Staffing

Speaking of repeating important points: 

a) “As far as our school is concerned, the actual spiritual life can be present because its staff consists of anthroposophists.” — Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, Foundations of Waldorf Education, p. 60. 

b) “As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education, p. 118.

These quotations are fundamental. Short of saying that Waldorf schools are designed to brainwash children into unthinking acceptance of a very silly but harmful belief system, these statements nonetheless constitute a deeply incriminating admission. Anthroposophy will be in the school (FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 495), and the staff will consist of Anthroposophists who "must be," in their "innermost feeling," totally committed. 

The moral for parents of school-age children: Steer clear.

Some Waldorfs today fall short of Steiner’s ideal, of course. Not every teacher at every Waldorf or Steiner school is a dyed-in-the-wool Anthroposophist. But Steiner wanted all of his teachers to be dyed in his wool. Let’s consider what such teachers would bring into the classroom. They would, obviously, bring the truth — they wouldn’t twist their students’ minds with intentional lies. But for them, the truth is Anthroposophy. So they would bring Anthroposophy into the school. They would usually be circumspect about presenting Anthroposophical truths in class [see "Sneaking It In"], but sometimes they would  explicitly voice such truths in class [see "Out in the Open"]. They would certainly craft their lesson plans to reflect Steiner's doctrines. [See "The Waldorf Curriculum".] Their work would, one way or another, lead students toward Anthroposophy.

Which is worse? For Anthroposophical teachers to openly state their Anthroposophical beliefs in class, or for them to covertly promote those beliefs without stating them clearly? It’s a close call, but I think the second (which is more common in today's Waldorf schools) is worse. It leads students into darkness without giving the kids and their parents a chance to understand what is going on and to cry “Stop!”

At Waldorf schools that are not fully staffed by Steiner devotees, Steiner’s intentions may be, to some degree, unfulfilled. Thank goodness. And even at 100% Anthroposophical Waldorf schools, things can go wrong from an Anthroposophical perspective. Some kids have stronger powers of resistance than others; some are more rebellious, or rational, or... Not every kid at every Waldorf school comes out brainwashed. Thank goodness.

"Our Lessons"

“The spiritual aspect of the human being is not recognized today [hm? not recognized in churches? in synagogues? in mosques?] ... It is exactly this consideration that Anthroposophy is to contribute toward ... It is only this that will...make the adaptation of our lessons to the human life processes possible.” — Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 46. 

For whom will these lessons be adapted? To restate the obvious: Waldorf students. On their behalf, a Waldorf school will recognize the “spiritual aspect of the human being.” As a general precept, recognizing the human spirit may be a superb objective. But at true-blue Waldorf schools, the “spiritual aspect of the human being” is conceived according to Steiner’s spiritual doctrines: Multiple gods [15], clairvoyance [16], conversing with the dead [17], reincarnation [18], people living on the Moon and Sun and distant planets [19], the “divine cosmic plan” [20], goblins [21], demons [22], higher and lower races [23], and more — a virtually endless catalog of occult tripe. Depending on your perspective, Anthroposophy is a litany of heresy and/or nonsense.

Steiner taught that humans have both spirits and souls. Spirits are immortal; we take them with us throughout all our lives (reincarnation, remember). Souls are temporary; we get new souls with each new incarnation. Steiner said that knowledge of our spirit nature has largely been lost, while knowledge of our soul nature has been preserved to some extent, but not really. What he mainly meant, in fact, was that not enough people accept his own teachings about these subjects. But among people who do accept them, quite a few take jobs as Waldorf teachers.

If Waldorf faculties consist wholly or largely of Anthroposophists, and if those Anthroposophists bring their beliefs into the schools (as, one way or another, is inevitable), children will be led into an occult wilderness. Not all of them, but many of them. And this is a shame. It is, in fact, the shame of Waldorf education.

Roundabout Education

Rudolf Steiner, speaking to teachers at a Waldorf school: 

“[W]hat you are inserting into the children in a roundabout way through the physical reality — be it through the eyes, the ears, or the comprehending intellect — everything that is thus placed into the children very soon assumes a quite different form of life [i.e., spiritual life] ... [C]hildren go home, they go to bed, they go to sleep; their egos and astral bodies are outside their etheric and physical bodies.* What you did with the children in this roundabout way through the physical body and also the etheric body continues in the astral body and the ego.” — Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, pp. 46-47.

* Steiner taught that each real human being eventually possesses nonphysical “bodies” in addition to the physical body — the “etheric body,” which is tied to the physical, and the “astral body” and the “I” or “ego,” which can transcend the physical, and do so every night while the physical and etheric bodies sleep.

◊

Steiner’s words pull back a dark curtain, allowing us to peer deep into the hidden reality of Waldorf education. His statement reflects both the goal and the methodology of faithful Waldorf teachers. Their aim is not directed primarily at that physical organ called the brain. Instead, they work to influence their students’ supernatural “bodies,” and their souls, and their spirits. They fool with the physical body and brain only as this enables them (in their mistaken view) to get to the students’ nonphysical parts. Here, Steiner focuses particularly on the nonphysical human bodies: the etheric, astral, and ego bodies. Of course, those bodies exist only in the imagination of Anthroposophists, which shows that — at best — Waldorf education constitutes a huge waste of time: It is focused on nonexistent entities. This loss of time can be profoundly harmful for children, because the years that should be devoted to real education are instead devoted to spiritualistic nonsense. But far worse harm may also be inflicted.

During their years spent at Waldorf schools, children may internalize the bizarre beliefs and attitudes of their Steiner-believing teachers.* What does “inserting” spiritual influences mean, after all, except that pro-Anthroposophy teachers will try to insert their spiritual doctrines into their students? (Pause over the chilling words “inserting” and “placed into.”) The harm is mitigated somewhat by the nonexistence of the “etheric body,” the “astral body,” and the “I.” But the mind exists and arguably the soul and/or spirit exist. If Steiner’s devotees reach these innermost levels of children’s beings, they can wreak havoc. Affected kids may be drawn away from reality toward occult fantasization. The damage can last a lifetime.

Steiner repeatedly urged Waldorf teachers to disguise their intentions from non-Anthroposophists, including students’ parents. For instance, when prescribing a prayer for students to recite at the beginning of each day, Steiner told Waldorf faculty to avoid using the word “prayer” when outsiders might hear. [24] [To examine the prayers Steiner wrote for Waldorf students to recite, see “Prayers”.]

The most basic of Steiner’s schoolhouse deceptions was his insistence that Waldorf schools do not propagate his strange religion. But in fact Steiner’s intention was precisely to use Waldorf schools to spread Anthroposophy. [25] The schools should do this in a "roundabout way," fiddling with the physical in order to reach the super-physical.

* Not all Waldorf teachers are Anthroposophists or followers of Steiber. But as we have seen, Steiner said they all should be.

Boys and Girls

Steiner differentiated between people on the basis of race, “temperament,” degree of spiritual advancement, and so forth. It should not surprise us that he also posited deeply meaningful differences between males and females. 

“The whole of the female organism is organized toward the cosmos through the astral body. Most of what are really cosmic mysteries is unveiled and revealed through the female constitution. The female astral body is more differentiated, essentially more richly structured, than that of the male. Men’s astral bodies are...coarser.” — Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 75. 

Further: 

“[W]e shall also educate the girls correctly by recognizing the fact that they are more inclined to the cosmos and boys more inclined to the earth. Girls incline more to the cosmic, and this means that their ideals are heroes and heroines; we should tell girls about them, about their lives and deeds ... Boys need to hear about character, about complete human beings.” — Ibid., p. 83. 

Steiner’s view of the sexes is sort of sweetly Victorian — if you find the idealization and subjugation of females sweet. In a sense, females are superior, Steiner says, because they are oriented to the cosmos with all its metaphysical forces. Males, on the other hand, are more gross, and thus they are oriented toward the earth. Girls look up, boys look down. Consequently, girls should be fed fairy tales about idealized (two-dimensional) heroes and heroines. On the other hand boys, who are more down-to-earth, should learn about “character” and “complete human beings.” Girls: fantasies. Boys: reality (to the extent that Steiner perceived reality, which was very slightly if at all). 

It is arguable that few children — male or female — leave Waldorf schools prepared for the real world. If girls are led farther astray from reality than boys are, then the potential damage to girls from Steiner’s precepts is all the greater. But despite being relatively loutish ("coarse"), boys can be affected as well. [For more on all this, see "Gender".]

Anthroposophy at Waldorf, Part XXII

When a faculty member at the first Waldorf school expressed worries about his teaching, Steiner responded with the following: 

“The problem is that you have not always followed the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children. You have lectured the children about anthroposophy when you told them about your subject. You did not transform anthroposophy into a child’s level.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 402-403. 

This is most revealing. The teacher was lecturing his young students about Anthroposophy. Error. He should sugarcoat Anthroposophy so that little kids can ingest it: He should present Anthroposophy in a “form you can present to little children.” In other words, the teacher should “transform anthroposophy into a child’s level.”

But, either way, the teacher should teach the kids Anthroposophy. (The error was lecturing; there was no error in trying to bring Anthroposophy into the classroom.) Steiner's words completely contradict Steiner’s oft-repeated denial that Anthroposophy will be fed to students. He didn’t tell the teacher to keep Anthroposophy out of the classroom. He merely told him to present it at “a child’s level.” 

It would be great if we had a verbatim copy of "the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children." We don't. But here Steiner tells us that such a directive was given.

Some teachers at the Waldorf school I attended decided to openly “bring what they knew anthroposophically” into the classroom. An enormous scandal erupted. [See "The Waldorf Scandal".] Parents who had not known they were sending kids to an Anthroposophical training academy were outraged and frightened. Many yanked their kids out, and the school survived only because it cashiered the most openly spiritualistic members of the faculty. 

But what about the more covert spiritualists, the teachers who smuggled Anthroposophy into the classroom at “child’s level”? Good question.

Anthroposophy at Waldorf, Part XXIII

Steiner described the task of a Waldorf teacher in these terms: 

“[I]nsight into the cosmos must be the result of knowledge consciously developed ... This cosmic insight will so live in us that we shall be able to shape it artistically into the pictures we need [to convey to children] ... At about the tenth year the child is ripe for what the teacher can make out of this far-reaching vision. And if a teacher shows in living pictures how the whole earth is a living being, how it bears the plants as a man bears his hair...a kind of expansion takes place in the soul of the child ... It is not correct to say that the child is not mature enough for conceptions of this kind. A teacher in whom they live and who has this world conception at the back of him, knows how to express them in forms for which the child is ripe and in which it [sic: the child] can concur with its [sic] whole being.” — Rudolf Steiner, ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophical Publishing Company, 1926), pp. 63-64.

Steiner delivered this message to Waldorf teachers just months before his death. It was spread to the English-speaking world a few months after that. Waldorf teachers should absorb an Anthroposophical “world conception” (or, phrased more comprehensibly, “cosmic insight”), including the insight that the living earth wears plants like hair. The teachers should then bring “conceptions of this kind” into the classroom in pictorial form. A ten-year-old kid is “ripe” for such stuff and will absorb it with his/her “whole being.” Thus Anthroposophy is inculcated in kids.

Anthroposophy will be in the school. It will be taught to the students, one way or another. This is what Waldorf schools are all about. (But perhaps I'm repeating myself. But it is interesting to find Steiner agreeing.)

Thumbnail

If we want to create a concise summary of Steiner’s intentions for Waldorf schools, we could do worse than this:

◊ Steiner intended Waldorf schools to spread the influence of Anthroposophy: “[W]e were in a position to make the anthroposophical movement a relatively large one....” — Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL, Foundations of Waldorf Education, p. 156. 

◊ To this end, he arranged that “Anthroposophy will be in the school....” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education, p. 495.

◊ To that end, he arranged for a staff that “consists of anthroposophists.” — Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, Foundations of Waldorf Education, p. 60.

◊ To that further end, he directed Waldorf teachers to present Anthroposophy in “forms for which the child is ripe.” — Rudolf Steiner, Foundations of Waldorf Education, ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION, p. 64.

◊ To all these ends,  “As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.” — Rudolf Steiner, Foundations of Waldorf Education, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 118.

And there you have it.

—

I continue this examination of Waldorf’s foundations 

on the page titled “Underpinnings”.

— Roger Rawlings

—

Here is an attempt to summarize

shortcomings of Steiner/Waldorf education.

The writer is Ian Robinson

[http://sites.google.com/site/steinerissues/steiner-threat].

(Robinson focuses on the 

Australian state of Victoria,

but his comments are applicable 

in most places where 

Waldorf or Steiner schools exist.)

First, none of Steiner's ideas on education is the result of any empirical study of child development or education, nor indeed of even a cursory experience as a teacher or educator. Steiner the 'Occult Scientist' simply set down in a discursive way what he believed, on the basis of his 'psychic investigations' [— these] were the educational implications of his obscure and extremely esoteric ideas about life, the universe and everything. This is not an adequate basis for developing a theory and practice of education. Thus any resemblance between Steiner 'Education' and good educational practice is purely coincidental.

Second, Steiner's views on education were most fully set down in the three parallel sets of lectures he gave to staff of the newly founded Waldorf School in Germany in 1919 ... The post-war German education system that Steiner was reacting against was desperately in need of reform and very different from the state of affairs we find in Victorian schools today. Many of Steiner's ideas which were very radical seventy year ago have now been superseded by recent developments. For example, Steiner laid down a class size of 30. In the context of class sizes of 50+ this was a step in the right direction. Today in Victoria, with many classes around 25 or less, it is a retrograde step, but we still find Steiner teachers trying to justify it by spurious appeals to the mystical significance of groups of 30, because Steiner could not be wrong, and if he said 30 he meant 30.

Third, ideas formulated and virtually fixed in 1914 are without the benefit of the researches and findings of subsequent generations of significant educational thinkers - people such as Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, Margaret Donaldson, Frank Smith, Ken and Yetta Goodman. But because of the 'revealed religion' nature of Steiner 'Education' most of this cannot be incorporated into the Steiner system especially as it often contradicts Steiner's 'authoritative' and 'incontrovertible' pronouncements.

Fourth, insofar as Steiner 'Education' does sometimes include good educational practice, such as might he found in many Victorian primary schools, this is always described by Steiner followers in such a way as to give the impression that it is a unique feature of Steiner 'Education', unheard of in any other educational context. The tone of many of the ten statements below exemplifies this superior attitude.

A recent issue of Federation News...contained a plea from Rob Glare ... [He gave] a list of ten alleged features of Steiner 'Education'. They were probably supplied to him by supporters of Steiner 'Education' and they provide a useful focus for a discussion of the true nature of Steiner's contribution to educational thought.

...The class teacher stays with a particular class throughout their primary schooling.

This is true but there are good and bad aspects of it. Following the same group of children over two or more years and having the opportunity to witness and be involved in their growth over an extended period can be a very rewarding experience. But six or seven years with the same teacher can be very limiting for the children, and deprives them of the opportunity to experience close relationships with a number of different teachers. 

...Class teachers exhibit a sense of vocation which involves continuing personal development and a constant renewing, revision and reappraisal of aims and methods in relation to the pupils.

The sense of vocation which Steiner teachers exhibit is not 'a vocation to be a teacher' but 'a vocation to be a Steiner teacher', with the emphasis on the 'Steiner.' They have accepted Steiner's (crank) ideas and feel a vocation to pass them on to others, and in particular, to children, who are more malleable.

...Perceptual techniques are developed so that the teacher views the pupil free from speculation and makes observations as to the pupil's experience and needs.

These perceptual techniques are techniques for spotting whether a child is developing consistently with Steiner's plan of how children should develop, and the needs that are deduced from these observations are what needs to be done to bring the child back on to the Steiner track if they have strayed.

Each individual pupil, with his/her particular capabilities and destiny, is approached with an attitude of love and respect.

Like the previous two claims, this statement gives the impression that Steiner 'Education' is concerned about individual differences. In fact what Steiner education does is to try to slot all children into the pigeon hole designed for them by Rudolf Steiner, within which there is only a small amount of room to move. Human destiny is seen as moving along pre-ordained paths and the teacher's role is to keep children on the fairly straight and relatively narrow as defined by Steiner. Life is not for self-fulfillment, but for fulfilling your Steiner-defined spiritual destiny.

Staff operate by consensus decision-making and team-work. Parent bodies may offer advice and expertise.

This statement obscures the fact that in Steiner Schools parents have no power ... Steiner teachers are only accountable to each other, form a closed shop, and close ranks against criticism ... Abuses, such as striking children, or simply irresponsible or bad teaching, are usually hidden and hushed up.

...In Steiner schools there is no principal but the teachers form a College of Teachers which performs a similar role to Administrative Committees.

In practice someone has to carry out the administrative functions, and most Steiner schools have elected someone who is a de facto principal, whatever he or she may be called.

...Subject matter is based on an observation of the reception of human's differing consciousness through world evolution in child development.

[These] words actually obscure a fairly sinister aspect of Steiner 'Education’. Steiner believed that in order to accommodate the incoming of the spirit to the life of the child on earth, the child should have a series of specific experiences at specific times in their life.

...There is little room for individual differences in Steiner 'Education' and teachers in effect act as police directing the life of the child along the paths Steiner laid down.

...A range of specific, artistic, scientific, cultural and remedial methods and techniques are utilised by teachers.

Yes, but it is a very limited range, restricted almost entirely to those set out in Mr. Steiner's strange pronouncements. The range utilised by your average State School primary teacher is probably wider, more soundly based, and more effective educationally.

...The curriculum and the cultivation of attitudes which develop the whole child are the focus – not just intellect but conscious development of skills of head, heart and hand in order to fit the pupil for the whole span of life.

Literature, art, music, human relations, even religion if parents wish it, are taught in all our schools, so what is new? What is new is a much greater amount of time spent on artistic pursuits, and an effort to teach intellectual knowledge through the arts. There may be something that other teachers can learn from this, but the approach is by no means completely successful and with many children is a disaster.

...A school program which involves the whole family in the school community and offers philosophic, child study and artistic courses to parents as extra curricular activities. Parents are able to participate in the various phases and activities of the school's life on the basis of a common appreciation of the school's aims.

And what do you think these courses on philosophy and child study are about? You guessed it. Steiner and his ideas, although the guru may not be mentioned by name. And did you notice the sting in the tail of the invitation to participate in the school's life? "(O)n the basis of a common appreciation of the school's aims" translated into English means "as long as you go along unquestioningly with the ideas of Rudolf Steiner".

—

From R.R. again:

Anthroposophists and their allies, in and around my old school, published many works offering a mild form of Anthroposophy to the public. The explicit esotericism of Steiner's teachings was rarely mentioned.

Beginning in the late 1940s, our school put out instructional booklets under the imprint "Publications of the Waldorf School, Adelphi College" (one such booklet, for example, was "Teaching of Arithmetic and the Waldorf School Plan"). 

Later, the school helped establish the Waldorf Press, which began an ambitious publishing program including esoteric works of fiction. The school's association with a traditional liberal arts college gave a patina of respectability both to the school and its publications, but Adelphi ended the association when the school's underlying occultism became plain [see "The Waldorf Scandal"]. The Waldorf Press, in its original guise, did not survive.

The publications shown in the two images above are 

AMERICAN INDIANS and Our Way of Life, by Sylvester M. Morey

GEOMETRY at the Junior High School Grades and the Waldorf School Plan, by H. v. Baravalle

INTUITION, INTELLECT AND THE RACIAL QUESTION, by Laurens van der Post

THE EXPERIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE - Essays on American Education, by John Fentress Gardner

FOR FREEDOM DESTINED - Mysteries of Man's Evolution in the Mythology of Wagner's Ring Operas and Parsifal, by Franze E. Winkler

THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, by J. Anker Larsen

PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL, by A. C. Harwood

THE THREE CANDLES OF LITTLE VERONICA, by Manfred Kyber

TEACHING OF ARITHMETIC AND THE WALDORF SCHOOL PLAN, by H. v. Baravalle.

(◊ Advertising executive S. M. Morey was an active member of the Myrin Institute — a Waldorf offshoot. Morey was commencement speaker at my class's 8th grade graduation. ◊ H. V. Baravalle — an  associate of Steiner's — taught at Adelphi College, which stood next door to our school. ◊ Naturalist and author L. van der Post was a visitor at the school. ◊  J. F. Gardner was our headmaster. ◊ Anthroposophical physician F. E. Winkler was a guiding presence at our school. ◊ J. A. Larsen was a spiritualistic Danish author. ◊ Waldorf teacher A. C. Harwood was, I think, a sometime visitor at our school. ◊ M. Kyber was a Latvian occultist.)

—

Waldorf student art, courtesy of 

People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools.

—

Footnotes Continued

[15] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 55.

[16] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 62-3.

[17] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, STAYING CONNECTED: How to Continue Your Relations with Those Who Have Died (Anthroposophic Press, 1999), in toto.

[18] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 46.

[19] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT HISTORY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1982), p. 36.

[20] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 55.

[21] E.g., NATURE SPIRITS, pp. 62-3.

[22] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, THE INCARNATION OF AHRIMAN: The Embodiment of Evil on Earth (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2006), in toto.

[23] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944). p. 149. 

[24] 

“Avoid allowing anyone to hear you, as a faculty member, using the word ‘prayer.’”— Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 20. 

[25] 

“One of the most important facts about the background of the Waldorf School is that we were in a position to make the anthroposophical movement a relatively large one.”— Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 156. 

Steiner was actually mistaken when he claimed that Anthroposophy had become a relatively large movement. 

After the ascent of National Socialism in Germany, several American scholars contributed to an annotated English-language edition of MEIN KAMPF. In one footnote, they referred to Steiner, grouping him among mountebanks who thrived in the chaotic conditions prevailing throughout Germany after World War I. The scholars had heard of Steiner, but his “large movement” was so small that they confused it with anthropology and they misspelled Steiner’s name: 

“Extraordinary phenomena...were numerous during the post-War years [in Germany] — e.g., the curious 'healer' of Hamburg, Häuser, who was followed by immense crowds; the Bibelforscher (Bible Students) who raised tides of adventistic emotion in Silesia and elsewhere; and Rudolph [sic] Steiner, the anthropologist [sic], who built houses resembling trees; etc.” — Adolf Hitler, MEIN KAMPF (Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940 - copyright 1939, Houghton Mifflin, published by arrangement with Houghton Mifflin), footnote on p. 467. 

Presumably Steiner would not have been happy to be mentioned anywhere in MEIN KAMPF, an particularly not in this pejorative manner.

Today Anthroposophy remains a borderline cult, but its harmful potential increases as the Waldorf school movement spreads.