In his book RUDOLF STEINER (Bloombury, 2008), Heiner Ullrich presents the conclusions drawn by researchers who have published evaluative studies of Waldorf schools. I relay the results of these studies, as presented by Ullrich, on my page "The Upside" — see the section titled "Studies (with a Caution)". On that page, aiming for neutrality, I refrain from giving my own interpretations and commentary. But there is a great deal we need to understand about the issues raised in the studies. I will discuss some of these matters here.

I.

Surely the most important finding to come out of the studies Ullrich cites is this, drawn from a study of Waldorf or Steiner schools in England:

"The educational philosophy  found at the Waldorf Schools studied is almost wholly geared toward anthroposophy and pedagogical principles of Rudolf Steiner ... [T]he majority of the teaching staff sees themselves as anthroposophists ... Class teachers are expected to have a particularly intense relationship to anthroposophy ... [The rest of the] staff also deal regularly with Steiner's views...." — RUDOLF STEINER, p. 188.

This is the underlying reality at genuine Waldorf schools. Such schools are suffused with Anthroposophy. Students who attend these schools will be spend their days within an Anthroposophical atmosphere affecting virtually all of the classes and other activities in the schools. 

Anthroposophical doctrines are rarely taught to Waldorf students overtly, which means the schools can deny that they attempt to turn the students into young followers of Rudolf Steiner. But this denial is often disingenuous. The effect of constant exposure to Anthroposophical behavior, attitudes, moods, and preferences can have a deep and permanent effect on students, causing them to migrate in the direction of Anthroposophy sooner or later, as children or eventually as adults. Indeed, preparing students to move in this direction can plausibly be identified as the real purpose of Waldorf schooling. [See, e.g., "Spiritual Agenda", "Sneaking It In", and "Indoctrination".]

II. 

A set of interconnected findings point to a second major conclusion about Waldorf schools.

◊ "The majority of teachers have had special training at a seminar [or other gathering] for Waldorf teachers; very few are also qualified for teaching at public schools." — Ibid., p. 189.

◊ "[L]earning at Waldorf Schools is supported by the pupil-teacher relationships, the majority of which are considered positive. On the other hand, there are individual cases of Waldorf teachers who are either in over their heads or simply overburdened...." — p. 185.

◊ "The measurement and judgement of scholarly achievement does not play a major role [in Waldorf education]...." — p. 187.

◊ "With respect to results in national scholastic achievement tests...at the end of the ninth grade...a greater proportion of Waldorf pupils did not meet the standards...." — p. 190.

The academic education provided by Waldorf schools is often inferior to that provided elsewhere. Waldorf teachers often lack the qualifications they would need to teach anywhere outside the Waldorf domain, and at least partly for this reason Waldorf students often lag behind students from other schools. 

This probably should not surprise us, however. Waldorf schools have different aims and priorities; providing a good education (equipping students with knowledge and skills needed for their lives in the real world) is not at the top of their list. Instead, genuine Waldorf schools attempt to give students the "benefit" of spending their childhoods in an Anthroposophical milieu. [See "Here's the Answer", "Academic Standards at Waldorf", and "Soul School".]

III. 

The real aims of genuine Waldorf education are stated or at least implied in other passages of the studies.

◊ "The utmost goal of Waldorf Schools is the raising of children into freedom — but not through  freedom, rather through a long-term authoritative connection [with their teachers] from which the children are released relatively late...." p. 188.

◊ "The studies give a positive impression of...[the] social-emotional development of pupils." — p. 185.

◊ "The few studies available on Waldorf Schools see the rhythms and rituals in learning as a particularly salient and important trait...[along with] the use of symbols and ceremonial acts...." — p. 185.

◊ "One consistent indicator of 'good practice' in the Waldorf Schools visited was the outstanding role of order and rhythm in instruction and in school life...." — p. 187.

Preparing students for freedom in their adult lives is certainly a noble objective. We should understand, however, that "freedom" as conceived in a Waldorf context is largely an internal, subjective, spiritual condition. It has little to do with making independent choices.

At genuine Waldorf schools, the students are trained to see the world, and to feel about the world, as Anthroposophists do. The resulting "freedom" enables Waldorf graduates to reject much of modern life and culture, preferring the alternative Anthroposophical/Waldorf way of life. Students are led to enact the Waldorf way through "rhythms and rituals," "symbols and ceremonial acts", and "order and rhythm."

The tight authority exercised by Waldorf teachers, especially in the lower grades but continuing well into high school, tends to ensure that Waldorf students toe the Anthroposphica/Waldorf line. Ultimately, a religious or spiritual frame of mind is created (through rituals, symbols, ceremonial acts...) that point the students toward the worldview embraced by so many Waldorf teachers: Anthroposophy.

Arguably, the effect of Waldorf education is a subtle indoctrination that limits, rather than expanding, freedom. [See "Indoctrination" and "Freedom".]

IV. 

Despite their flaws, Waldorf schools provide various benefits to their students. Some researchers even praise Waldorf schools for doing well in areas other researchers find wanting, such as academics.

◊ "The studies give a positive impression of the effects of Waldorf Schools on learning motivation [and] academic performance...." — p. 185.

◊ "The curriculum  of Waldorf schools...is characterized [among other things] by the placing of particular importance on the learning of foreign languages ... Instruction in the natural sciences takes place over a course of many years in a graphic manner [i.e., emphasizing images] and incorporates the pupils' own creative abilities ... Handwork and practical activities, musical-artistic education, and the orientation toward the religious world of Christianity are all prominent fixtures...." — pp. 186-187.

◊ "[T]he 196 Waldorf pupils asked...had a more positive view of their scholastic achievements and a greater interest in the subjects...." — p. 190.

◊ "Although Waldorf pupils only posted mediocre results in scholastic achievement...the majority of them...later went on to post-secondary education ... [Students] felt that the Waldorf schools gave them self-confidence, an independent and critical view of scientific knowledge, and the willingness to keep on learning...." — pp. 190-191.

Waldorf schools would have gone out of business long ago if they utterly failed to provide at least a passable education. Waldorf teachers must occasionally attend to academics. 

But there is a trade-off. In general, the more a Waldorf school is devoted to Anthroposophy (i.e., the more it is a genuine Waldorf school), the less emphasis it will place on an academically respectable, scientifically valid view of the real world. On the other hand, the more a "Waldorf" school moves away from Anthroposophy (i.e., the less it is a genuine Waldorf school), the more emphasis it may place on solid academics. [See "Non-Waldorf Waldorfs" and "Academic Standards at Waldorf".]

So the picture is mixed. For this reason, we need to take a closer look, striving to peer past appearances. With this in mind, I will reprint here the full text of "Studies (with Caution)" from my page "The Upside". But this time, I will add commentary and explanations point-by-point as we move along. 

— Roger Rawlings

From The Upside:

STUDIES

(WITH A CAUTION)

Scholar Heiner Ullrich is a leading authority on Rudolf Steiner and his works. In my view, Ullrich does not fully plumb the depth of Steiner's errors. I think Ullrich's assessments of Anthroposophy and its offshoots, including Waldorf education, are insufficiently critical. On the other hand, Steiner's adherents have often argued that Ullrich is too harsh in his analyses.

Because Ullrich stands somewhere in the middle ground between Steiner's critics and Steiner's devotees, we might turn to Ullrich for a moderate and balanced assessment of Waldorf education. What, according to Ullrich, are the strengths of the Waldorf movement? What virtues can be found in typical Waldorf schools?

Here are excerpts from Ullrich's book RUDOLF STEINER (Bloomsbury) addressing these questions. I will quote from a section titled "How Successful are Waldorf Schools? — Evaluation Studies", then I will add my own comments and endnotes.

At the beginning of this section, Ullrich refers to studies assessing Waldorf schools in the English-speaking world between 1992 and 2004. He quotes from an overview of these studies:

"1. The studies give a positive impression of the effects of Waldorf Schools on learning motivation, academic performance and social-emotional development [1] ... These results should be viewed with great caution, however; they stem from methodologically weak studies which work with very small and non-representative samples ... Qualitative studies which systematically compare the performance of Waldorf pupils with standard public schools as well as detailed qualitative studies on Waldorf School learning culture remain rare. [2]

"2. Explorative studies, despite their unstable basis, relay the impression that learning at Waldorf Schools is supported by the pupil-teacher relationships, the majority of which are considered positive. [3] On the other hand, there are individual cases of Waldorf teachers who are either in over their heads or simply overburdened [4]....

"3. The few studies available on Waldorf Schools see the rhythms and rituals in learning as a particularly salient and important trait...[along with] the use of symbols and ceremonial acts [5] ... A high degree of personal attention for pupils...is [also] considered to be characteristic of Waldorf Schools. [6]

"4. Questions as to the place of Waldorf Schools within social space, the extent of their exclusivity and how they deal with differences between the sexes or children in ethnic or religious minorities have been posed but remain to be investigated.... [7]" — Heiner Ullrich, RUDOLF STEINER (Bloomsbury, 2008), p. 185.

The overview related by Ullrich is drawn from the report "Steiner Schools in England", published in 2005 by researchers Philip Woods, Martin Ashley, and Glenys Woods. Having presented the overview, Ullrich proceeds to relate the findings of "Waldorf Schools in England".

"1. The curriculum  of Waldorf schools...is characterized [among other things] by the placing of particular importance on the learning of foreign languages ... Instruction in the natural sciences takes place over a course of many years in a graphic manner [i.e., emphasizing images] and incorporates the pupils' own creative abilities ... Handwork and practical activities, musical-artistic education, and the orientation toward the religious world of Christianity are all prominent fixtures [8] ... The measurement and judgement of scholarly achievement does not play a major role.... [9]

"2. As far as practical pedagogy  is concerned, Waldorf Schools are mainly characterized by a strong orientation toward the pupils' development [10], and through a high degree of focus on the teacher in instruction. [11] Electronic media play almost no role [12] ... [The class teacher is] an authority figure who instructs [the pupils] daily in all subjects from the time they are 6 until they are 14 years old [13] ... One problematic result of the class teacher's central position is the low prestige of the specialist teachers ... [T]hree different types of teachers [are found at Waldorf Schools]. These are (in order of decreasing influence): the all-around class teacher, the class teacher who gives specialized instruction in another class and the specialist teacher. [14] One consistent indicator of 'good practice' in the Waldorf Schools visited was the outstanding role of order and rhythm in instruction and in school life  ... In the block periods of main instruction [15], for example, there is a regular [rotation] among physical-rhythmic, imaginative and cognitive activities [16]....

"3. The educational philosophy  found at the Waldorf Schools studied is almost wholly geared toward anthroposophy and pedagogical principles of Rudolf Steiner ... [T]he majority of the teaching staff sees themselves as anthroposophists ... Class teachers are expected to have a particularly intense relationship to anthroposophy ... [The rest of the] staff also deal regularly with Steiner's views [17] ... [The schools] do not attempt to turn children into Rudolf Steiner's followers; at the same time religious instruction is an important part in and has a [close] connection to the rest of the Waldorf curriculum through its spirituality. [18] The utmost goal of Waldorf Schools is the raising of children into freedom — but not through  freedom, rather through a long-term authoritative connection from which the children are released relatively late [19]....

"4. Collegial school management  is a further central aspect of Waldorf pedagogy. [20] The advantages of a lack of hierarchy lie in the stronger feeling [among the staff] of responsibility for one's 'own' school...and the staff are easily motivated to undertake further training. [21] The main problem with this form of school management are the time-consuming and ineffective decision making, unfair delegation of responsibilities...and power struggles among teaching staff [22] ... Waldorf teaching staff also makes a substantial contribution through the payroll, which is much lower than at comparable public schools. The majority of teachers have had special training at a seminar [or other gathering] for Waldorf teachers; very few are also qualified for teaching at public schools. [23]"  — Heiner Ullrich, RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 186-189.

Ullrich then cites a Swedish study titled "Swedish Waldorf School Evaluation Project" (cf. Dahlin 2005; Dahein 2005).

"...Waldorf parents in Sweden represent a fairy homogenous social group ... [T]hey generally had a good education and middle-range incomes ... Their political sympathies were more on the ecologically oriented left of the spectrum ... Their worldview was mainly spiritual or religious ... The high degree of social homogeneity among parents led to a...social and cultural segregation within Swedish society [24]....

"With respect to results  in national scholastic achievement tests in Swedish, mathematic and English at the end of the ninth grade...a greater proportion of Waldorf pupils did not meet the standards, especially in mathematics [25] ... [Still] the 196 Waldorf pupils asked felt more at home in their school...[and] had a more positive view of their scholastic achievements and a greater interest in the subjects [26]....

"Waldorf pupils from the same school year had much more positive results with respect to social competence ... They developed more openness and tolerance to outsiders ... [Their] answers led to the conclusion that Waldorf pupils are more active, responsible and democratic than state-school students [27]....

"Although Waldorf pupils only posted mediocre results in scholastic achievement...the majority of them...later went on to post-secondary education [28] ... [T]hey felt that the Waldorf schools gave them self-confidence [29], an independent and critical view of scientific knowledge [30], and the willingness to keep on learning [31]...." — Heiner Ullrich, RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 189-191.

Ullrich ends by citing a "small study of American and Canadian Waldorf pupils [that] produced similar results." — p. 191.

That is what, according to Ullrich, studies had shown as of 2008 or so. The studies he cites are interesting. But it is probably wise to recall the cautionary note we saw above, and we should probably apply it generally: 

"These results should be viewed with great caution ... Qualitative studies which systematically compare the performance of Waldorf pupils with standard public schools as well as detailed qualitative studies on Waldorf School learning culture remain rare."

The years since Ullrich's book was published have seen little improvement: Much further, objective research into Waldorf education needs to be done.

This is not to say, however, that there have been no important revelations about Waldorf schools since 2008. In fact, a tide of negative assessments has washed over the Waldorf movement in recent years, producing some serious consternation within the movement. School inspectors in the United Kingdom have reported finding significant flaws in Steiner-Waldorf schools there. [See "The Steiner School Crisis".] More recently, inspectors in Sweden reported finding similar problems in that nation's Waldorf schools. [See "Steiner in Sweden".] Likewise, scholars and journalists in Germany — where Waldorf was once nearly sacrosanct — have turned increasingly skeptical eyes on Waldorf education. [See "Dispatches from Deutschland".] In France, critical reports on Waldorf and Anthroposophy led Waldorf representatives to sue one author, a former Waldorf teacher, for what they called slander — but they lost in court, several times. [See "My Life Among the Anthroposophists".] In the USA, a major study intended to demonstrate the value of Waldorf education — published as INTO THE WORLD, How Waldorf Graduates Fare after High School (Waldorf Publications, 2020) — proved to be severely flawed. [See "Into the World".] And so on.

Perhaps someday a magisterial study will prove, for all to see, the great virtues of Waldorf education. But the odds seem long.

[R.R.]

Endnotes

 by R.R.

[1] This is evidently meant to be a comprehensive list of the benefits these studies attribute to Waldorf schools. The first two benefits (learning motivation and academic performance) are related to each other, while the third (social-emotional development) is wholly separate. Some studies do seem to suggest that Waldorf schools promote both the motivation to learn and social-emotional development, but various findings tend to contradict the notion that Waldorf schools promote academic performance. [See, e.g., "Academic Standards at Waldorf".]

[2] These cautionary notes largely undercut the "positive impression of the effects of Waldorf Schools." The studies cited have serious flaws, and there is a dearth of additional studies that might provide greater clarity. Scholars have much more work to do if they hope to truly understand and evaluate Waldorf education. Until then, we must look on the existing studies with some skepticism.

[3] It is certainly true that the Waldorf approach is meant to create close bonds between teachers and students. Waldorf class teachers remain with the same group of children for several years, during which time these teachers presumably can get to know the students well. If the teachers get along well with their students, the situation may be beneficial. But if some teachers are poorly matched with their students — if tensions and misunderstandings persist for year after year between teachers and some of their students — the toll on these students may be severe. [See "class teachers at Waldorf schools" in The Brief Waldorf/Steiner Encyclopedia (BWSE).]

[4] Waldorf class teachers are expected to teach virtually all subjects to their students in any given year, and then to do this again and again as the teachers accompany students to higher and higher grades. It is doubtful that any teacher is qualified to do this. Class teachers thus may find themselves "in over their heads or simply overburdened." One result for students is that at least some subjects will be taught badly (their teachers will be unqualified, stressed, and perhaps overwhelmed).

[5] Waldorf teachers generally accept the proposition, rooted in Anthroposophy, that classwork and class scheduling should be rhythmical, reflecting the rhythms of nature and the rhythms in students' lives. [See "rhythm" in the BWSE.] These rhythms are marked and enacted through rituals, symbols, and ceremonial acts. Note the essentially spiritual or religious implications. Some rituals, etc., used in Waldorf schools may seem innocuous, but because they are often based on occult Anthroposophical doctrines, they may constitute subtle stages of indoctrination in Anthroposophy. [See "rites", "symbols", and "festivals" in the BWSE.]

[6] This is essentially a repetition of the proposition that Waldorf teachers can get to know their students well and thus give them personal attention keyed to their needs.

[7] Here again the lack of reliable studies is emphasized — more research is needed. a) "[T]he place of Waldorf Schools within social space" concerns the role Waldorf education plays in society, either strengthening a given society or working in opposition to it. [See note 24, below.] b) The "exclusivity" of Waldorf schools concerns the effects of selective admission policies employed at many Waldorf schools, and the effects these policies may have on Waldorf students. c) Waldorf's treatment of gender, racial, and religious differences among students need to be studied further. [See "Gender", "Races", "Differences", "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?", and, e.g., "R.S. on Jews".]

[8] This is an accurate, but highly incomplete, characterization of the standard Waldorf curriculum. [See "The Waldorf Curriculum" and "Methods".] The Waldorf approach to the natural sciences bends toward Goethean science. [See "Goethe" and "Steiner's 'Science'".] Music and art play a very important role in Waldorf education, at least in part because Steiner said these are avenues to the spirit realm. [See "Magical Arts".] The "Christianity" underlying Waldorf education is actually Anthroposophy, which celebrates Christ as the Sun God. [See "Sun God".] And, importantly, Waldorf's "orientation toward" a religious worldview calls into question the claim Waldorf proponents often make, that Waldorf schools are not religious institutions.

[9] This is one indication that academic excellence is given low priority in Waldorf schools. Waldorf teachers spend little time or effort measuring and assessing their students' "scholarly achievement." One implication is that, without knowing in some detail how much their students have learned, Waldorf teachers are ill-equipped to plan lessons that meet the students' educational needs.

[10] This development is meant to be holistic, not focused exclusively on intellectual growth. A common Waldorf slogan is "Head, Heart and Hands", suggesting that Waldorf education provides benefits to all parts of the human being. [See "Holistic Education".] The "whole" human, from a Waldorf/Anthroposophical perspective, has four bodies, a karma, twelve senses, both a spirit and a soul, an astrological identity, a long history of previous incarnations, a double or doppelganger, etc. Hence, "holistic" efforts by Waldorf faculty may include attempting to promote the successful incarnation of students' invisible bodies [see "Incarnation"], and actions intended to assist the students with their karmas [see "Karma"]. We should also note that to the extent Waldorf emphasizes the heart and hands, it deemphasizes the head (the brain). Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers believe the brain has extremely limited value. So, for instance, one Waldorf teacher has written this:

 "The brain does not produce thoughts." — Henk van Oort, ANTHROPOSOPHY A-Z (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2011), p. 16.

The denigration of the brain and intellect lies near the heart of the Waldorf approach. [See "brain", "intellect", and "critical thought" in the BWSE.] We might question whether a valid educational system can be founded on such attitudes.

[11] Waldorf schools typically make minimal use of textbooks. One consequence is that the primary source of virtually all information is the class teacher. When, as is common, a Waldorf teacher is an Anthroposophist, this means most information conveyed to students is consistent with Anthroposophy or has Anthroposophical overtones. Students are thus deprived of the solid knowledge provided by authoritative texts, and they are given instead questionable semi-occult "information" that makes understanding of reality difficult, if it doesn't block such understanding altogether. [See, e.g., "Inside Scoop", "Truth", and "Neutered Nature".]

[12] Waldorf schools are generally wary of electronic devices such as televisions and computers. According to Anthroposophical belief, such devices may be demonic. [See "Spiders, Dragons and Foxes"; also see "media policies at Waldorf schools" in the BWSE.] Steiner taught that all technological devices, including those that are far less sophisticated than today's electronic gizmos, open the possibility for demons to enter our world. For instance,

“When we build steam-engines, we provide the opportunity for the incarnation of demons.” — Rudolf Steiner, “The Relation of Man to the Hierarchies” (ANTHROPOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, Vol. V, Nos. 14-15, 1928).

But electronic devices may be the worst. Thus, one prominent Anthroposophist wrote this:

"[T]he whole computer and Internet industry is today the most effective way to prepare for the imminent incarnation of [the arch-demon] Ahriman." — Sergei Prokofieff, "The Being of the Internet" (philosophyoffreedom.com, 2015).

[For an introduction to Anthroposophical teachings about Ahriman, see "Ahriman".]

[13] The length of time Waldorf class teachers stay with their classes varies. Often a class teacher will take a group of students from first grade through fifth grade; sometimes s/he will take the class through eight grade; on rare occasions, s/he may take the class through 12th grade. Thus, a class teacher may stay with a group of students from the time the kids are six or so until they turn approximately 14 or 18 years old.

[14] Class teachers do not alway teach every branch of study to their classes. Sometimes "specialist" or "subject" teachers are employed to teach subjects that require specialized skills or knowledge such as art, physics, or foreign languages. The "problematic" low status of specialist teachers is one possible drawback to the tight relationship Waldorf students may develop with their class teachers, whose influence over the students may become excessive.

[15] The Waldorf curriculum generally presents subjects in "blocks" — short periods of time (often three or four weeks) when a specific subject is studied, after which that subject is set aside for weeks or even months. [See "block teaching" in the BWSE.] During each block, the first and longest lesson of the day occurs during that morning's "main lesson." [See "main lesson" in the BWSE.]

[16] Concerning the rhythmic nature of Waldorf schooling, see note 5, above. "Physical-rhythmic" activities in class may include reciting verses, perhaps while standing, moving around, and/or gesturing in unison with other students. "Imaginative" activities may include creating drawings or paintings, or listening to a fairty tale or myth related by the teacher. "Cognitive" activities may include listening to lectures by teachers and/or copying materials written on chalkboards by teachers. The effort to engage, in rotation, students' various parts or capacities (e.g, the physical body, the imagination, and the mind) reflect the Waldorf aim of providing holistic instruction. [See note 10, above.]

[17] Not all Waldorf teachers are Anthroposophists, but Rudolf Steiner said they all should be.

"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.

Many Waldorf teachers today continue to agree with Steiner on this point. For instance:

"Waldorf teachers must be anthroposophists first and teachers second." — Waldorf teacher Gilbert Childs, STEINER EDUCATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (Floris Books, 1991), p. 166.

[18] Spirituality generally infuses genuine Waldorf schools (those that strive to remain true to Steiner's vision). This spirituality often has a Christian tenor, although the underlying faith for Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers is Anthroposophy itself. [See "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?"] Waldorf teachers generally do not try to "turn children into Rudolf Steiner's followers" in any overt sense, such as by using class time to explain and inculcate Steiner's doctrines. But the overall spiritual/mystical ambiance of Waldorf schooling tends to nudge children toward Anthroposophy. [See the section "We Don't Teach It" on the page "Spiritual Agenda".] And while most students emerge from Waldorf schools without having become outright followers of Rudolf Steiner, a great many Waldorf students are swayed at least to some degree in the direction of Anthroposophy. Additionally, we should recognize that a number of prominent, wholly committed Anthroposophists active in pro-Waldorf endeavors today are the products of Waldorf educations. Very few graduates of other sorts of schools become Anthroposophists in their adult lives, but a distinct cohort of Waldorf gradutes do  become Anthroposophists.

[19] The range of possible human freedom, according to Anthroposophical tenets, is limited. Anthroposohists deem Anthroposophy to be the one correct choice; any other choice is mistaken and potentially fatal. [See "Freedom".] The overall structure of the Waldorf approach reflects this. Young students are expected to view their teachers as essentially indisputable authority figures. When these teachers are Anthroposophists, the students thus become deeply affected by the Anthroposophical perspective. Only in the final, highest grades are Waldorf students expected to begin thinking for themselves (they are released from the teachers' authoritative control "relatively late"), and by then their fundamental allegiance to Waldorf/Anthroposophical thinking is likely to be strongly fixed.

[20] Some Waldorf schools attempt to function without administrative officers; the teachers attempt to run the school through their own collegial decision-making. However, not all Waldorf schools are run by the faculty, or by collegial assent. Many Waldorf schools have administrative organizations similar to those in other types of schools: there are administrative, clerical, and support personnel of various sorts.

[21] The commitment Waldorf teachers make to their schools is often great. This may be especially true among Waldorf teachers who are Anthroposophists — they work in service to Anthroposophy, not simply in service to their schools. The "further training" Waldorf teachers undertake is generally focused on Waldorf methods and principles, and it may often include careful study of Anthroposophical texts and doctrines. [See "Teacher Training".]

[22] For substantiation of these points, see, e.g., "Ex-Teacher 2" and "His Education".

[23] Because of the unique nature of Waldorf education, and because Waldorf teachers typically receive training applicable only to this form of education, Waldorf teachers may often be unqualified to teach in any other type of school. The problem is intensified when Waldorf class teachers are required to teach a large number of courses, at multiple grade levels, without have attained academic training or certification in those subjects for those grades. Waldorf teachers may then lack instructional qualifications in a broad sense. In some cases, their own real "qualification" is their devotion to Anthroposophy. [Also see note 4, above.]

[24] Further research may be needed to determine whether these characterizations apply to Waldorf parents in other countries. (In places where Waldorf schools are selective and costly private institutions, Waldorf parents may come largely from higher-income groups. And in the many countries that do not share the social-democratic views common in Sweden, Waldorf parents may lean more to the right (conservative) end of the political spectrum. Some reports, indeed, suggest that in some countries there are strong ties between the Waldorf/Anthroposophical community and far-right political elements. [See, e.g., "Sympathizers?"])

[25] Waldorf schools often postpone basic academic instruction until children are at least seven years old. One consequence is that Waldorf students in the lowest grades often do not have the knowledge and skills possessed by young students in other types of schools. Waldorf representatives generally acknowledge this, but they usually claim that Waldorf students catch up later. Here, the educational deficits of Waldorf schooling appear to persist at least through ninth grade. Some other reports indicate that the deficits may continue all the way to the end of secondary schooling, leaving Waldorf students badly prepared for college.

[26] Waldorf schools are often pleasant places for students, engendering loyalty and positive attitudes. Bear in mind, however, that these schools often have fairly high student turnover — students who dislike Waldorf or who fail to thrive there may withdraw, leaving only students who have positive feelings about these schools. Further research would seem to be needed on these points, encompassing far more than 196 Waldorf students; and such research should extend to former Waldorf students who withdrew or were expelled.

[27] These are positive results, and they seem consistent with the proposition that Waldorf schools promote social-emotional development. [See Note 1.] The question that arises is how much credit Waldorf schools deserve for these results, and how much credit should be assigned instead to the students' families. The results (producing "pupils [who] are more active, responsible and democratic") would seem to reflect the values ascribed to "Waldorf parents in Sweden [who] had a good education [and whose] political sympathies were more on the ecologically oriented left of the spectrum."

[28] The expectations of parents, rather than the nature of Waldorf education, may play the dominant role here. The description given of "Waldorf parents in Sweden" suggests these are families who would almost always expect their children to attend college. On the other hand, the Waldorf schools these students attended do not seem to have prepared the students well for college: the "Waldorf pupils only posted mediocre results in scholastic achievement."

[29] There have indeed been some reports that Waldorf schools foster self-confidence in their students. But some critics allege that the schools encourage inflated self-esteem that has no solid basis and may easily collapse. [See, e.g., "Mistreating Kids Lovingly".]

[30] Waldorf graduates often strike outsiders as having interesting minds. [See, e.g., the section "Waldorf Graduates" on the page "Upside".] But this may simply reflect the fact that Waldorf students have been trained in an unusual way of thinking (the Anthroposophical, imaginative, intuitive way). Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers are likely to encourage their students to take a "critical view" of conventional, non-Anthroposophical opinion. Anthroposophy is skeptical of intellectual knowledge generally and "scientific knowledge" particularly. Anthroposophy is leery of the modern world and most of its trends and components. We probably should ask whether the Anthroposophical view is productive and/or healthy.

[31] If true, this is commendable. Note, however, that the students are expressing their subjective impressions — they are saying what "they felt." (They report feeling that their schools made them self-confident and so forth.) Their feelings might or might not change after they gain several years' experience in the wide world outside Waldorf. Their self-confidence might take a beating, they might change their opinions about science, and they might develop a more sobering understanding of what higher education or employment demands. (Some Waldorf schools issue no report cards or grades, while others have extremely lenient grading policies. Students who easily slid along in Waldorf schools may face a difficult awakening when confronted by serious academic requirements in college or the pragmatic demands of employers.)