Many Waldorf teachers are genuinely perplexed and even shocked when they hear criticisms of Waldorf schools. They often attest that the schools, which they know from the inside, are wonderful. They have seen beauty and good will in their surroundings and in their colleagues. They have found the daily routines in their schools to be pleasant, and they have detected little or no disgruntlement among their students. As far as they can see, Waldorf schools are warm, bright beacons casting a lovely glow. [1]

When such teachers hear about students or former students who claim Waldorf has injured them [2], they are nonplused. They tend to reject such allegations as the idiosyncratic complaints of a few misfits. Likewise, if they hear objections that Waldorf schools indoctrinate their students in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy [3], or that the schools are deceptive about their purposes and practices [4], or that racism runs deep in the Anthroposophical belief system [5] — they tend to respond with quick, wounded denial. Nonsense, they reply. I've worked in Waldorf schools for X number of years, and I never saw anything of the sort.

Some of the Waldorf teachers who respond in this way are deeply devoted followers of Rudolf Steiner. They embrace Anthroposophy as their personal creed; they deem Anthroposophy to be immesnely illuminating and comforting; and they consider the products of Anthroposophy, such as Waldorf education, to be virtually beyond censure. These are true believers, firm in their faith, so their response to criticism is precisely what we should expect [6].

But I want to discuss another subset of Waldorf teachers, a group that rejects criticism of Waldorf almost as reflexively as do the devout Steiner followers. I'm talking about non-Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers who honestly attest that they have seen nothing (or very little, anyway) that would lend credence to any of the criticisms leveled at Waldorf. The members of this second group may know that some of their colleagues are starry-eyed Anthroposophists; they may know that Rudolf Steiner made some very strange statements long ago; they may be aware of a mystical aura that radiates from many Waldorf traditions (celebrations of Michaelmas, recitations of morning prayers written by Steiner, and so on [7]). But they honestly see little harm in such things, and they do not attach much importance to them.

On the surface, the existence of this second group of Waldorf-defending teachers would seem to create a powerful argument in favor of Waldorf education. These are apparently levelheaded, non-mystical Waldorf faculty members who stoutly stand up for their schools. Nothing untoward happens here, they assert. I'm not an Anthroposophist, so how can I be accused of indoctrinating my students in that ideology? And I've never lied to anyone about Waldorf's purposes and practices. And I'm not a racist — and none of my colleagues are — so it is extremely unfair to tar us with imputations of racism.

The first thing we should say to this second group of pro-Waldorf Waldorf teachers is: We believe you.You say you see no validity in our criticisms. We believe you. You say your firsthand experiences in Waldorf education lead you to reject our criticisms. We believe you. You are telling the truth as you understand it.

Sadly, though, this is not the end of the story. Glaring contradictions need to be addressed. We have made criticisms; you have denied their truth. We say Waldorf schools tend to provide inferior educations [8], you say Waldorf schools provide excellent educations [9]. We say Waldorf schools tend to lead students astray [10], you say they prepare students for fulfilling lives [11]. The debate is deadlocked; there seems to be no way to reach consensus.

So where do we go from here? Taking a step back might help; approaching the issues from a slight angle might help. 

Consider this: When Waldorf defenders deny the truth of statements made by individuals they see as aggrieved, idiosyncratic misfits — unrepresentative Waldorf students or former students, unrepresentative Waldorf teachers or former teachers — they often dismiss these statements as merely "anecdotal." Once, one student in one Waldorf school had a bad experience. But this provides nothing but anecdotal evidence, it is just a story about an isolated incident. It proves nothing about Waldorf schools in general. This defense is true, as far as it goes. (It doesn't go very far, since there have been scores of similar accounts from scores of former Waldorf students. But let's set this point aside, for now.) [12]

It is certainly true that wounded former Waldorf students should not generalize about Waldorf schools based on what happened, once upon a time, to a few students at one or two Waldorf schools here or there. Anecdotal evidence is weak [12]. But note an irony: The defenses offered by pro-Waldorf Waldorf teachers is often equally anecdotal. Consider the example I gave near the start of this discussion. A Waldorf teacher rejects a criticism: I've worked in Waldorf schools for X number of years, and I never saw anything of the sort. Do you see the problem here? If our hypothethical former Waldorf student provided anecdotal evidence, this rejection of anti-Waldorf criticisms is also anecdotal. It tells us what one Waldorf teacher has noticed — which may be quite different from what an objective observer might notice, especially one with extenstive knowledge of the Waldorf system.

We should recognize that anecdotal evidence gets stronger when it is supported by additional anecdotes. If we hear lots of anecdotal criticisms of Waldorf schools from lots of former students, the anecdotes may gain persuasive power, especially if they seem to reflect similar conditions in numerous Waldorf schools. We may begin to perceive patterns within the Waldorf movement that are hard or even impossible to discount. Of course, the same holds for anecdotes that seem to reveal vitues in Waldorf schooling. If we hear lots of anecdotal praise of Waldorf schools, we may eventually be persuaded by these tales. So we would wind up back at our dead end, hearing stories from both side, criticizing Waldorf and praising Waldorf.

But we may discern a difference, a fissure that lets some light in. The denial made by the Waldorf teachers we have been discussing — pro-Waldorf non-Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers — hinge on a logical fallacy called "argument from personal incredulity" [13].  A Waldorf teacher hears a criticism of Waldorf education, and s/he responds No, nonsense, I've never seen anything of the sort. All she is really saying, in such a case, is that s/he personally finds no reason — based on her/his personal experience — to accept the criticism. But there are all sorts of reasons why a Waldorf teacher might be unaware of serious problems occurring in Waldorf schools beyond the range of her/his personal experience.

Bear in mind that not all Waldorf schools are alike. [14] Some of the schools are run by dyed-in-the-wool Anthroposophists, and some are not. Some of the schools adhere very closely to Rudolf Steiner's directives, and some do not. If the problems with Waldorf education derive largely from Anthroposophy (as I contend), then students and teachers in the former sort of school (call them "real" Waldorf schools, run by Anthroposophists in accord with Steiner's directives) are far more likely to experience or witness these problems than are students and teachers in the latter sort of school (call them non-Waldorf Waldorfs).

And in most Waldorf schools, an informal organizational structure often prevails [15]. At or near the center of a typical Waldorf school sit Anthroposophists or mystically minded teachers who are sympathetic to Anthroposophy. They form the inner circle of the school, the real power center at the school. Outside this circle is a looser, less-clued-in set of teachers and other employees who know little or nothing about Anthroposophy. Steiner said that Waldorf teachers need to be true Anthroposophists. [16] But in reality there aren't enough willing and able Anthroposophists to fill all the positions in all of the Waldorf schools in the world. So lots of non-Anthroposophists wind up being hired at the schools. If these teachers remain in the outer precincts of the tacit school structure, they may work at the schools for considerable periods without becoming privy to the inner workings of the school.

Steiner said one of the most important facts about the origins of Waldorf education is that creating Waldorf schools enabled Anthroposophy to grow [17]. One way for it to grow is for students in Waldorf schools to be inculcated in Anthroposophical beliefs. Another way is for the parents of Waldorf students to be lured into Anthroposophical organizations — such as Waldorf schools. Yet another way is for non-Anthroposophical teachers to be indoctrinated in Anthroposophy. Former Waldorf teacher Grégoire Perra has described processes Waldorf schools employ to lead students, parents, and teachers to Anthroposophy [18.]

Waldorf education is an enactment of Anthroposophy. [19] This is clearly true in "real" Waldorf schools, as I defined them above; it is less obviously true, or it may sometimes be very nearly untrue, at non-Waldorf Waldorfs. Non-Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers who defend Waldorf education may be right, by their own lights. But if we posit that Anthroposophy almost certainly exists in some form, to some degree, in virtually all real Waldorf schools, then such defenses become far less persuasive. A non-Anthroposohical Waldorf teacher may unwittingly make an argument from personal incredulity because s/he truly does not know much about Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, or the underlying Waldorf objectives [20]. In a sense, such a teacher is an innocent — s/he is not wittingly involved in any Anthroposophical schemes or deceits [21].

But there is an old legal principle called "Ignorantia juris non excusat" — ignorance of the law is no excuse [22]. If you drive through a red light, you have broken the law and must accept the consequences, whether or not you knew of the law against driving through red lights.

It may seem unfair, but I believe we can extend this principle into our present discussion. Ignorance of Anthroposophy is no excuse. If you work in an Anthroposophical network of institutions whose general purpose is to spread Anthroposophy, you are implicated. You may not understand — or fully understand —  what you are doing. But you are helping to enact the Waldorf curriculum, which is meant to subtly nudge students toward Anthroposophy [23]. You are involved, whether you understand or not. And you are responsible for your involvement.

[R.R.]

Endnotes

[1] You will find affirmations of this sort at virtually any pro-Waldorf website as well as in Anthroposophical publications centered on Waldorf education. Similar affirmations are posted by Waldorf teachers and others when debating with critics of Waldorf education. See, e.g., the exchanges at the waldorfcritics discussion site.

[2] See, e.g., "Cautionary Tales" and "Who Gets Hurt?"

[3] See, e.g., "Indoctrination" and "Sneaking It In".

[4] See, e.g., "Our Experience" and "Coming Undone".

[5] See "Steiner's Racism" and "Embedded Racism".

[6] Anthroposophy is a religion, although one of its articles of faith is that it is a "spiritual science" rather than a religion. [See "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?"] Devout followers of Rudolf Steiner are, in general, adherents of this religion.

[7] See "Michaelmas" and "Prayers".

[8] See "Academic Standards at Waldorf".

[9] See "Holistic Education".

[10] See "Here's the Answer".

[11] See "Into the World".

[12] See "The First Person".

[13] 

"Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." —  Wikipedia, Feb. 18, 2022. (For a brief discussion of this fallacy in debates about evolution, see the Addendum to "Evolution, Anyone?")

[14] See "Non-Waldorf Waldorfs".

[15] See "Faculty Meetings" and "Threefolding".

[16] 

"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. This directive has been echoed by various Waldorf teachers and Anthroposophists; e.g., "Waldorf teachers must be anthroposophists first and teachers second." — Waldorf teacher Gilbert Childs, STEINER EDUCATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (Floris Books, 1991), p. 166.

[17] 

“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.

[18] See "He Went to Waldorf".

[19] 

"Waldorf education is a form of practical anthroposophy...." — Waldorf teacher Keith Francis, THE EDUCATION OF A WALDORF TEACHER (iUniverse, 2004), p. xii.

[20] See "Steiner, Rudolf", "Anthroposophy", and "Waldorf education: goals" in The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.

[21] See "Secrets".

[22] 

"Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content." —  Wikipedia, Feb. 18, 2022. 

[23] See "Waldorf's Spiritual Agenda".