Waldorf Watch Wing 1 - Non-Waldorf Waldorfs

NON-WALDORF

WALDORFS

Looking for a Good One

Waldorf schools differ from one another in various ways. Generally, there is uniformity among Waldorf schools on most major matters, but variation on at least minor matters is common.

Differences between schools often reflect differences between the teachers who staff the schools. Not all Waldorf teachers are equally well acquainted with Rudolf Steiner's works, nor do all Waldorf teachers agree about the meaning of Steiner's various directives and hints. New teachers may start work at a Waldorf school knowing almost nothing about Steiner. This usually changes over time, as these teachers learn about Anthroposophy from their colleagues or from professional development courses they take at Waldorf teacher-training institutions. [See "Teacher Training".] Still, varying degrees of knowledge about Steiner and varying degrees of commitment to his doctrines can cause different Waldorf schools to move in different (if more or less parallel) directions.

The tone and direction of an individual Waldorf school is often set by a small band of influential teachers positioned, officially or unofficially, at the center of the faculty. If key faculty members at Waldorf School A and Waldorf School B hold different opinions about Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf education, then these schools will diverge accordingly. Such differences of opinion are common, in large part because Steiner wrote and lectured so extensively, producing scores of books and essays, and literally thousands of lectures. Moreover, Steiner's style was turgid, allusive, and self-contradictory. Thus, even his most devout followers may arrive at differing interpretations of his works.

The culture of the Waldorf movement places value on the freedom of individual schools and individual faculty members to do as they think best: They should be free to follow their own consciences and visions. Steiner himself emphasized such freedom, going so far as to encourage his followers to develop their own powers of spiritual insight, whereby they might actually surpass his own wisdom and knowledge. Clearly, Waldorf teachers who take this possibility seriously may strike out in their own original directions.

Despite all this, Waldorf schools tend to be quite similar most of the time on most significant issues. Steiner, after all, claimed that he gained his wisdom by using "exact clairvoyance," which means that his visions are extremely reliable — they are very nearing beyond argument or criticism. [See "Exactly".] While he urged his followers to become similarly clairvoyant [see "The Waldorf Teacher's Consciousness"], he asserted — and his followers generally believe — that the overall shape and contents of his visions will be confirmed, not overturned, by his followers' clairvoyant efforts.

Moreover, the core Waldorf curriculum and its rationale were set out in great detail at the first Waldorf school, and most subsequent Waldorf schools have striven to be true to them. [See, e.g., "Curriculum", "Methods", "Oh Humanity", "Faculty Meetings", etc.] There is room for variation within this structure, but not much. The original Waldorf school was established for German children, and it was meant to assist those children in fulfilling the German national mission. [See "The Good Wars".] Waldorf proponents in other countries have tried to adapt the Waldorf approach to local conditions and needs, but usually the changes they implement are fairly minor. Thus, for instance, German-Nordic folklore — Norse mythology — tends to be emphasized in Waldorf schools worldwide, even in lands where this folklore must strike local residents as an alien import. [See "The Gods".]

So, there is variety, but there is also underlying uniformity. In fact, altering the Waldorf approach or diverging from Rudolf Steiner's teachings is difficult for his followers to contemplate. In general, Steiner's followers consider his views nearly sacrosanct, and they hesitate to repudiate any one of his teachings for fear that his other teachings would then be called into question. The entire spiritual/intellectual edifice of the Waldorf worldview might then threaten to collapse, a prospect almost too terrible for Anthroposophists to contemplate.

Even when Steiner seems most obviously to have been wrong, his followers have difficulty cutting their bonds. Let's examine a few specific instances.

RACE

Rudolf Steiner found special virtues in Aryans and, especially, Germans. He taught that Northern European culture is the highest yet attained, and that German folk wisdom can point the world toward spiritual truth:

“Germanic mythology...is in its pictures closely akin to the anthroposophical conception of the world such as it shall grow to be in the course of time for all mankind.” [1]

Aryans, Steiner said, are especially adept at using their brains:

“[A]t the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it.” [2]

Dark-complected people are less intelligent than fair-haired whites, according to Steiner:

“In the case of fair people, less nourishment is driven into the eyes and hair; it remains instead in the brain and endows it with intelligence. Brown- and dark-haired people drive the substances into their eyes and hair that the fair people retain in their brains.” [3]

In setting up his first Waldorf school, in Germany, for German students, Steiner aimed to offer an education specially suited to German mental and spiritual capacities:

"[The German] must be educated to [his] mission...[which is] looking at the world from the most varied points of view. This is the special mission of the German people ... They shall take hold upon world culture from this side ... [C]ertain things that I shall touch upon today, for example, in the realm of knowledge, can be evolved only through the German people....” [4]

All of this raises the question whether Waldorf education can be tailored to the needs of non-Germans. At the Waldorf school I attended, this was attempted, in part, by emphasizing the spiritualistic writings of the American Transcendentalists. [5] The aim was to make our education appropriate for white American kids. But what about nonwhite American kids? Making Waldorf schooling appropriate for them is more challenging. Steiner repeatedly and explicitly said that the "white race" is superior to other races.

"The white race is the future, [it is] the spiritually creative race." [6]

Racism is almost universally deplored today. So how should a Waldorf school proceed? The obvious solution is to assert that Steiner was wrong in this one instance, on the solitary issue of racism. Sometimes this has been attempted [see "Embedded Racism"], but for Waldorf faculties generally, such an admission would have serious drawbacks. It would open the possibility that Steiner was also wrong about other matters — a dangerous admission. It would raise the possibility that Steiner was not, as he claimed, a clairvoyant with access to virtually all knowledge, past and future. Steiner's claim is central to the Anthroposophical faith — truly faithful Anthroposophists cannot possibly call Steiner's psychic powers into doubt. So how should a Waldorf proceed? One option is to quietly renounce racism without admitting that Steiner made racists statements. In other words, hush up and move on. This would be a safer course than outright admission, but even so this course would entail dangers: Parents and others may do the research necessary to unearth Steiner's racism, in which case not only would Steiner be laid open to criticism, but so would the Waldorf movement, which had been caught in deception.

We must admit that rejecting racism, however it is done, would be meritorious. Good riddance. Certainly some Waldorf schools may have purged racism more fully from their thinking and practices than others have done. Unfortunately, because racism is so extensive in Steiner's teachings, at least some Anthroposophists today attempt to explain or excuse it. We've seen examples of this at the discussion forum Waldorf Critics. There, Steiner defenders have sometimes posted messages endorsing (wittingly or otherwise) a racist view of human history and development. This leads us to the unhappy conclusion that racism remains embedded today in at least some Anthroposophical projects, including Waldorf schools. Postings at the PLANS website support this unhappy conclusion: e.g., “Woman Sees Waldorf Racism On First Visit”.

If you are inclined to select a Waldorf school for your children, attempting to ascertain the racial views of the faculty — and the reflection of these views in the curriculum — should be a high priority. Bear in mind that virtually all school officials and faculty today, at virtually all types of schools, know not to express racism openly; so your efforts to penetrate unobjectionable facades may prove difficult. But you should certainly make the attempt. Various Waldorf schools may exhibit varying degrees of racial sensitivity and enlightenment, even if most of them affirm Steiner's fundamental tenets on virtually all matters. I think most Waldorf teachers in most Waldorf schools today are likely to be sincere when they renounce racism. My guess, then, is that you are unlikely to find overt racism at the vast majority of Waldorf schools operating today. Hidden, or perhaps even subconscious, racism may be a different matter [see, e.g., "Embedded Racism"], but this would usually be extremely difficult to detect.

SCIENCE

Let's consider another basic Anthroposophical belief: Steiner's view of evolution, which is connected to his teachings on karma and reincarnation.

“Evolution is the great theme of...Steiner’s life work. It is, however, an evolution that goes far beyond anything dreamed of today in biology or geology.” [7]

Steiner taught that individuals, nations, and even races evolve. Ideally, they evolve upward, attaining higher and higher levels of perfection. Failing this, however, they degenerate, dropping to lower developmental levels (involution). The mechanism for movement up or down is provided by karma and reincarnation: Those who live properly in one life move upward in the next, while those who sin or err in one life move downward in the next. [8]

Such teachings are alien to most Westerners, who more typically believe that after a single life, one's soul will go to heaven or hell, or it will simply cease to exist (death is death: kaput). But rejecting Steiner's teachings on these matters is extremely difficult for Anthroposophists, since they constitute “the great theme of...Steiner’s life work.” Hence, if Waldorf schools located in Western nations want to attract families — to fill the classrooms and provide tuition income — they generally have little option but to hide their devotion to reincarnation, karma, and Steinerian evolution/involution.

Note that Steiner's view of evolution was at odds with Darwin's. There is no karma or reincarnation in Darwinian evolution — the key mechanism in Darwinism is random change, not the receipt of one's karmic due. This leads us to another large problem area for Waldorf schools: Science. Steiner frequently set his teachings in direct opposition to the findings of modern science, rejecting wholesale the discoveries of physics, astronomy, geology, medical science, and so forth. Although he sometimes claimed to affirm modern science, he made numerous statements that amout to a repudiation of almost all real scientific knowledge. [9]

Waldorf schools face a major predicament if they endorse Steiner’s aversion to science. Denying Steiner's many factually indefensible statements would commit them to a long series of deceptions. Steiner taught, for instance, that islands and continents float in the sea; and the moon is an inaccessible sphere occupied by spirits who left the Earth thousands of years ago; and gnomes dwell in the ground below our feet; and Buddha traveled to Mars where he he became a savior comparable to Christ on Earth; and so on [see "Steiner's Blunders"]. Defending Steiner on such points would be a long, exhausting, and ultimately futile effort. Yet Steiner's followers generally still claim that he was factually correct about almost everything. The facts are on Steiner's side. As one of Steiner's adherents has written, when Steiner spoke (about almost anything),

“The facts spoke, not he.” [10]

Thus, at typical Waldorf schools Steiner’s antiscientific teachings are generally either affirmed or hidden — or both [11]. But they are almost never rejected.

As on the subject of race, there may be variation among Waldorf schools: Some may teach the sciences better than others do. You should endeavor to understand the science offerings at any Waldorf school you consider for your children. (In a sense, the question is what attitude the school takes to clear, ascertainable, factual knowledge. Anthroposophists often have little interest in it. They seek to develop their clairvoyant powers in order to see beyond factual, physical reality. [12] In this undertaking, they hope to develop "organs of clairvoyance." [13] If you cannot embrace the Anthroposophical view on such subjects, you probably should seek a school having a strong science curriculum — either a Waldorf school that has somehow strayed far from Steiner, or a non-Anthroposophical type of school.)

ART

We can a covert Anthroposophical agenda reflected in the way the arts are taught at Waldorf schools. The word "imagination" is widely used in Waldorfs to indicate the mode of thought the schools encourage. [14] Such thinking is deeply irrational, but it is not the sort of fantasizing that we often associate with imagination (e.g., in animated Disney films). Imagination, at Waldorfs, is a precursor to — or even a proxy for — clairvoyance.

Consider painting. Students at Waldorfs are often taught wet-on-wet watercolor painting (wet brushes spreading watery colors on wet paper). The results bear no resemblance to ordinary physical reality, and they are completely unlike the stick-figure cartoons that kids often produce. In effect, “imaginative” wet-on-wet Waldorf paintings are talismanic representations of the spirit realm:

"[T]he world from which the soul descends has no spatial forms or lines, [but] it does have color intensities, color qualities. Which is to say that the world man inhabits between death and a new birth (and which I have frequently and recently described) is a soul-permeated, spirit-permeated world of light, of color, of tone; a world of qualities not quantities; a world of intensities rather than extensions." [15]

In creating paintings that suggested such a spirit realm, Waldorf students are given an opportunity to rise into that realm:

"[C]olours...are windows through which we can ascend spiritually into the spiritual world...." [16]

From an Anthroposophical perspective, the most important of all arts is eurythmy, a form of stylized dance invented by Steiner. Even more distinctly than painting, eurythmy is intended to enable its practitioners to make direct connection with the spiritual realm:

"Eurythmy shapes and moves the human organism in a way that furnishes direct external proof of our participation in the supersensible [i.e., supernatural] world. In having people do eurythmy, we link them directly to the supersensible world." [17]

Many people are attracted to Waldorf schools because of the emphasis the schools place on the arts. The schools are often aesthetically pleasing. But Waldorf schools do not embrace art for art's sake — in true-blue, Anthroposophical Waldorf schools, art is employed as a vehicle leading to the occult.

When considering a Waldorf school, you need to assess whether its principles and practices align with your own. If you are a person of faith, and if you agree that art may provide portals into the spirit realm, then a deeply committed Anthroposophical Waldorf school may seem to be a good fit for you and your children. But if, for any reason, you have misgivings about the esoteric intentions behind the arts in Waldorf education, you may want to seek a "Waldorf" school that has largely cut its ties to Anthroposophy or one that was never Anthroposophical to begin with. You would then be seeking a school that has ceased to be a real Waldorf, or one that never was a real Waldorf to begin with.

Or, of course, you could look for a school of a completely different type, one that makes no pretense of being a Waldorf school of any kind or degree.

OVERVIEW

We could continue this analysis of the true-blue Waldorf curriculum (e.g., by discussing the stages of childhood growth; the etheric body, the astral body, and the "I" that each human is supposed to manifest; the various temperaments by which Waldorf faculties segregate students: phlegmatic, melancholic, etc.) [18], but there's probably no need. We can already see the following:

◊ A Waldorf school that clings to all of Steiner's teachings is mired in falsehood arising from those teachings.

◊ A Waldorf school that tries to pick and choose among Steiner's teachings runs into dilemmas that have no easy resolution — which teachings does the school disavow, and for what reasons, and why does the school cling to Steiner’s other teachings, and how can a consistent educational program be cobbled together out of broken, disassembled parts?

◊ A "Waldorf" school that tries to completely renounce Steiner would be a "Waldorf" in name only. But retaining the name would always raise suspicions. If a school says it is a Waldorf — if it walks like a Waldorf, and talks like a Waldorf — then at least some remnants of Waldorf mysticism are likely still embedded there.

For parents trying to find a “good” Waldorf, then, the choices may come down to this: Send your kids to an Anthroposophical school that pretends to be non-Anthroposophical (i.e., a school that takes the approach taken by most Waldorf schools up till now), or send them to a more or less non-Anthroposophical school that wears Anthroposophical garb (a school taking the approach taken by at least a few Waldorf schools nowadays). Or, obviously, you could decide to sidestep Waldorf schooling altogether.

The foregoing leads us to a critical issue. How many Anthroposophists on the staff of a “Waldorf” school are too many? Half of the faculty? No, that’s far too many — Steiner-like mysticism will be widespread in such a school. What, then, if there is just one Anthropop on the faculty? This would certainly be better, yet it would still be worrisome. Some “Waldorfs” may be more or less free of Anthroposophy. But how is a parent to know for sure, given that many deeply Anthroposophical Waldorfs disguise their missions? If a school calls itself a Waldorf or a Steiner school, then we would be well advised to assume that the school aspires to Steinerism. The sole Anthroposophist at that sort of school might be, in essence, the covert spiritual leader for the entire faculty. And we must realize that some teachers who are not Anthroposophists may nonetheless have received training as Waldorf teachers, so they will likely follow some version of Steiner’s dicta. A non-Waldorf Waldorf that embodies Anthroposophy-lite would still be detached from reality to one degree or another.

Another possibility is that the faculty at a Waldorf school may generally disavow Steiner’s doctrines and yet remain devoted to other forms of occultism. As we have said, Steiner urged his followers to develop their own powers of clairvoyance. An aspiring spiritualist or mystic may begin by following Steiner’s guidance but then wander away from Anthroposophy to other faiths. Mystical revelations can be of almost any sort, visions that support Steiner’s revelations and visions that don’t. I’ve known individuals with spiritualistic yearnings who were drawn to Anthroposophy, joined Waldorf faculties, then partially or wholly split from Anthroposophy, but remained mystics. In his later years, American Anthroposophist John Fentress Gardner — headmaster at the Waldorf I attended — began urging spiritualistic faculty members to “use their own spiritual perceptions in their educational approach.” [19] This opened the door to a sort of curricular chaos, since some teachers had "perceptions" that affirmed Steiner while other had perceptions that diverged from Anthroposophical belief to varying degrees. Gardner’s new tack produced a scandal that nearly ripped his Waldorf school apart — teachers in the school began to profess their mystical beliefs openly, to the shock of many parents who had taken the school's word that it was a rational, arts-intensive, liberal arts institution. [20] After resigning in the wake of the scandal, Gardner affirmed charismatic Christianity, announcing that it is at least as true Anthroposophy (although these two faiths are almost impossible to reconcile fully). [21] The important point for our present discussion is that a Waldorf school that separates itself, more or less, from Rudolf Steiner may nonetheless be an occultist institution where children are led toward mysticism of one form or another. If you don’t want this for your child, you should send her/him to a wholly different sort of school, one that is clearly, demonstrably non-mystical.

Finally, let’s consider the possibility that a “Waldorf” faculty includes no Anthroposophists or other mystics, and no teachers who have been trained in Waldorf methods. Surely that school is safe? Perhaps. But this situation could also mean that the teachers there are groping in a deeper darkness than Anthroposophical initiates do — they try to employ Waldorf methods, but they do not understand what they are attempting. The standard Waldorf curriculum and Waldorf methods are keyed to such concepts as reincarnation, and the incarnation of various invisible bodies and organs, and the swarming presence of invisible incorporeal beings. Following the Waldorf curriculum and using Waldorf methods without a firm grasp on the underlying ideology would be, at best, pointless — or, at worst, it could be disordered and befuddled, with who-knows-what effects on the students.

So, zero Anthropops on the faculty? That would be best, certainly. But the concerns that attach themselves to the names “Waldorf” or “Steiner” would still potentially hover over such a school. A parent should dig deep for clear, demonstrably true answers about a school’s purpose and curriculum before consigning children to that school’s care.

My advice? Look for a school with no devotion to Steiner or to any other form of mysticism. A real Waldorf or Steiner school is quite dangerous. An apparently false one — a non-Waldorf Waldorf, a school that calls itself a Waldorf or Steiner school for no discernible reason — may also be dangerous. So caveat emptor: Let the buyer beware. Assume that a “Waldorf” school is a center of occultism until absolutely overwhelming proof convinces you otherwise. And if that happens, then go on to the next step: Find out what educational philosophy actually prevails in that school, if it isn't Steiner's Anthroposophy. Make sure that you understand and accept the prevailing philosophy — or turn your sights elsewhere.

— Roger Rawlings

Footnotes for the Foregoing Sections

(Scroll down to find further sections.)

[1] Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 123.

[2] Rudolf Steiner, COSMIC MEMORY (SteinerBooks, 1987), p. 46.

Bear in mind that Steiner often used the term "Aryan" in an unusual way, stemming from his years as a Theosophist. According to Theosophical teachings, the "root race" of our historical period is the Aryan race. All humans who were meant to exist today are members of this root race; racially different groups within the Aryan root race constitute sub-races. However, Steiner also taught that many people alive in our time are members of non-Aryan races. Such races exist today because of demonic interference in human evolution; the existence of such races now runs contrary to the divine plan of the gods. [See "Steiner's Racism".]

[3] Rudolf Steiner, HEALTH AND ILLNESS, Vol. 1. (Anthroposophic Press, 1981), pp. 85-86.

[4] Rudolf Steiner THE CHALLENGE OF THE TIMES (SteinerBooks, 1979), pp. 207-209.

I discuss these matters in “The Good Wars”.

[5] See “Unenlightened”.

[6] Rudolf Steiner, VOM LEBEN DES MENSCHEN UND DER ERDE - ÜBER DAS WESEN DES CHRISTENTUMS (Verlag Der Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, 1961), p. 62.

For a laundry list of Steiner's racist remarks, see "Steiner's Bile".

[7] Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. xii, introduction by Clopper Almon.

[8] See the essay “Evolution, Anyone?” with an afterword by Peter Staudenmaier, on this website.

[9] See such books as Rudolf Steiner, AN OCCULT PHYSIOLOGY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1983), Rudolf Steiner SCIENCE (Sophia Books, 2004), Rudolf Steiner, FROM ELEPHANTS TO EINSTEIN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1999), and Rudolf Steiner, THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH: An Esoteric Study of the Subterranean Spheres (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2007).

Steiner referred to his occult teachings (Anthroposophy) as "spiritual science." But in fact his teachings constitute a religion; there is no real science in them. [See “Steiner's ‘Science’”, "Science", and "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?"]

[10] Hermann von Baravalle, RUDOLF STEINER AS EDUCATOR (St. George Books, 1960 revised edition), p.17.

[11] See “Steiner's ‘Science’”.

Steiner was always sensitive to public opinion. For this reason, he urged Waldorf teachers to be cagey about revealing various of his doctrines, such as that islands and continents swim in the sea, unanchored — they are held in position by the influence of the stars.

“[I]slands do not sit directly upon foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside ... Such things are the result of the cosmos, of the stars ... However, we need to avoid such things. We cannot tell them to the students ... [W]e would acquire a terrible name. Nevertheless, that is actually what we should achieve in geography.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), pp. 607-608.

[12] See, e.g., "Knowing the Worlds".

[13] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1947), p. 39.

[14] See, e.g.,

“Essentially, people today have no inkling of how people looked out into the universe in ancient times when human beings still possessed an instinctive clairvoyance ... If we want to be fully human, however, we must struggle to regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again....” — Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 256.

.

VARIATION

Some variation among Waldorf schools arises from schisms within the Anthroposophical movement; another cause can be traced to inconsistencies in Steiner's doctrines.

Soon after Steiner died, in early 1925, a significant schism developed. One group of Steiner's followers, headed by his wife, Marie Steiner, argued that Steiner's works should be treated essentially as holy texts. They should be preserved inviolate, and Steiner's word should be accepted as providing virtually the final say on all subjects. A competing band of followers argued that Steiner's works should be seen as extremely valuable guides, but they should not be considered sacrosanct or beyond question. Members of this group insisted on their own right to interpret Steiner and to make their own clairvoyant/spiritual discoveries.

The first group took control of the Anthroposophical headquarters in Switzerland, and its views have tended to prevail in Switzerland and Germany since that time. The second group, including many individuals who were expelled from the Anthroposophical Society, tended to congregate in Great Britain, where their views have been influential. Waldorf schools in many other countries, such as the USA, have tended to reflect both perspectives — some schools have hewed strictly to Steiner's word, others have felt freer to interpret Anthroposophical doctrines and teachings as they see fit.

For more on this schism and its aftereffects, see Ida Oberman, THE WALDORF MOVEMENT IN EDUCATION FROM EUROPEAN CRADLE TO AMERICAN CRUCIBLE, 1919-1928 (Edwin Mellen Press, 2008).

The fundamental cause for this split among Anthroposophists, and for the variations among Waldorf schools, can be traced to Rudolf Steiner's own teachings. On the one hand, Steiner claimed to possess and employ "exact clairvoyance." This meant he presented his views as virtually unchallengeable — he saw the exact truth, so his followers should accept his word. And, indeed, he usually defended his positions vigorously; he was loath to permit criticism or doubt.

On the other hand, Steiner taught that his followers could develop their own clairvoyant powers and use them to make their own spiritual discoveries. This empowering idea, so attractive to many, has led numerous Anthroposophists to affirm their own visions, whether or not these agree with the visions of their colleagues or, indeed, the visions of Steiner himself. (Steiner recognized that the clairvoyant visions of his followers might vary from his own to some degree, but he generally expected all genuine, precise use clairvoyance to confirm what he had "seen.")

Schisms and disagreements of these sorts might have ripped the Anthroposophical movement — including the Waldorf movement — to shreds. That they didn't is largely the result of the underlying allegiance that most Anthroposophists accord to Steiner. Even those who want to assert their own spiritual visions generally accept Steiner's vision in most matters, in general if not in all particulars. Thus, the differences between various Waldorf schools and between various Anthroposophical factions tend to be small. Insiders magnify the differences in their own estimation, and the battles that result can be fierce. But from the perspective of outsiders, the differences often appear so minor as to be all but nonexistent.

When considering a Waldorf school, it is best to probe as deeply as you can. Don't assume that any one Waldorf school is precisely like any other Waldorf school. The schools will probably be very similar, but you may detect small differences that may sway you for or against a particular institution.

In a larger sense, of course, you should form a considered judgment about Waldorf schools generally. Minor variations aside, do you think any Waldorf schools are likely to provide a good, rational education for your children?

— R.R.

Emulation of semi-wet Waldorf-style art, by R.R.

Not all Waldorf art is alike.

To consider varying Waldorf artistic approaches,

see, e.g., "shaded drawing," "veiling painting,"

and "wet-on-wet painting" in the

The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.

FROM THE WALDORF WATCH NEWS

“My husband is Swiss, and in Switzerland the gov. subsidizes Waldorf, there's one in every town,* it very prevalent, just one notch below mainstream. (As an aside, this is a country where religion is laughed at and almost extinct, and people don't think of Steiner as religious.) So, my knowledge about Waldorf en masse comes from there. But here in the U.S., even our good, relatively small public school system was a social and emotional disaster for my kids. My son's self-esteem, happiness, empathy, confidence, consideration for others, sense of responsibility, open mindedness has dramatically improved since we moved him. And that's what we hear from other parents at this school, and from our friends in Switzerland. I can't know what you or others have experienced. If it's way different than that, it sounds like the schools or teachers you've had experience with are not really ‘doing Waldorf right’ imo. I'd hate to see our Waldorf take the rap for that.”

[5-16-2011 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/19051]

◊

Waldorf Watch Response:

Is it possible to “do Waldorf right”? This is an intriguing question. To “do Waldorf right” as its founder, Rudolf Steiner, prescribed, all Waldorf teachers would be Anthroposophists, and they would aim to use Waldorf schools as vehicles for spreading Anthroposophy. They would work in the service of the “gods” — they would serve the religion created by Rudolf Steiner: Anthroposophy.

Here are a few indications, from Steiner, on doing Waldorf right:

◊ “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 (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 118.

◊ “Among the faculty, we must certainly carry within us the knowledge that we are not here for our own sakes, but to carry out the divine cosmic plan. We should always remember that when we do something, we are actually carrying out the intentions of the gods.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 55.

◊ "It is possible to introduce a religious element into every subject, even into math lessons. Anyone who has some knowledge of Waldorf teaching will know that this statement is true." — Rudolf Steiner, THE CHILD's CHANGING CONSCIOUSNESS AS THE BASIS OF PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICE (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 94.

◊ “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. The anthroposophical movement has become a large one.” — Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p.156.

◊ "[T]he Anthroposophical Society...provides religious instruction [for Waldorf students] just as other religious groups do." — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 706.

The “right way” to “do Waldorf," according to the founder of Waldorf schooling, is to faithfully adhere to Anthroposophy. But do you want your child to be educated by teachers who believe the bizarre doctrines of Anthroposophy? One quick example: Do you want your child to be educated by people who believe the following?

"Whereas in the ancient Atlantean times [i.e., while we lived on Atlantis] these human beings descended to earth from Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, and the other planets...now a time is beginning when beings who are not human are coming down to earth from cosmic regions beyond ... Just as the Vulcan men were the last to come down to earth [during Atlantean times], so Vulcan beings are now actually entering this earth existence ... And it is thanks to the fact that these beings from beyond the earth are bringing messages down into this earthly existence that it is possible at all to have a comprehensive spiritual science [i.e., Anthroposophy] today.” — Rudolf Steiner, MATERIALISM AND THE TASK OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (SteinerBooks, 1987), p. 261.

[For more, see "Steiner's Blunders", "Say What?", "Wise Words", and "Steiner Static". As you read, keep reminding yourself: Anthroposophists — including Waldorf faculty members — believe this wacko nonsense.]

OK. So the primary way to "do Waldorf right" is to faithfully adhere to, and diligently promote, Anthroposophical doctrines. There is, however, a secondary possibility. What if a Waldorf school were run by people who love many of the Waldorf methods (emphasis on arts and crafts, plenty of free time for play, the staging of colorful festivals, and so on) but who do not know much if anything about Anthroposophy? Wouldn’t such a school be fine and dandy? Wouldn't this be a way to "do Waldorf right"?

Possibly. Such a school would not be a real Waldorf school, as defined by Steiner himself, but if it were operated by loving, well-meaning individuals, a certain amount of good might be done there. But. (You knew another “but” was coming, didn’t you?) But pause a moment. Notice that the quotation with which we started (“My husband is Swiss...”) comes from a discussion about the “temperaments” ("How important are the Temperaments in Waldorf education?"). Hearing this, we should immeidately raise our guard. Loving, well-meaning teachers who know nothing about Rudolf Steiner but who believe children can be separated into the four classical “temperaments” (phlegmatic, melancholic, sanguine, and choleric) are at least slightly out of touch with reality. The four classical temperaments are an ancient concept discarded by science long ago. The concept lives on in very few places, primarily in Waldorf schools. [See "Humouresque" and "Temperaments".]

If the teachers at a Waldorf school share a belief that separates them at least slightly from reality, we need to inquire whether they have other beliefs that stretch the separation further. The Waldorf approach, you see, is generally backward-looking. All their stress on art, crafts, and play is tied to a fundamental anti-intellectual attitude. The Waldorf approach generally opposes modern technology, modern science, modern knowledge. Good, loving, well-meaning non-Anthroposophists who use a backward-looking approach that rejects reality cannot, in the end, truly help children. Whether Waldorf teachers are committed Anthroposophists or wholly innocent non-Anthroposophists, they cannot “do Waldorf right.” There is no way to "do Waldorf right." Why? Because Waldorf is wrong.

Some kids love Waldorf schools. (What’s not to like? Art, crafts, play, well-meaning teachers, minimal academic pressure...) Some families love Waldorf schools. (What’s not to like? Lovely building and grounds, colorful annual festivals, loads of arts and crafts...) But this is not the same as saying Waldorf schools provide a good education that prepares children for fulfilling lives in the real world. In fact, Waldorf schools typically turn their backs on the real world. This retreat from reality can be pleasant and comforting, but it is not compatible with real education. [See, e.g., "Academic Standards at Waldorf", "Reality and Fantasy", "Spiritual Agenda", "Methods", "Steiner's Specific", "Serving the Gods", "Here's the Answer", and "Our Experience".]

If a "Waldorf school" were not really a Waldorf school — that is, if all of the backwardness were stripped out — then it might have a shot at becoming a pretty good school. But such a school would not be a real Waldorf school. It would be a place where, by Waldorf standards, the teachers "do Waldorf wrong." And bear in mind, vigorous efforts are made in Waldorf teacher-training programs to make sure that all so-called "Waldorf schools" are real Waldorf schools — that is, schools that honor Rudolf Steiner's intentions, schools that "do Waldorf" as he wanted Waldorf to be done. [See "Teacher Training".]

◊

* Actually, a recent tabulation shows that there are 35 Waldorf or Steiner schools in Switzerland. [See, e.g., "August, 2011".] The total number of Swiss towns is considerably larger than 35. Standard reference works indicate that, in April, 2011, there were well over 200 towns and cities in Switzerland, 119 of which had populations of 10,000 or more. Clearly, then, the great majority of Swiss towns do not have Waldorf schools.

Waldorf art is akin to Anthroposophical art,

but it is not always the same.

Flat-out Anthroposophical art

is clearly intended to depict, and evoke,

spiritual powers and realms.

Images such as these may appear in such art,

although usually the results are

more cheerily colorful.

In creating these sketches, I worked from

designs created for display

at the Anthroposophical headquarters,

the Goetheanum;

the effects produced here express,

at least in part, my own editorial assessment.

[See THE GOETHEANUM CUPOLA MOTIFS OF RUDOLF STEINER

(Steiner Books, 2011).

R. R. interpretations, 2014.]

One of the original images from which I worked —

"Eye and Ear / Elohim", by Gerard Wagner, detail,

THE GOETHEANUM CUPOLA MOTIFS OF RUDOLF STEINER, p. 55.

The following is excerpted from

"The Delusional World of Rudolf Steiner"

by Ian Hayward Robinson

[http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/78/p2-5_AR78.pdf]

The Steiner beachhead has succeeded due to the partisan lobbying by groups of acolytes who seek to provide a spiritually-based education for their children at the secular system’s expense. Most of them seem to now little about Rudolf Steiner or his crazy theories on just about everything, but are sucked in by the superficially attractive rhetoric and egged on by the hard-core disciples of this weird early twentieth century German guru.

Part of the propaganda is that Steiner education is not ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’. It may be true that religion or spirituality are not overtly proselytised in Steiner annexes, although we can’t be sure of this because there is little monitoring or evaluation. The whole basis of Steiner education, however, comes from Steiner’s excursions into what he called ‘spiritual’ or ‘occult science’, which was code for him going into a meditative state, free-associating around a topic, and writing down the results of his ruminations as though they were incontrovertible truth. Using this method he came up with a number of amazing break-throughs in modern thought, such as the importance of burying stag bladders full of yarrow flowers in a field to stimulate the growth of crops!

The principles of Steiner education are certainly not evidence-based or the result of rigorous research. ... One would have thought that Steiner propagandists would have been keen to establish the credentials of their system by a series of well-designed and executed research studies, but this is not the case. There is virtually no hard information about what goes on in Steiner classrooms or on the effects of it on children’s learning.

In eschewing such empirical studies, Steiner’s supporters are really only following the guru himself. Steiner was highly dismissive of the ‘trend of human evolution…to validate judgements through visual observations’.

...If the sources of Steiner’s educational ideas are not educational research, where do they come from? Although this is often denied, there is no doubt they come from Steiner’s quasi-religious beliefs.

Steiner teachers don't say overtly that their system is religious, because then they wouldn't be allowed to teach it in state public schools and maybe wouldn't get as many takers for their dedicated schools. But the whole system is shot through with religion, whether the teachers admit it or even know it.

When the children study Indian mythology one year and Hebrew another and so on, they are not studying "comparative religion", as one parent claimed, they are recapitulating the spiritual development of man as Steiner believed it occurred, from the mythical civilisations of 'Lemuria' and 'Atlantis', through the Egyptian, Indian, and Hebrew civilisations to its culmination in modern (i.e. early 20th century) ‘Aryan’ (i.e. German) civilisation. This is not an educational idea, it is a religious one.

When Steiner teachers divide the development of the child into seven year cycles, this obeisance to the mystical number 'seven' is not an educational idea, it is a religious one.

...When Steiner teachers focus on different aspects of the person at different stages, this is based on his religious belief about humans having three bodies (the physical, the 'astral' and the 'etheric') that develop in a certain order at certain times. This is not an educational idea, it is a religious one.

When Steiner teachers make children at a certain age paint on damp paper, which makes everything go fuzzy, this is because he believed their souls were not yet developed enough to cope with sharp distinctions. This is not an educational idea, it is a religious one.

...Steiner certainly thought his education system was an extension of his religious beliefs. He tells the teachers in his first school that ‘by employing our methods we will harmonise the higher human being (the human spirit and soul) with the physical body (our lower [sic] being)’. Five years later he tells them: ‘Every word and gesture in my teaching as a whole will be permeated with religious fervour’ and talks about having ‘educated children very naturally in a priestly way – what is really a religious devotion …’.

This position has not changed since Steiner’s death. A Steiner education website states: 'Anthroposophy holds that the human being is fundamentally a spiritual being and that all human beings deserve respect as the embodiment of their spiritual nature. This view is carried into Waldorf [Steiner] education …' and another states: 'Rudolf Steiner's educational philosophy must be set within the context of his main endeavour — to address the latent possibilities in human beings of advancing beyond the present-day accepted limits of cognition to an awakening, by self-discipline and exercise, to a knowledge of the spiritual worlds underlying outer existence — higher worlds.'

◊

* This also tends to be true among Steiner followers who are not Waldorf teachers. A fair proportion are surprisingly uninformed about the belief system they embrace. Check some of the discussions recorded at waldorfcritics.org. Time and again, you will find arguments made by people who fervently defend Steiner but who soon reveal, inadvertently, that they do not know what Steiner said on the points under discussion. Anthroposophy is a backward-looking faith that discounts modern knowledge, modern science, modern scholarship. People are drawn to Anthroposophy for reasons of spiritual longing, or pious hope, or fascination with the supernatural. But at least some of these individuals have so little interest in knowledge that they don't bother to learn much about Anthroposophy itself. Of course, this is not true of all devotees of Rudolf Steiner's fantasies. Some Anthroposophists are deeply serious and knowledgeable students of Anthroposophical teachings. But quite a few are not.

From The Morning Call, a newspaper in Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA

[http://articles.mcall.com/2013-01-17/news/mc-northwestern-lehigh-charter-vote-20130116_1_charter-school-northwestern-lehigh-willard-dellicker]:

Northwestern Lehigh approves charter school

Charter school may open for 2013-14 school year, if lease can be finalized on Fogelsville site.

January 17, 2013

By Daniel Patrick Sheehan, Of The Morning Call

The Northwestern Lehigh School Board has approved the application for the Circle of Seasons Charter School, clearing the way for the facility to open for the 2013-14 school year if it can finalize a lease on a proposed site in Fogelsville...

The school will use the Waldorf teaching method, which integrates the arts across the disciplines and emphasizes imagination while eschewing textbooks, computers and other traditional classroom tools.

In rejecting the proposal the first time, the board said the school didn't offer an appropriate curriculum that met state requirements; didn't budget enough funds for expenses, such as special education, maintenance and classroom materials; and lacked support from the Northwestern Lehigh community.

Earlier in the year, the Parkland School Board voiced similar misgivings in rejecting project director Phil Arnold's proposal to open the school in that district.

Arnold — who helped launch the Seven Generations Charter School in Emmaus and is chief operating officer of the controversial Medical Academy Charter School in Catasauqua — revised the bid and resubmitted it.

◊

Waldorf Watch Response:

Proponents of Waldorf education can learn to jump through the regulatory hoops — they can fashion proposals that, on paper, meet minimum official requirements. Whether the schools thus created will, in practice, provide a good education for their students may be a different matter.

As one former Waldorf teacher has written,

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

This does not mean Waldorf schools always fail to educate their students adequately. But often, in practice, Waldorf schools are academically weak. As Rudolf Steiner himself said when the students at the first Waldorf school were tested,

“We should have no illusions: The results gave a very unfavorable impression of our school to people outside.” [See “Academic Standards at Waldorf”.]

In theory, a Waldorf school could provide reasonably good instruction while also attending to its real purpose, the propagation of Anthroposophy. But it would be difficult. [See “Spiritual Agenda”.] The most academically sound Waldorf schools are likely to be those that wander farthest from the goals and purposes of the Waldorf movement. Put another way: Waldorf schools are likely to be good schools only if they cease to be genuine Waldorf schools. Determining the real nature of any particular “Waldorf” school can require difficult detective work. [See “Clues” and “Non-Waldorf Waldorfs”.]

To explore the nature of true Waldorf schools — schools that adhere to the original design for Waldorf education — see, e.g., “Here’s the Answer”, “Curriculum”, “Methods”, and “Sneaking It In”.

One more issue needs to be aired. Waldorf schools are fundamentally religious institutions, promoting the religion of Anthroposophy. [See "Here's the Answer", "Schools as Churches", and "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?"] Should such schools receive taxpayer support? Should the state underwrite such schools? At least in the United States, such support is unconstitutional, violating the separation of church and state. This is the fundamental concern of People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools, a group focused on the Waldorf movement.

Anthroposophical art — ranging from watercolor painting to sculpture to architecture — usually employs organic forms that are meant to invoke the spirit realm. The presence of such art in a Waldorf school suggests a deep commitment to the religion of Anthroposophy. This is the side door of a house designed by Rudolf Steiner; the object next to it is a window shutter.

When they can afford to do so, Steiner's followers build and decorate structures in a distinct Anthroposophic style. The cost can be prohibitive, however, which often forces Anthroposophists to make do with conventional buildings. Some Waldorf schools are architecturally unmistakable; others appear, outwardly, to be perfectly ordinary, conventional schools.

[R. R. sketch.]