures. We can attempt to correct that modern, but incorrect, perspective, by attempting to show that the divine powers have used their spirit for the Earth in order to fulfill everything materially. Godly powers allow it to be warm in summer and cold in winter. Those are spiritual activities accomplished by divine powers through material means. Were the gods to attempt to achieve through human education, through an intellectual or moral instruction, what they can achieve by having human beings sweat in the summer and freeze in the winter, then they would be incorrect. You should never underestimate the effects of material means upon children. You should always keep them in mind.” [p. 536]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Slapping the students doesn’t really improve discipline.

“There may be teachers in the Waldorf School who slap the children, and so forth. That is something I would like to take care of in private discussions. I have heard it said that the Waldorf teachers hit the children, and we have discussed that often. The fact is, you cannot improve discipline by hitting the children, that only worsens things. That is something you must take into account. Perhaps no one wants to say anything about this, but my question is whether that is simply a story that has been spread like so many other lies, or have children, in fact, been slapped in the Waldorf School? If that has occurred, it could ruin a great deal.” [p. 547 - also see p. 10 and p. 547]

Steiner’s statement, here, contradicts other statements where he acknowledged reports about slapping and even told the teachers how to do it best. Note that Steiner’s chief concern here (as was so often the case) is for the school’s reputation.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Teaching the students French won’t damage the German empire. (I'm sure this is a load off all our minds.)

“Whether or not our students learned French would make little difference in the cultural status of the German empire.* In contrast, a major cultural deed could occur if people overcame all the things connected with the false valuing of French in Middle Europe....” [p. 556]

* For more on Steiner's views on Germany, and the Germano-centric purpose of Waldorf education, see "Steiner and the Warlord" and "The Good Wars".

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

On the other hand, the French are committing the “brutality” of bringing blacks to Europe; the French are decadent and their language corrupts the soul:

"What keeps  the French language going is the furor, the blood, of the French. The language is actually dead, but the corpse continues to be spoken. This is something that is most apparent in French nineteenth-century poetry. The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul. The soul acquires nothing more than the possibility of clichés. Those who enthusiastically speak French transfer that to other languages. The French are also ruining what maintains their dead language, namely, their blood. The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an enormous affect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting.” [pp. 558-559]

This is one of the very few statements made by Steiner that some Anthroposophists find shameful. The editors attached an apology/defense: 

“Any reader who has read thus far in these transcripts will know how direct and spontaneous they are; but even a prepared reader may be surprised by this session. All along we have struggled, as publishers, with the issue of whether to let the record stand intact or whether to edit it, never more so than in the case of the present conference. After much soul searching and discussion, we have felt that we would better serve by letting the document stand exactly as it is published in German ... Interpretation, like communication, is never a simple matter. It is especially difficult when the issues touch deep into the things that are the most important to us. Without openness, faith, and trust, however, neither true communication nor interpretation is possible. For the sake of these — and readers to come — we leave this passage unedited.”

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Childhood games, including military and warlike games, played artistically:

“‘I certainly do not want to imply that the old games are very good simply because they come from older times. They need to be replaced. Blind Man’s Bluff or such things are the right thing. Or, A-Tisket, A-Tasket....’

“A teacher asks about marching and singing. 

“Dr. Steiner:  ‘These military or war-like games can be done in a healthy way if they are done artistically. What was done where I grew up was pure nonsense.’” [p. 579]

(The image of singing, marching German children, engaged in "military or war-like games," may give some people pause.)

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Hitting people with a sledgehammer, but not negatively:

“I would also like to mention that in the future [during conferences or lectures] we must avoid emphasizing the negative and critical aspects too strongly.* The first mention [i.e., the first negative statement] will not have much influence because the people who heard it will soon forget it unless opposition was lying dormant in their souls. That negative aspect existed in even the best lectures [at our recent conference], and is something we must significantly reduce. I am certainly not against hitting people with a sledgehammer, but we should avoid being negative.” [p. 589]

* From the start, Waldorf schools have sought to present a uniformly sunny and upbeat facade to the outsiders. To some degree, this is central to Waldorf public relations efforts. [See, e.g., "The Upside" and "PR".]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Islands and continents are not attached to the Earth: They float in the sea:

“[A]n island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside.”  [p. 607  - also see p. 618]

But shh! Don’t tell such things to students — they will spill the beans:

“We cannot tell them to the students because they would then need to tell them to their professors in the examinations, and we would acquire a terrible name. Nevertheless, that is actually what we should achieve in geography.” [p. 608]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

The Apocrypha — heretical teachings that contradict the Bible — are “more correct than the Gospels”; but the kids aren't ready for the Apocrypha yet.

“The children are not yet mature enough to go through the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha contains many things that are more correct than what is written in the Gospels.* I have always extended the Gospels by what we can verify from the Apocrypha. Sometimes there are strong conflicts. When they take up the Gospels, the children must grasp them. It is difficult to explain the contradictions, so if they took up the Apocrypha nothing would make sense anymore. I would simply study the Gospels.” [pp. 615-616 - also see p. 45]

* You can find some of Steiner’s “extensions” and “corrections” of the Gospels in the book THE FIFTH GOSPEL (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995). [See "Steiner's Fifth Gospel".]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

The Waldorf teachers are confused by the floating islands, so Steiner repeats the truth: 

“The continents swim and do not sit upon anything. They are held in position upon the Earth by the constellations. When the constellations change, the continents change, also.” [p. 618]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

a) "Curative eurythmy." b) Mood swings. c) Parents.

"A teacher asks about curative eurythmy.*

“Dr Steiner:  'We should maintain the principle of not hacking off some part of [the] main lesson and tacking it on somewhere else.'

"A teacher asks about a student who has large swings in mood.

"Dr. Steiner:  'He is not enthusiastic. You'll need to separate him from his mother.'" [p. 625]

* See "Eurythmy".

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

a) How to cure tuberculosis in the intestines and pancreas; b) large heads and small: 

“Dr. Steiner:  'For cases of tuberculosis in the intestines and the pancreas, put the juice from half a lemon in a glass of water and use that in a compress to wrap their abdomen at night. Give them also the tuberculosis remedies one and two [described by Steiner elsewhere]. As far as possible, they should eat only warm things without any animal fat, for instance, warm eggs, warm drinks, particularly warm lemonade, but, if possible, everything should be warm.

“The school doctor:  ‘It is difficult to differentiate between large- and small-headed children.'*

“Dr. Steiner:  ‘You will need to go more thoroughly into the reality of it. So many things are hidden. It sometimes happens that these things appear later with one child or another.’” [p. 633]

Besides laying down some extremely bizarre educational directives, Steiner also lectured on medicine — to be precise, he promoted quack medicine.

* For more on large- and small-headed children, see the entry for "constitutional types" in The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Some people are “not human”; some are “filled with a sort of natural demon”; some Waldorf students are not really human — but “We cannot, however, create a school for demons”:

“That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I [the spiritual ego, a human’s spiritual self]; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the nineties [i.e., the 1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but are only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons.” [p. 649] 

I discuss this passage, and other remarks made in the same meeting, in “Secrets".

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

The dawning intellect in teenagers leads to rowdy behavior.

“[S]omething we could expect at this age is present in the boys, namely very strongly developed intellectual forces. These intellectual forces become apparent at puberty. Particularly with boys, this often arises as a certain subconscious desire to exercise their intellectual strength. It is natural that, when left to themselves, boys see rowdy behavior as the only possibility of expressing those intellectual forces.” [p. 652] 

In Steiner’s view, intellect is almost always suspect. [See, e.g., "Steiner's Specific".]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Waldorf teachers shouldn’t make their classes too Anthroposophical, lest visitors catch on.

“The other problem is that you are often too anthroposophical, like Mr. X. Yesterday, I was sitting on pins and needles worrying that the visitors would think the history class was too religious. We should not allow the history class to be too religiously oriented. That is why we have a religion class. The visitors seem to have been very well-meaning people. Nevertheless, had they noticed that, they could easily have categorized the Waldorf School as being too anthroposophical and of bringing that into the classroom.” [p. 655]

Note that Steiner associates Anthroposophy with religion. Note, also, that he does not tell Waldorf teachers to keep Anthroposophy out of the classroom. He just tells them to tone it down a bit.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

How to teach the students about the zodiac.

“In discussing the zodiac, you should begin with the mammals, represented by Leo; then birds, Virgo; reptiles, Libra; amphibians, Scorpio; fish, Sagittarius; articulates, Capricorn; worms, Aquarius. Then continue on the other side, where you have the protists, Cancer; corals, Gemini; echinoderms, Taurus; ascidians, Aries; mollusks, Pisces. You should realize that the zodiac arose at a time when the names and classifications were very different. In the Hebrew language, there is no word for fish, so it is quite reasonable that you would not find fish mentioned in the story of creation. They were seen as birds that lived in water. Thus, the zodiac is divided in this way, into seven and five parts for day and night.” [pp. 659-660]

Steiner included much astrological lore in his doctrines, as well as using horoscopes. [See, e.g., "Astrology" and "Horoscopes".]

By the way, the Hebrew word for fish (yes, there is such a word in Hebrew) is “dag.” Steiner always felt free to make weird, untrue assertions.

Oh, and by the way: Genesis 1:26: 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

The editors try to cover Steiner for these bloopers, but without much success:

“In the Hebrew story of creation, there is no actual word for fish. It is circumscribed in Genesis 1:20. 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,' whereas, immediately following, the word fowl is used. Also, Leviticus 11:9, 'These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.' In general, the word dag appears for 'fish,' whereas thanninîm, translated as 'whales,' are mythological sea creatures.” [p. 660]

Anthroposophists really should learn to cut their losses, at least occasionally. Genesis 1:20 does not refer to fish, but Genesis 1:26 does.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Some animals correspond to the human head, some to the middle part of the human being (and the head), and some to the human limbs (and the head):

“The first group are the animals related to the head, namely, the protists, sponges, echinoderms, and ascidians. The second group are the rhythmic animals, the mollusks, worms, articulates, and fish — that is, the middle part of the human being and the head. The third group are the animals of the limbs, so you can see how each aspect is added. Thus, we have the limbs, the rhythmic system, and the head.” [p. 660]

Steiner taught that there are three main human physiological systems (which here he associates with types of animals): the metabolic-limb system, the nerve-senses system, and the rhythmic-circulatory system. [See the entries for these terms in The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Waldorf teachers need not abide by the wishes of students' parents — especially concerning kids with odd brains: 

“A teacher asks about B.B. in the eighth grade. 

“Dr. Steiner:  ‘Such people exist, and your task is not simply to rid yourself of them, but to really work with them. I do not believe we should try to influence them. What the mother wants to do is another thing ... There are clumps of fat between the various parts of his brain, so that he cannot bring them together.'" [pp. 667-668]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

More on the humours and temperaments, and their limitations:

“In my lecture today, I mentioned that we need to find our way past the temperaments. The goal of my lecture was to show how to come to an inner understanding that lies beyond people’s temperaments. I would like to hear about how these misunderstandings due to temperaments arose.”  [p. 687 - also see pp. 80-81 and pp. 90-91]

Steiner was almost incapable of admitting his own errors. The “misunderstandings” probably arose from Steiner’s own discussions of students’ temperaments. Go back to p. 80, for example, where Steiner refers to “all four temperaments.” [Also see "Humoresque" and "Temperaments".]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Students in the 12th grade are ill-prepared for graduation; steps the faculty might take:

“A teacher:  ‘Which subjects should we drop in the twelfth grade so that we can prepare the students for their final examinations?’

“Dr. Steiner:  ‘Sadly, technology and shop, as well as gymnastics and singing. We cannot drop eurythmy or drawing. Religion will have to be limited to one hour, but in the morning. The twelfth grade will take religion for one hour with the eleventh grade.’” [p. 688 - also see pp. 332-333, pp. 408-409, 712, and 725]

The efforts to prepare the students didn’t work out well, as we will see. Also, Steiner disavowed any intention to really prepare Waldorf students to such exams.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

a) The Waldorf School should be closely tied to the Anthroposophical Society, but not openly, not formally; b) the ploys that have misled people about the real nature of the Waldorf School should not be tossed away; c) Anthroposophy is a religion.

◊ "Formally, the Waldorf School is not an anthroposophical institution; rather, it is an independent creation based upon the foundations of anthroposophical pedagogy. In the way it meets the public, as well as the way it meets legal institutions, it is not an anthroposophical institution, but a school based upon anthroposophical pedagogy." [p. 698]

◊ "[I]f the school suddenly became an [openly] anthroposophical school, that would upset both the official authorities and the public." [p. 703]

◊ "[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people would break the Waldorf School's neck." [p. 705]

◊ "When the school was founded, we placed great value upon creating an institution independent of the Anthroposophical Society. Logically, that corresponds quite well with having the various religious communities and the Anthroposophical Society provide religious instruction, so that the Society provides religious instruction just as other religious groups do." [p. 706]

Notice that the Anthroposophical Society is one of a number of “religious groups.” Anthroposophy is a religion, and despite the formal separation between the “Independent” Waldorf School and the Anthroposophical Society, Anthroposophy is found throughout the school. [See “Secrets”. Re. religion - also see p. 42, p. 45, p. 55, pp. 75-76, pp. 84-86., pp. 303-304, and p. 465]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Lenin, Woodrow Wilson, and their lord, the demon Ahriman:

“We need to be clear that Ahrimanic forces [i.e., demonic forces associated with Ahriman] are increasingly breaking in upon historical events. Two leading personalities, Wilson and Lenin, died from the same illness, both from paralysis, which means that both offered an opening for Ahrimanic forces.” [p. 700]

Steiner was a German nationalist. He was deeply annoyed with both America and Russia, which had fought against Germany in World War I. [See “Steiner and the Warlord”.] 

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

The Waldorf School will not prepare students for their final exams; but should we tell the students and their parents?

“Dr. Steiner:  ‘...The question of final examinations is purely a question of opportunity. It is a question of whether we dare tell those who come to us that we will not prepare them for the final examination at all, that it is a private decision of the student whether to take the final examination or not....’

“A teacher asks whether it would be better to have the students take a thirteenth school year at another school and take their examinations there. Should a note be sent to the parents with that suggestion? 

"Dr. Steiner:  ‘You can do all that, but our students cannot avoid having to take an entrance examination. The question is only whether they will fail the entrance examination or the final examination.’” [p. 712]

The exams in question were administered by educational authorities outside Waldorf. The point of sending Waldorf students to another school for “a thirteenth school year” (in effect, 13th grade) would be to compensate for the deficiencies in Waldorf schooling.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Waldorf students who took the final exams did badly: 

“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.” [p. 725 - also see pp. 332-333, pp. 408-409, p. 688, and p. 712]

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Special problems with the children of Anthroposophists:

“I have to admit it is, in a certain sense, very strange that it is particularly the children of anthroposophists who develop so poorly in the Waldorf School. The children who were expelled some time ago were also children of anthroposophists." [p. 782]

Children of Anthroposophists may have very good reasons to rebel against their parents and against the Waldorf schools to which their parents have sent them.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Now that we have reached the end of the book, let’s have our own little exam. Decide what you think about the following:

“The Egyptian astral body was well developed and could, under certain circumstances, observe the etheric body well. Egyptians could see the astral areas of the etheric body particularly well, that is, the Sun, Moon, and stars. That is expressed in the Book of the Dead, in the clear view of life following death. The Persians belong to the same group as the Caldeans.” [p. 789]

If you have any misgivings about this quotation, you may want to reconsider sending a child to a school where such statements are honored as truth.

Children who attend Waldorf schools often receive their "educations" in the type of occultist atmosphere we've seen in FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER. Is this what you want for your children?

Among the startling things we've seen is Steiner's rejection of real knowledge — science and scholarship — and his rejection of the Biblical Gospels. Steiner placed his reliance, instead, of his own "clairvoyant" visions and on such things as ancient superstitions, myths, and fairy tales. He stood knowledge on its head and then knocked it over.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

.

Dear parents: FInd another, better type of school for your children.

— Roger Rawlings

.

.

.

.                                                                                                     

..

.

.

.

[R.R., recently.]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

To read an insider's account 

of life at a Waldorf school

written by a former 

Waldorf teacher,

go to 

"My Life Among the Anthroposophists".

For accounts by other 

former Waldorf teachers, 

go to 

"Ex-Teacher 2", "Ex-Teacher 3",

"Ex-Teacher 4",

and so on.

For discussions Steiner had 

with Waldorf teachers,

see "Discussions".

For "practical" advice Steiner 

gave to Waldorf teachers,

see "Advice for Teachers".

For one of Steiner's attempts to make 

Waldorf education seem sensible,

see "Soul School".

For reports by parents who sent 

their kids to Waldorf schools

only to regret it, see 

"Our Experience" and "Coming Undone". 

Also see "Cautionary Tales", "Moms", 

and "Pops".

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PARENTS AND TEACHERS

(PARENTS VS. TEACHERS?)

Waldorf schools attach great importance to the concept of freedom, but mainly they do this in a highly restrictive sense. They believe that teachers should be free to teach as they see fit, without any outside interference, including interference by the state, boards of directors, or students' parents. Former Waldorf student and teacher Dieter Brüll discusses this touchy issue in his book THE WALDORF SCHOOL AND THE THREEFOLD STRUCTURE (Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, 1997). Here are some excerpts:

◊ "The relationship between parents and the school is a recurring cause of friction ... [P]arents...often wish to follow the way teachers deal with their children. They may be quickly perceived [by the teachers] as uncomfortable nuisances and treated accordingly. On the other side of the coin, teachers often display demands (urgent requests) toward the home, which potentially infuriate parents." [p. 63]

◊ "In dealing with this, we cannot use the procedures of conventional school systems as our approach to this problem. This would only result in a patchwork of misunderstandings, fixed ideas, dogmas, and resentments." [pp. 63-64]

◊ "Spiritual freedom is clearly the most developed area of a Waldorf school. If all is well in this area, every teacher is free to proceed with her or his task of education in his/her own way. This means that neither parents nor colleagues, nor least of all a board of trustees, have a right to give directions." [p. 64]

◊ "It can hardly be avoided that there are teachers who find that their educational work is being spoiled at home, and parents who feel that their child is either wrongly treated or misunderstood at school." [p. 64]

◊ "[J]ust as an artist does not create from higher rules and prescriptions, but from very personal insights, the teacher, too, must act with undisturbed autonomy." [p. 66]

◊ "[No rules apply], not even Rudolf Steiner's, except perhaps the golden rule attributed to him, namely: it is not too bad to make mistakes if one makes them out of conviction." [p. 64]

◊ "The parents are on a collision course with this autonomy of the Waldorf teacher." [p. 67]

◊ "[T]he democratic model...is quite unsuitable for the spiritual life." [p. 67] Note that at Waldorf schools, education is considered part of the spiritual sphere. The three spheres of the "threefold structure" are the spiritual/educational sphere, the economic sphere, and the rights sphere.

◊"The teacher may very well be autonomous, but this gives him or her no right to put him or herself above the school structure." [p. 68] In other words, the teacher works freely within the Anthroposophical character of the school.

◊ "If one enrolls one's child in the school, a...contract is [agreed to]. This contract covers more than the amount of tuition! It is, in the first place, a declaration of will. The school promises to engage itself for the child in the field of education. The parents promise to engage themselves to facilitate the task of the school ... The child and parents become members of an organization by this contract and have to adapt themselves to the organization ... [S]chool regulations include in the first place the demands the school makes on the behavior of the pupil outside the school: smoking, television, drugs, to name a few ... Neither party is allowed to change [the contract] unilaterally, although the schools often depart from this." [pp. 69-70]

[For more on threefolding,

see "Threefolding".]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

AFTERWORD

Debra Snell has had an inside view of a Waldorf school in action. 

Here is her report, which I have printed here by her kind permission. — R.R.

I was new to our Waldorf school when I was asked to be on the board. I'd had plenty of community board experience but not with Waldorf. My first board meeting included a faculty grilling re: sexual preference, directed at a young gay teacher. She was afraid to say she was gay. I was blown away. I kept saying, "This is a violation of her civil rights. We cannot ask these questions." The young teacher kept saying that her partner was just helping her with her kids. I have never figured out why this was important. I still don't know what Steiner thought of gay people but this was the day I learned regular rules do not apply in Waldorf schools. Anthroposophy is more important than individual rights, laws, or common truths.

At the time, I thought the teachers just needed to get out in the world more. Volunteer to be a Big Brother or Sister, etc. The healthy teachers were eventually run out and the ill ones took over hiring. I don't believe ill people have the ability to hire people healthier than they are so the school began to implode. There was deceit everywhere. In the books. The financial statements were literally made up and had nothing to do with the true financial picture of the school. The Administrator was sleeping with the bookkeeper. Unpaid payroll taxes, marked as paid, were seized from our bank account without warning. The board was told we were operating at a low tuition assistance but it turned out to be almost 72%. Contrary to the baloney the board was being fed, the school wasn't making enough money to pay rent, salary, and the electricity bill. One classroom was red-flagged for sewage backing up in the tub, yet the board was unaware this had been an ongoing problem for months.

The school was like a train headed straight for the cliff and the faculty appeared to be worried only about how the table in the dining car was set. I forced my way into the files (I had to threaten a restraining order) and went through every single contract and bank statement. I called a meeting of parents and exposed our real financial situation, along with the apparent cover-up. The entire time, I remained calm and professional while I was being screamed at and subverted by the faculty. The day of that meeting, I earned the trust of the parents. Truth is a powerful tool.

During this crazy time, I used to watch the Waldorf teachers at parent gatherings (festivals). [3] The teachers would stand on the stage with their arms around each other, singing songs in rounds, while parents beamed. "How lucky we are to have this school," was the mantra. Personally I was amazed by the teachers' performance as they presented a "real" sense of unity between them. Amazed because behind closed doors, they were all backstabbers. Seemingly insecure people competing for the top position on the Anthroposophical dog pile. It was never pretty. There was a lot of acting out, both blatant and passive (aggressive). I thought it was just this school, these teachers at the time. Now I think it comes out of some very deep flaws that Anthroposophy is incapable of dealing with. At least so far.

Board meetings were always exhausting because you could cut the tension between the teachers with a knife. Words were always so carefully chosen but what was being left unsaid screamed way louder than what was actually being said. Two of the teachers had eating disorders, but that seemed like the least of their problems. Affairs seemed commonplace. There was an affair between two married teachers, and another (married) faculty member could not keep his hands off the pretty single moms. One teacher that was hired landed here to avoid the scandal he had created at his old Waldorf school. Seems he had a recent affair with a married woman and the husband was making a scene.

I think it's easier to walk away from Waldorf when Anthroposophy doesn't speak to your spirit, but it still isn't easy. I took 63 families with me to a new school, so we had a pre-made community that Waldorf had built on a false basis. My aim was to make a school like we were told Waldorf was but was not. Sixty-three families were ready to move, so I went back to work.

The new school was a perfect fit for all of us. Health was abundant and the school thrived. Real education. Real credentialed teachers. Real art. Real dance. Real health. It is a school centered around children, not a religion.

Flexibility, honesty, innovation, best practice teaching methods, and direct communication should never be thrown under the bus in a school setting. The new school would be different. There is way more to art than Steiner's prescription for color meditation exercises. No more copying things off the chalk board and every child's work came from within. Oh! Phonics is a very good thing along with early reading.

We (the families) wanted to raise smart kids who were educated — pre-awakened, well-balanced kids who could excel in school and life. Waldorf teachers made promises they had no intention of keeping. I am very proud of the school we built but I must give Waldorf credit where it's due. It gave us some great ideas. We took Waldorf's window dressings and made a school.

— Debra Snell

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

NEWS

The school year at Waldorf schools 

is interspersed with various festivals 

and other special events.

One of these if the "Greek Olympics".

Here is an item from the 

Waldorf Watch News:

[Waldorf School of Lexington.]

A portentous headline:

“Waldorf School Hosts 2011 Olympics”  

[5-17-2011  http://lexington.patch.com/articles/waldorf-school-hosts-2011-olympics]

◊

Waldorf Watch Response:

The headline above is a bit misleading. No, the world’s greatest athletes did not descend on a Waldorf school. Rather, of course, the event described was a small regional affair: kids competing in contests derived from the ancient Greek Olympics — discus, javelin, and so forth.

Waldorf schools often stage such Olympic games. At some Waldorf schools, the games are held annually. Sometimes, the games are confined to students from a single Waldorf school; on other occasions, kids from two or more Waldorf schools come to compete with each other. Typically, the participants are fifth graders, and sometimes things are arranged so that children only compete against other kids who share the same “temperament.”

Why fifth grade? Because, according to Waldorf belief, growing children recapitulate the cultural/racial/historical evolution of humanity, and children in the fifth grade are about at the level of the ancient Greeks.

What are “temperaments”? They are discriminatory and false psychological/physical categories — four classifications of human types. The temperaments are 1) sanguine, 2) phlegmatic, 3) choleric, and 4) melancholic. They are produced by “humours” — fluids in the body: 1) blood, 2) phlegm, 3) yellow bile, and 4) black bile. People who are predominantly influenced by blood are said to have the sanguine temperament (they are upbeat and well-proportioned, but a bit vague and superficial). People swayed mainly by phlegm are phlegmatic (tense, withdrawn, kind of artsy, and often overweight). Yellow bile causes people to be choleric (short-tempered, attentive, bony, stout). Black bile produces the melancholic temperament (slow, low-spirited, questioning, often tall and slender).

The “temperaments” are nonsense. This system of categorizing people became obsolete long, long ago — except that it hangs on in Waldorf schools. The fifth-grade Olympics at Waldorf schools may have some beneficial qualities, but there is no basis for the occult theory of recapitulation, and some critics find worrisome elements in Waldorf Olympics, particularly when students are divided by “temperament.” These critics are troubled by the use of a false system to pigeonhole people, based in part on physical appearance. They fear that children are being taught to judge one another wrongly, and that some children may be psychologically damaged as a result.

Another reason Waldorf schools stage events

such as the Greek Olympics

is that the events permit enactment of the 

polytheism embedded in Anthroposophy.

The following is excerpted from a description

published by a Waldorf school.

"The fifth grade Waldorf curriculum includes the study of early civilizations. Ancient Greece, with its appreciation of balance and harmony, its movement toward modern thought, and its worship of fallible Gods, is a beautiful compliment for the fifth grade youth moving into adolescence.

"...On May 7, 2010, Live Oak Waldorf School celebrated its 25th Pentathlon, welcoming nine other schools to its very own Mount Olympus.

"...The morning began with a grand and reverent opening ceremony, which included one student from each of the ten schools reading an Ode to the Gods.

"'O Zeus, make my feet like your lightening bolt; as you cast it into space all you can hear is a whisper of silence before the fireworks of victory.

"'O Athena, help me put my best foot forward in words and actions, like you in all your glory.

"'O Poseidon, help me be strong in wrestling like a gigantic wave crashing on a huge rock.

"'O Persephone, may I be kind and welcoming to others in my city-state.'

"The residing [sic] Gods and Goddesses — Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, Artemis and Apollo — blessed the Pentathletes with words of gratitude and encouragement.

“'O mortals of earth and athletes of Greece ! I am Zeus. You honor us greatly with your words! Welcome to Olympia, where your courage will shine, and your skill will be on display for all to see. It has pleased me greatly to watch from Olympus as you have trained for this day. May you bring honor to yourselves, to your families, and to your schools as you compete today. I grant you the power of my thunder and lightning and wish you well.'

"After singing the Olympic Hymn, the Pentathletes followed the Gods and Goddesses onto the games field." 

["Live Oak Waldorf School hosted its 25th Pentathlon"]

◊

Steiner taught that gods such as 

Zeus and Athena really exist. [4]

In having their students address such gods,

Waldorf teachers are having them address

gods who, Steiner said, are real. 

◊

For more on Waldorf school festivals,

see "Magical Arts".

 APPENDIX

Some Waldorf schools —  especially the smaller ones — have very little formal structure. They often operate as cooperative ventures in which all members of the small staff undertake almost all activities jointly or on a rotating basis. Other, generally larger Waldorf schools have structures that, if depicted on organizational charts, would look fairly conventional: a central administration, perhaps with subsidiary branches, connected by lines of authority or influence to various parts of the school (lower school, middle school, high school, support staff, admissions, athletics...). But such descriptions and charts can be misleading. Often the real structure of a Waldorf school — especially a true-blue, Anthroposophy-infused Waldorf school — can best be described as a hierarchical set of concentric rings. [5] 

Members of the inner rings know a good deal more about Rudolf Steiner's doctrines and the Waldorf movement's purposes than do members of the outer rings, and — regardless of any conflicting formal arrangements — usually most of the real decision-making power lies with the members of the inner rings. Members of outer rings have less considerably less real power. Teachers and staff in the very outermost rings may have, in a sense, no real connection to the core of a Waldorf school: They do not understand what the school aims to achieve, and they make no real contributions to its work. They are, often, placeholders, people who have been hired to provide a service but whose tenure may be brief.

The following description will not apply to absolutely every Waldorf school, but it will be accurate for many: 

Floating above the school's power center is Rudolf Steiner (or his doctrines as comprehended by each school's flesh-and-blood leaders). Beneath Steiner is either a single flesh-and-blood (i.e., currently incarnated) leader, or there may be a small, tight band of co-leaders. If a school has a single leader — who may be called the principal, headmaster, or chair; or who may have no official title at all — s/he is the center point of all the circles of the school, exercising great spiritual and administrative authority throughout. If a school has a band of co-leaders, they constitute the innermost ring at a school, the locus of real power within the institution. But authority is somewhat diffused among the co-leaders, and a certain amount of administrative confusion may result.

The leader or co-leaders is/are central to a ring that, in many Waldorf schools, may be termed the "college of teachers" (the collegial Anthroposophists in the school who study Steiner and instruct one another, and perhaps others, about his doctrines). The extent and interior contours of the "college" may be ill-defined. Usually, the college consists of a school's small innermost circle of true believers. However, membership may be extended to other teachers in the school, so that the college may be a larger body, including all of the "initiated" members of the faculty, all or most of the senior and even mid-rank teachers, and various allies of indeterminate rank. (The "initiates" are generally Anthroposophists who consider themselves to possess considerable spiritual wisdom and who are recognized as having such wisdom by their colleagues; not all of them, however, are necessarily leaders within the school. Defining "senior" faculty is difficult, since status or rank within the faculty is often informal and variable; teachers who might seem to hold middle or low rank may actually exercise great influence in the school, while some teachers who appear to have high rank may exercise little real influence.) There may be sub-rings within the college, rippling outward from the central leadership — with its real or claimed extensive knowledge of Anthroposophy — to other devoted followers of Steiner who are farther removed from the absolute center of wisdom and control. 

Beyond the college of teachers, there may be several rings of faculty, but for simplicity I'll suggest that there are basically two. The inner of these is a circle of aspiring Anthroposophists (faculty who are in sympathy with Anthroposophy, to one degree or another, and who are either moving toward full commitment or who may take that step eventually). Outside this circle are uncommitted, more-or-less uninformed, and perhaps disaffected teachers (people who took jobs at the school with no real knowledge of, or particular sympathy with, the school's spiritualistic agenda, and/or others who have become alienated and may be looking for the exits). 

Outside the circles of teachers may be similar circles of support staff, and outside those there are similar circles of students. Some students (especially ones who started in the school in the earliest grades) may be deeply, emotionally, and even to some degree intellectually committed to the school and its underlying philosophy (even though this philosophy has usually not been spelled out for them in so many words). [6] Then there are kids who might go either way — those who are moving toward acceptance of Waldorfish views, and, outside those, kids who are unlikely to do so. A very slim outer ring of students may consist of rebels (whose removal from the school may be imminent). 

Outside the circles of students are similar circles of parents. As a rule, many parents know less about Anthroposophy than the students do (even though the students' "knowledge" may be largely unconscious), simply because the parents have not undergone the conditioning their kids undergo within the school. But here the overall scheme, circles within circles, may break down. Again, I'll have to oversimplify what can be an extremely complex series of relationships. 

Some parents may be devoted Anthroposophists who sent their kids to Waldorf precisely because they want an Anthroposophical education for them. Some of these may double as faculty members or staff, and some may be enthusiastic volunteers, helping with various school activities. In the ring outside these, other parents may be deeply committed to the school at an emotional level without knowing much about the occult doctrines behind the school — and again some of these may be faculty, staff, or volunteers. In many schools, the largest group of parents may consist of people who like the school just fine but who have neither knowledge of Anthroposophy nor any deep commitment to the school — many of these may have chosen Waldorf not for what it is but for what it is not, e.g., it is not a huge, chaotic, undistinguished public school. Parents in the outer ring(s) may be more or less completely uninformed as to the real objectives of Waldorf education. There is usually no outermost ring of rebellious parents — such parents usually take their kids out of the school ASAP and disappear from view. (Cases where the rebels stick around, however, do sometimes occur, and these cases can become extremely messy. Trying to "fix" a Waldorf school from the inside is generally as hard as trying to fix it from the outside. The school's inner circles will resist mightily. They possess divine wisdom, in their own opinion, and they have arranged things as they wish. Suggestions for reform are generally rejected out of hand.) 

— Roger Rawlings

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[R.R.]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Endnotes

[1] Amazingly, Steiner was serious about this. 

“Go into our needlework classes and handicraft classes at the Waldorf School, and you will find the boys knit and crochet as well as the girls, and that they share these lessons together. Even the older boys are enthusiastic knitters. This is not the result of any fad or whim, but happens deliberately in order to make the fingers skillful and supple, in order to permeate the fingers with the soul. And to drive the soul into the fingers means to promote all the forces that go to build up sound teeth. It is no matter of indifference whether we let an indolent child sit about all day long, or make it move and run about; or whether we let a child be awkward and helpless with its hands, or train it to manual skill. Sins of omission in these matters bear fruit later in the early destruction of the teeth; of course sometimes in more pronounced forms, and sometimes in less, for there is great individual diversity, but they are bound to manifest themselves. In fact, the earlier we begin to train and discipline the child, on the lines indicated, the more we shall tend to slow down and counteract the process of dental decay. Any interference with dental processes is so difficult that we should carefully consider such measures even if they seem to be far-fetched.” — Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUAL SCIENCE AND MEDICINE (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1948), lecture 17, GA 312. 

Far-fetched is right.

[2] After writing this essay, I returned to the quotation on p. 115 in order to answer a series of questions posed on the waldorf-critics discussion site (the question is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/11008 and my answer is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/11010 ) I will repeat my answer here, although it goes over some of the ground we have already covered. (I have edited the following for use here.)

In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, Maura Kwaten (<maurakwaten@...>) asked: [W]hy isn't the [Waldorf] curriculum flexible?

I replied: Anthroposophists tend to view Steiner as a sort of Moses. Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments chiseled in stone. Anthroposophists think Steiner passed along similarly eternal, unquestionable spiritual guidance. (Steiner left open the possibility that future clairvoyants would see even more deeply into spiritual matters than he did, so Anthroposophists have a little leeway, they can attempt to make their own spiritual "discoveries." But only in this sense do they consider Steiner's teachings at all questionable.)

Maura asked: Is the driving force to push Anthroposophy rather than educate well?

I replied: Bingo. The point of Waldorf schooling is spiritual training, not education per se. Anthroposophy is meant to be the salvation of humanity. Waldorf schools are supposed to share this goal and work out of it — i.e., out of a grounding in Anthroposophy:

“The task of Anthroposophy is not simply to replace a false view of the world with a correct one. That is a purely theoretical requirement. The nature of Anthroposophy is to strive not only toward another idea, but toward other deeds, namely, to tear the spirit and soul from the physical body [i.e., free humanity from mere material existence — ultimately, to make humans entirely spiritual beings]. The task is to raise the spirit-soul into the realm of the spiritual, so that the human being is no longer a thinking and feeling automaton [materialists, such as people who disagree with Steiner, are mere flesh-and-bone robots, automatons] ... [H]uman beings are in danger of losing their spirit-soul. What exists today in the physical [realm] as an impression of the spirit-soul, exists because so many people think that way, because the spirit-soul is asleep [i.e., the impression of the spirit-soul in the wide world today is warped, because it comes from people who think like automatons — people who are spiritually comatose]. The human being is thus in danger of drifting into the Ahrimanic world [the realm ruled by a demonic enemy of human evolution], in which case the spirit-soul will evaporate into the cosmos. We live in a time when people face the danger of losing their souls to materialistic impulses. That is a very serious matter. We now stand confronted with that fact. That fact is actually the secret that will become increasingly apparent, and out of which we [Waldorf teachers] can act fruitfully. Such things as the pedagogy of the Waldorf School can arise from a recognition that humanity must turn toward spiritual activity, and not simply from a change in theory. We should work out of that spirit.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.

In sum, Waldorf teachers try to turn the students away from the real world and toward "spiritual activity," which for them means Anthroposophy. Steiner's followers "do" Anthroposophy, and the spiritual activities they "do" are the ones Steiner prescribed. And this is what they want the children to learn to do.

Maura asked: Is the curriculum that Steiner invented completely linked to Anthroposophy so that by not teaching about ancient India and Egypt in a certain way at a certain time would mean not reaching the child's soul in a specific way?

I replied: Yes. Steiner said that children repeat (or "recapitulate") in their own lives the evolution humanity as a whole has gone through. Thus, certain things are taught in each grade because the children at that age are at a certain stage of human evolutionary development. Changing the curriculum of any grade would be wrong because it would mean teaching kids stuff at the wrong age. So the Steiner curriculum is set in stone because human evolution has occurred as Steiner (and, essentially, only Steiner) has described it.

Here's a thumbnail description (from a guy who happened to be one of my teachers, long ago): 

"I. [E]ach child recapitulates the cultural epochs of all Mankind ... There is, then, a proper time and method for particular subjects to be taught. II. [R]everence, awe and respect for Earth should be fostered. III. The qualitative, as well as quantitative, in all things should be equally developed. IV. Above all, Man is known as a spiritual as well as a physical being." — Waldorf teacher Peter Curran, quoted in WHAT IS WALDORF EDUCATION?, a collection of essays by Steiner, edited by Waldorf teacher Stephen Keith Sagarin (Anthroposophic Press, 2003), p. 21. Cultural epochs are the phases of our recent evolution.

As you can see, the Waldorf approach to everything is rooted in Anthroposophy, and the goals of the teachers are Anthroposophical goals (although the schools need to disguise this fact to save themselves from attack):

“[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people would break the Waldorf School’s neck.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 705.

[3] Many festivals are celebrated at Waldorf schools. They are attractive events, with students often wearing costumes associated with various historical periods. But there is more to Waldorf festivals than meets the eye. The festivals often have religious/Anthroposophic meaning — see Rudolf Steiner, THE FESTIVALS AND THEIR MEANING (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998). Generally, these events reflect heretical semi-Christian beliefs, often pagan at root and pointing toward Steiner's conception of future human evolution. Steiner's animistic doctrine — that the Earth and indeed the entire cosmos are living, breathing entities — is also often present. 

“In the celebration of festivals man and nature can come together in a higher nature, a higher humanity. Individuals can come together, united in a common striving for the truly, the universally human. Through living with the festivals and seasons we can learn to sense the pulse and breath of the cosmos.” — Waldorf teacher Philip Wharton, "Festivals, Seeds of Renewal," in WALDORF EDUCATION: A Family Guide (Michaelmas Press, 1995), edited by Pamela Johnson Fenner and Karen L. Rivers, p. 144. 

Some of these ideas may seem superficially attractive, but they run contrary to orthodox religious teachings, and they have no basis in science. They are Anthroposophical doctrines; the festivals are, at root, Anthroposophical celebrations.

At some Waldorf schools, festivals are also used as a sort of window dressing — they impress many parents, some of whom may be enlisted to help planning and staging the events; and they may also serve as recruitment tools, attracting new families to the schools. Debra Snell adds this note to her Afterword, above: 

"Festivals/celebrations are huge events. Parents work very hard, under close supervision of the faculty, of course. No detail is too small and it took many hands to pull off events where cameras or video taping was forbidden. Parents were encouraged to bring other potential families to these events. Even the public-funded Waldorf schools here celebrate festivals with parents and other family members. Michaelmas, Advent Spiral, May Faire, St Martin, etc."

[4] In Anthroposophical theology, Angels are gods. Specifically, they are members of the lowest rank of gods, just one step higher than humans. Steiner taught that "Zeus" is one name humans have used for a particular angel or low-ranking god. 

"[M]an only perceived Angels through his ancient dim clairvoyance; these were Angels also in the Christian sense, and are those who were referred to by the Greeks as Zeus, and by the Germanic people as Wotan...." — Rudolf Steiner, UNIVERSE, EARTH AND MAN (H. Collison, 1931), lecture 10, GA 105.

[5] I am talking about the de facto, actual operating arrangement within the schools, and I am chiefly describing genuine Waldorf schools (those schools that are deeply invested in Rudolf Steiner's mystical visions). If these schools create ordinary-looking organizational charts, such charts are likely to show more or less imaginary structures that have little bearing on the way schools really operate. On paper, a board of trustees may seem to hold the ultimate power within a given school, with the administration, faculty, and support staff neatly slotted in boxes below the board. At genuine Waldorf schools, however, this sort of structure rarely has practical effect.

There is another complication. When a Waldorf school attempts to follow Steiner's overarching guidelines for the organization of society — a vision he called threefolding — the organizational structure of the school can become extremely complex. [See "Threefolding".]

[6] At least one Waldorf school has set up a "college of students" for especially "worthy" students, with deeply troubling results: 

"While not accredited to teach years 11 and 12, the school regularly invites its more promising students — the 'culturally worthy' — to stay on as 'colleagues' ... Called the College of Students, the practice has led to an unusual level of fraternisation between students and teachers. In 2006 a female teacher was dismissed, allegedly for inappropriate contact with two male year 12 students. That same year, a male teacher resigned, reportedly after a physical altercation with a student." — Tim Elliott, "No Class Act", BRISBANE TIMES.COM.AU, July 11, 2009. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/no-class-act-20090710-dg2v.html?page=-1.

  .

  .

.    

     .

    .

     .

     .

     .

      .