READ ALL ABOUT IT

Here is an item from the Waldorf Watch News,

revised slightly for use here.

Following the format of WW News,

I excerpt a news article and then offer a response.

From The Examiner:

In two years a publicly-funded charter high school in California increased it’s exit test scores in math by 36 percentage points and it’s English scores by 23. At the same time their enrollment exploded by 250%. How did they do it? They switched to a curriculum based on a modified model that has been used worldwide by the private Waldorf Schools for some ninety years ... I believe the modified Waldorf model should be further used, studied and expanded if it continues to yield these kinds of results.  Actually, Waldorf is quite similar to the Montessori model developed by Maria Montessori, the 19th Century Italian physician, educator, and philosopher.  

[9-17-2010   http://www.examiner.com/gifted-education-in-houston/publicly-funded-high-school-california-uses-waldorf-school-model]

Waldorf Watch Response:

Do Waldorf schools use any methods that should be adopted by conventional schools? Perhaps. But if the resulting education would be similar to Montessori education (which is free of occultism), then what we need are Montessori-inspired schools, not Waldorf-inspired ones. Waldorf or Steiner schools are almost inescapably occultist — that is, their curriculums are based on outlandish, supernatural illusions. E.g., what concepts should geography classes teach? Rudolf Steiner’s answer, in part: 

“With the students, we should at least try to...make it clear that, for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars ... [T]his is what we should achieve in geography.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press. 1998), pp. 607-608.

Steiner's beliefs — which are generally shared by Waldorf faculty — were occult, and he knew they should be withheld from most audiences. Yet he also believed that his occult beliefs should be conveyed, somehow, to Waldorf students. We should pause over this. So let's look at the same quotation again, but at greater length. Here, then, is the entire passage concerning islands that float in the sea. Steiner says students need to learn about "the spirit" of various subjects, but he says they should not be taught "about Anthroposophy," then he says they should be taught the Anthroposophical belief that islands "swim in the sea and [are] held fast by the forces of the stars," then he retracts this, then he affirms it in the abstract. He clearly wants students to accept his occult belief about islands and stars, but he vacillates out of fear that Waldorf will get a bad reputation. Nonetheless, he ends up affirming what Waldorf geography classes should "achieve." Let's see his words again, at greater length:

“The students are about eighteen, and at that age it is best if they attain an overall understanding of history and art. We should give them an understanding of the spirit of literature, art, and history without, of course, teaching them about anthroposophy. We must try to bring them the spirit in those subjects, not only in the content but also in the way we present them. With the students, we should at least try to achieve what I have striven for with the workers in Dornach [site of the Anthroposophical headquarters], pictures that make it clear that, for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside. In general, the cosmos creates islands and continents, their forms and locations. That is certainly the case with firm land. Such things are the result of the cosmos, of the stars. The Earth is a reflection of the cosmos, not something caused from within. However, we need to avoid such things. We cannot tell them to the students because they would then need to tell them to their [college] professors in the examinations, and we would acquire a terrible name. Nevertheless, that is actually what we should achieve in geography.” — Ibid., pp. 607-608.

People who innocently advocate Waldorf-style schooling need to face up to the truth about such schooling. Note that "the way we present [subjects]" means Waldorf methods, the methods some people say public schools should adopt from Waldorf. Tread carefully when considering such a step. [For a discussion of Waldorf methodology, see “Methods”.] If you doubt that Waldorf teachers lean heavily on Steiner and his doctrines, see "Teacher Training". Is this the sort of training that should, to any extent, migrate into conventional teacher education programs? Note that FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, from which I have taken the quotation about islands and stars, is often required reading for Waldorf teacher trainees. Thus, a graduate of such a program is someone who, on being told that Great Britain floats in the sea, did not jump up shouting "This is crazy! Let me out of here!"

Would Waldorf geography teachers really tell their students that islands float in the sea? The answer depends on several factors. Those teachers who believe it, and who also accept Steiner's statement that such concepts are what we should "achieve in geography," might well do so. They might tell an entire class, or they might reveal the occult truth to a few trusted students who show signs of becoming Anthroposophists. But other teachers, whether or not they believe that islands float, might focus on Steiner's warning that "we cannot tell" the students such things, since it would damage the school's reputation. On balance, it seems likely that most Waldorf geography teachers keep the "truth" about islands and stars to themselves. But the question remains hovering in the air, and this is the potential worry about all Waldorf and Waldorf-like schools: Craziness may break out at any time, if the devout Anthroposophists on the faculty let slip some of their actual beliefs.

◊

P.S. It would seem that the Waldorf school in question should be commended for academic improvement, and indeed I have argued that Waldorf schools can set high academic standards for their students. [See "Academic Standards at Waldorf".] But without more information, we can't be sure how well any particular Waldorf or Steiner school is performing. For example, an increase in English scores by 23 percentage points is surely good, but what absolute levels are we talking about? If students at the school used to score 50% (F), they would now be scoring 73% (C-). This would be a marked improvement but nothing to brag about. (Other factors that could affect apparent improvement at Waldorf school include whether some students receive after-school tutoring away from the school, or have access to educational software, or access to well-stocked libraries.) As for the increased enrollment mentioned in the article, this doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the quality of education provided, only the apparent appeal of such schools — which can be great, due to colorful classrooms, plenty of lovely art hanging on the walls, intriguing festivals, an emphasis on free time and play, refusal to "teach to the test," and so forth. [See "Magical Arts".] But much of this may work as superficial glitz, masking what really happens at the schools.

[R.R.]

WE DON'T TEACH IT

The news item above raises a central issue about what Waldorf schools teach. Do they or don't they teach Anthroposophy to the kids? No, Waldorf teachers almost always claim, we certainly do not. Look, Steiner himself told us not to: 

"We should give [the students] an understanding of the spirit of literature, art, and history without, of course, teaching them about anthroposophy." [1] 

See? Steiner said not to teach the kids about Anthroposophy. Case closed.

Well, not quite. On another occasion, during a meeting of the Waldorf faculty, Steiner told a Waldorf teacher the following: 

"The problem you have is that you have not always followed the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children. You have lectured the children about anthroposophy when you told them about your subject. You did not transform anthroposophy into a child's level." [2]

This is radically different. Here Steiner is saying that Waldorf teachers operate under a "directive" to translate their Anthroposophical knowledge "into a form you can present to little children." So in this case, Steiner is clearly telling Waldorf teachers to teach the kids Anthroposophy, as long as they put it in a proper form for children.

Thus we have a contradiction before us, which leaves us with the question: Do Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy to the kids or not?

The answer is yes, Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy, but they usually do it indirectly. [3] Rarely do they spell out Anthroposophical doctrine chapter and verse. Rarely do they say Rudolf Steiner, using his exact clairvoyance, teaches us thus-and-so [reeling off an Anthroposophical doctrine]. They usually do not do this. They usually refrain for a variety of reasons. I'll describe three, briefly.

1) Sometimes — not always, but sometimes — Steiner said Waldorf teachers should not teach the kids Anthroposophy.

2) Anthroposophical "knowledge" is often wacky. Embarrassingly so. It is often so wacky that Steiner himself worried about revealing it. Consider the following statement by Steiner (a quotation we scanned previously): 

“With the students, we should at least try to...make it clear that, for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside. In general, the cosmos creates islands and continents, their forms and locations. That is certainly the case with firm land. Such things are the result of the cosmos, of the stars. The Earth is a reflection of the cosmos, not something caused from within. However, we need to avoid such things. We cannot tell them to the students because they would then need to tell them to their [college] professors in the examinations, and we would acquire a terrible name. Nevertheless, that is actually what we should achieve in geography.” [4] 

Waldorf teachers may well decide not to tell their students that Great Britain swims in the sea. Steiner himself said such teachings would bring ridicule to the school. But he also said that "with the students" Waldorf teachers should "make it clear that, for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea" — and he wound up by saying "that is actually what we should achieve in geography."

We might forgive Waldorf teachers if Steiner's various, conflicting statements leave them confused. Should they tell their students the "truth" (as propounded by Steiner) or should they withhold it? 

(Here's another example of Anthroposophical wackiness. On pp. 30-31 of FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Steiner informs Waldorf teachers, during a faculty meeting, that the planets do not orbit the Sun. Instead, he says, the planets move in line with the Sun, three behind it and three in front of it. 

"[I]t is not that the planets move around the Sun, but these three, Mercury, Venus, and the Earth, follow the Sun, and these three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, precede it.” 

Note that on hearing this, none of the Waldorf teachers in the meeting stood up shouting This is crazy! Let me out of here!  Apparently they accepted Steiner's daffy statement. But this left them with a problem: Should they teach students the "truth" about the Sun and planets, or shouldn't they?

Yet another example: On p. 26 of FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Steiner tells Waldorf teachers that fire-breathing dragons — which he confuses with dinosaurs — once walked the Earth:

"Yes, those beasts, they did breathe fire, the Archaeopteryx, for example." 

Note that on hearing this, none of the Waldorf teachers stood up shouting This is crazy! Let me out of here!   They held their tongues. But this left them with a predicament. Should they teach the kids that fire-breathing dragons once walked the Earth, or shouldn't they?)

For the most part, with occasional exceptions [5], Waldorf teachers refrain from asking their students to believe Steiner's wackier teachings.

3)  Another reason true-believing Waldorf teachers often keep Anthroposophical beliefs to themselves is that teaching Anthroposophy to the students' brains would be nearly worthless, according to Anthroposophical belief. Telling students Rudolf Steiner, using his exact clairvoyance, teaches us thus-and-so  would threaten to defeat Waldorf's purpose. True-believing Waldorf teachers want to bring Anthroposophy to the students' hearts and souls, not to their brains (or only secondarily to their brains). They care much more about how students feel about things than how they think about things. This is what they mean when they say that they educate children's hearts along with their heads and hands. They want the students to feel about things as they themselves feel about things — that is, as Anthroposophists feel about things. You see, Steiner taught that thinking is damaging, and it damages Anthroposophy in particular. 

“A man who would receive Anthroposophy with his intellect kills it in the very act.” [6]

Instead, Steiner said that the path to spiritual wisdom comes through our emotions: 

"I...want you to understand what is really religious in the anthroposophical sense. In the sense of anthroposophy, what is religious is connected with feeling.” [7] 

Waldorf teachers would kill Anthroposophy if they laid it out for the students as so many intellectual propositions. Thinking is merely physical; Waldorf teachers want their students to feel the spiritual truth of Anthroposophy. As Steiner (using his exact clairvoyance) said, 

“[T]hinking is oriented on the physical plane; feeling...by its very nature is connected with the spiritual plane as well. Feeling really has a connection with all the spiritual beings who must be considered real ... In the sphere of feelings, human beings cannot liberate [i.e., separate] themselves from their connection with the spiritual world.” [8] 

Feel it, kids. FEEL it. If you feel  the invisible spiritual beings around us, you will know the truth.

In other words, the sort of Anthroposophy Waldorf teachers often seek to convey to students — the Anthroposophy they "transform into a child's level" — is largely emotional, not intellectual.

A quick side note:

In contemplating these matters, you need to remember that not all Waldorf teachers are Anthroposophists. Not all Waldorf teachers know Anthroposophical doctrines. Consequently, some Waldorf teachers are not in a position to teach such doctrines to the students.

The exception would come if non-Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers follow the guidance of their Anthroposophical colleagues. If non-Anthroposophical Waldorf teachers present subject matter as this material is usually presented by their Anthroposophical colleagues, then they may be contributing to the indirect, soft indoctrination of Waldorf students without quite intending to do so, even without quite realizing it.

But, certainly, if any Waldorf teachers willing and knowingly convey Anthroposophy, in any form, to their students, they are generally Waldorf teachers who embrace Anthroposophy.

So. Do Waldorf schools teach the kids Anthroposophy? Not usually. As ideas, as concepts, as mere fodder for the brain — no, they usually do not teach it. Except for a passing reference to an Anthroposophical concept here or there, they usually leave what we might call hard Anthroposophy out of the classroom.

But as feelings, as attitudes, as an orientation, as a deeply felt disposition, absolutely, yes, Waldorf teachers — some of them, anyway — teach Anthroposophy. They teach the kids soft Anthroposophy. They immerse children in a well-nigh impenetrable fog of Anthroposophical images and feelings and inclinations day after day, week after week, year after year. 

And remember, it is feelings that count most. Steiner told Waldorf teachers: 

“As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.” [9]

The same holds for Waldorf students. Students' thoughts may be relatively unimportant, from a Waldorf perspective. But what the students feel  is of vital concern. We might generalize by saying that Steiner conceived an educational program that would nudge students toward becoming junior Anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in their innermost feeling. (And, of course, such junior Anthroposophists might well grow up to be senior Anthroposophists in their adult years.)

Of course, keeping feelings totally separated from ideas is impossible. When you feel that you like something, you naturally develop the idea that the thing you like is a good thing. When Waldorf students learn to feel as Anthroposophists feel, they also inevitably develop positive ideas about the Anthroposophical viewpoint. This becomes increasingly the case if/when Waldorf teachers speak explicitly with their students about various Anthroposophical conceptions. [10] I have said that Waldorf teachers generally do not get explicit about Anthroposophy with their students. But this is not always true. Thus, we get reports such as the following, from a disillusioned aspirant Waldorf teacher, speaking of the way she saw various subjects taught at Waldorf: 

"[S]cience, social studies, and history theoretically were all explored and integrated into the curriculum, but always on a 'Waldorf' timeline and scale, and never in-depth. Additionally, the information imparted was often not accurate. For example, the children were taught that there were 4 elements — Earth, wind, fire and air, and that the continents were islands floating on the ocean...." [11] 

These concepts (four elements, floating continents) are indeed among the gems of wisdom Rudolf Steiner left for his followers.

When Anthroposophical ideas seep into Waldorf classrooms, frustration and anger can result. One mother who sent her child to a Waldorf school has written this:

"It frustrates me when people deny that Anthroposophy is a religion and [claim] that the schools don’t teach Anthroposophy to children ... My daughter’s books [i.e., class books created by copying from the chalkboard] show that indeed she was taught Anthroposophy, in picture form as well as in written form. ‘The human being is like a little universe inside a big one. Sun, moon and stars find their likeness in mans head, trunk and limbs’; ‘The Sylphs, Salamanders, Gnomes and Undines are the earth's scribes’ [12]; ‘The body is the house of the spirit,’ etc. If you deconstruct the lessons, the curriculum and the pedagogy, you cannot ignore the fact that Waldorf is a mystery school, a magical lodge for juniors.” [13]

If nothing else at this stage, we should grasp the point that Anthroposophical ideas do seep into Waldorf classrooms, at least occasionally, whether or not Waldorf teachers consciously intend for this to happen.

There is one portion of the Waldorf curriculum that amounts to straight-on, full-out immersion in Anthroposophy. Sadly, cruelly, it is a part of the curriculum aimed at the youngest students, those who are least able to think for themselves and thus are least able to resist. Many of the stories told to Waldorf students in the lowest grades embody Anthroposophical theology. Indeed, the "Biblical" stories told to young Waldorf students often bear only tangential relation to the actual contents of the Bible. The stories are Anthroposophical, not Judeo-Christian. [14]

But Anthroposophical attitudes and ideas lurk within the Waldorf curriculum at all levels and in most subjects. Steiner essentially said as much when he acknowledged that, one way or another, "Anthroposophy will be in the school." [15] Conscientious Waldorf teachers try to help students of all ages, and conscientious Waldorf teachers who accept Anthroposophy will, therefore, tend to nudge students of all ages toward  Anthroposophy. As one prominent Waldorf teacher, John Fentress Gardner, has put the matter:

"Every young person who is guided toward  the path of spiritual development will surely receive great gifts ... Much is attempted in this sense by Waldorf schools working with the educational insights and methods suggested by [Rudolf] Steiner." [16]

For Anthroposophsts, "the path of spiritual development" is Anthroposophy itself. When Anthroposophists hold jobs in Waldorf schools, they quite often make the sort of attempt John Gardner alludes to. This is where "the educational insights and methods suggested by Steiner" lead them. Indeed, helping students to embrace a soft sort of Anthroposophy — we might call it Anthroposophy Lite — is what Rudolf Steiner told Waldorf teachers to do when he gave them "the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children."

How, precisely, do Waldorf schools inculcate soft Anthroposophy, if they generally refrain from preaching hard Anthroposophy in class? There are many ways. I'll describe just a few.

1) Waldorf schools often begin each day by having the students recite, in unison with their teachers, Anthroposophical prayers written by Rudolf Steiner. Here's one:

This prayer contains multiple Anthroposophical doctrines. [18] Waldorf teachers do not, as a rule, explain the doctrinal contents of such prayers — that would be teaching students hard Anthroposophy. By in having students recite words like these over and over, they nudge the kids into an Anthroposophical mindset.

2) Waldorf teachers often tell their young students fairy tales that contain Anthroposophical beliefs, tales that may affect kids deeply even if the Anthroposophical content is not spelled out explicitly. So, for instance, a Waldorf teacher has advised his colleagues that the fairy tale "Hansel and Gretel" can be spun to convey or at least suggest multiple Anthroposophical meanings:

“The story portrays spirit and soul descending into a physical body and ascending again, enriched, to the spiritual world ... The story could also be looked upon as an initiation process. Soul and spirit are engaged in developing higher organs ... Yet another interpretation would be to consider the story as one of human evolution. With the expulsion from Paradise the human being enters the material world. Through his experiences he regains the faculty of spiritual perception in a new way and regains his spiritual home enriched.” [19]

Waldorf teachers don't need to cite Anthroposophical doctrine in order to guide the students' understanding of such stories. Simply through intonation, the placement of emphasis, and perhaps casual-seeming asides, the teachers can lead kids toward the interpretations they wish to implant.

3) Similarly, Bible stories (or what Waldorf teachers are pleased to call Bible stories) may be used to convey Anthroposophy, softly. Waldorf teachers often tell Bible stories to their youngest students and also to students who are a few years older. Here is an example of such a story (one that you may not remember from your own study of the Bible):

"And it came to pass that an angel of God led Adam into a cave. The angel shows Adam a book in which the seventy-two Signs of Light were written. All the wisdom of the world was written in the book. The angel taught Adam to read the signs in the book and said, 'Before you die, you must give this book to a man whose soul is filled with the light of God, so that the wisdom of the angels may continue to shine on earth' ... The Book of Life was not written on parchment; it was Light written in Light." [20]

As with the prayer and fairy tale we considered above, this "Bible" story contains multiple Anthroposophical conceptions. [21]

3) The many myths told in Waldorf classes may serve a similar purpose. Norse myths are given special emphasis in typical Waldorf schools. [22] These myths may be introduced in early grades and then reintroduced at the end of middle school and/or in high school.

In Anthroposophy, Norse myths are regarded as being very nearly factual accounts of human evolution. [23] These myths may be presented in Waldorf classes as if these tales are indeed extraordinarily wonderful and wise. Here is how a Waldorf teacher has told his colleagues they should present Norse myths to their students — they should say the following to the kids:

“The stories I am going to tell are very special. They are wonderful stories of strange beings called ‘gods’ and of giants and dwarfs ... These stories were not just made up; they came about in a different way ... As long as Adam and Eve were still in paradise they could see God ... Then came the children of Adam and Eve, and their children’s children; they could still see God, but not very often ... The more people became used to living on earth...the less they could see God ... [B]ut very many of them, not just a few, could see the angels ... There were many peoples in the world who worshipped the angel-gods, and they had wonderful stories about them. The most wonderful stories were told among people who are called Norsemen ... When these brave, fierce Norsemen had fought a battle, they came home to celebrate their victory with a great feast ... The most important part of the feast was when a man called a ‘bard’ took a harp and sang or recited a poem ... These bards could see the angel-gods better than the others. This is how the stories I am going to tell you came about. They are stories that these wise bards among the Norsemen heard from the angels, from the angel-gods.” [24]

◊

We could survey myriad other examples, but perhaps the point has been made. Waldorf schools generally immerse students in an Anthroposophical Weltenschauung, conveyed in prayers, tales, myths, songs, poems, paintings, drawings, dance (eurythmy), and other activities. As Steiner indicated, Anthroposophy — softly presented — is certainly "in the school."

As is virtually inevitable in any discussion of Waldorf schools (which are also called Steiner schools, remember), we come back to considering statements made by Waldorf founder Rudolf Steiner. Here is another such statement:

“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.” [25] 

In creating Waldorf education, Steiner — by his own account — found a way to spread Anthroposophy. This does not necessarily mean he found — by his own account — a way to turn children into Anthroposophists. We can infer that, mainly, Steiner meant that he found a way to bring Anthroposophy forward, making it seem more respectable. Thus, he found a way to lure adults (such as students' parents) into the Anthroposophical fold.

But we can't avoid the implication that children, too, may be lured. If Waldorf schools are deeply Anthroposophical — as Steiner said they should  be — then the people who will feel the effects most directly are the people who attend the schools: children. And Steiner certainly said that Waldorf schools are, or should be, deeply Anthroposophical.

“[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires." [26]

Genuine Waldorf schools — those that adhere to their founder's stated intentions — are fronts for Anthroposophy. They are stalking horses for Anthroposophy. They have "goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires." Kids who attend such schools are inevitably affected. They are nudged toward Steiner's phantasmagoric universe. Some kids resist, some succumb. Some Waldorf teachers work hard to fulfill Steiner's vision, some do not. But overall we have to remember that true-blue Waldorf schools with their Anthroposophical character have goals that coincide with anthroposophical desires. They exist, at their root, in order to help make the Anthroposophical movement a large one.

Footnotes for "We Don't Teach It"

[1] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press. 1998), p. 607.

[2] Ibid., pp. 402-403. 

[3] See "Sneaking It In" and "Clearing House".

[4] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 607-608.

[5] See. e.g., "Out in the Open".

[6] Rudolf Steiner, LIFE, NATURE, AND CULTIVATION OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain, 1963), p. 15.

For more about Steiner's views on thinking, especially intellect, see, e.g., "Thinking" and "Steiner's Specific".

[7] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 45.

[8] Rudolf Steiner, PSYCHOANALYSIS AND SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1990), p. 70.

[9] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 118.

[10] See, e.g., "Here's the Answer".

[11] Lysa De Thomas, MONTESSORI ANSWERS, "You seem to have a lot of opinions on Waldorf education. What are your experiences with Waldorf Education?" [http://www.montessorianswers.com/my-experiences-with-waldorf.html]. See "Ex-Teacher 5".

It is true, by the way, that according to Rudolf Steiner continents as well as islands float. 

“The continents swim and do not sit upon anything. They are held in position upon the earth by the constellations ... All fixed land swims and the stars hold it in position. Otherwise, everything would break apart. The seas tend to be spherical.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 618.

Arguably, Steiner meant that continents float on liquid magma or some other fluid deep in the Earth's interior. However, in his statement, he refers explicitly to the seas, as if continents — like islands — float in water. His remark is confusing, but also clearly wrong. Continents certainly have firm foundations, and the stars do not hold them in position. (Concerning Great Britain and similar islands, Steiner explicitly said, "[A]n island like Great Britain swims in the sea.” — FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 607.)

[12] These are the four types of "nature spirits" that, Steiner taught, dwell within the four elements of nature. [See "Neutered Nature".] Steiner said these beings really exist. So, for instance, he said this:

“There are beings that can be seen in the depths of the earth ... Many names have been given to them, such as goblins, gnomes, and so forth.”— Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 62-3.

[13] Sharon Lombard, “Spotlight on Anthroposophy”, CULTIC STUDIES REVIEW, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003.

[14] See, e.g., "Old Testament" and "Sneaking It In".

[15] Addressing Waldorf teachers, Steiner said: 

“You need to make the children aware that they are receiving the objective truth, and if this occasionally appears anthroposophical, it is not anthroposophy that is at fault. Things are that way because anthroposophy has something to say about objective truth. It is the material that causes what is said to be anthroposophical. We certainly may not go to the other extreme, where people say that anthroposophy may not be brought into the school. Anthroposophy will be in the school when it is objectively justified, that is, when it is called for by the material itself.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 495.

[16]  John Fentress Gardner, YOUTH LONGS TO KNOW (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 37.

[17] Rudolf Steiner, PRAYERS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2004). p. 45.

[18] See "Prayers".

[19] Waldorf teacher Roy Wilkinson, THE INTERPRETATION OF FAIRY TALES (Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1997), pp. 13-14.

[20] Anthroposophist Jakob Streit,  AND THERE WAS LIGHT (Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, 2006), p. 45.

For an explication of Anthroposophical doctrines contained in this and other "Bible" stories told in Waldorf schools, see "Sneaking It In".

[21] See "Sneaking It In".

[22] See "The Gods".

[23] 

“No other mythology gives a clearer picture of evolution than Northern mythology. Germanic mythology [i.e., Norse mythology] in its pictures is close to the anthroposophical conception of future evolution.” — THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), a collection of Rudolf Steiner's lectures, p. 17, lecture synopsis.

[24] Waldorf teacher Charles Kovacs, NORSE MYTHOLOGY, Waldorf Education Resources (Floris Books, 2009), pp. 7-9. 

[25] Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p.156. 

[26] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 705. 

◊

To read extended versions of various passages quoted above,

see "Longer Versions 2".

◊

WALDORF SCHOOLS AND FREEDOM

Waldorf schools claim to promote freedom. They say they do not strive to force Anthroposophical beliefs onto their students. They claim to be nonsectarian and nondenominational. [See "Clues".] Hence, they claim, when students graduate from Waldorf schools, they are perfectly free to choose their own paths in life.

Undoubtedly, some Waldorf teachers are sincere when they describe their work in these terms. [1] Unfortunately, however, this description of Waldorf education is seriously misleading. When Waldorf teachers speak in this way, they are either trying to deceive you, or they are deceiving themselves, or both.

Even if we disregard the cramped, restrictive nature of the "freedom" Rudolf Steiner advocated [see "Freedom"] — even if, in other words, we accept that when Waldorf representatives speak of freedom they mean genuine human liberty — still this account of Waldorf education is deceptive.

Waldorf education is, at its core, an attempt to enact Anthroposophy and to bring more converts into the Anthroposophical fold. [See "Here's the Answer".] Waldorf teachers rarely expound Anthroposophical doctrines, as such, in class; they go at things more circuitously than that. Still, circuitously, devout Waldorf teachers sneak Anthroposophy into the classroom at virtually every opportunity. [See "Sneaking It In".] Waldorf students are immersed for years on end, for hours and hours daily, in an Anthroposophical atmosphere that is meant to mold their feelings, perceptions, attitudes, and opinions. A student who receives the full Waldorf treatment should emerge at the end seeing the world, and feeling about the world, and thinking about the world as Anthroposophists intend. The process is subtle, but we should recognize it for what it is: a form of indoctrination. [See "Indoctrination".]

Of course, things don't always work out as planned. Not all Waldorf students become deeply indoctrinated, but this is chiefly because the Waldorf approach is so flawed that it frequently misfires. To get the complete Waldorf treatment, a student should enter a Waldorf school while still a toddler and stay at the school all the way through the end of high school. S/he should have minimal contact with the outside world during all those formative years. That's the program as laid out by Rudolf Steiner. But, in practice, many Waldorf students are spared this smothering regime. Many families pull their kids out of Waldorf schools long before the end of high school. Meanwhile, other families enroll their children at a Waldorf long after preschool, sometimes as late as the final years of high school. In all such cases, the children are spared the full Waldorf treatment, and thus they are unlikely to be deeply indoctrinated.

Then, too, some kids are naturally skeptical and rebellious. Some are incisively, analytically perceptive; some are insistently inner-directed; some are willful, or hardheaded, or just plain defiant. Such children stand a good chance of passing through Waldorf more or less intact. (For some of them, the passage may be brief: They may be expelled when their teachers decide they are recalcitrant.)

There is another factor we need to recognize. The Waldorf approach is basically unrealistic; it is often ineffectual for this reason alone. When, for instance, Waldorf teachers try to use clairvoyance [see "The Waldorf Teacher's Consciousness"] to perceive and guide the incarnation of their students' invisible bodies [see "Incarnation"], they are wasting their time and their students' time. The students' educations may suffer as a result [see "Academic Standards at Waldorf"], but for the most part the teachers are simply spinning their wheels and achieving little or nothing real, for good or for ill.

Despite all these limitations, Waldorf schooling indoctrinates a significant number of students, often with powerfully harmful results. Teachers whose own minds are clouded by mystical fantasies will almost inevitably lead many of their students astray. When fantasists take charge of a group of children and weave fantasies around them, the subliminal effect on the kids can be intense. Waldorf teachers generally do not spell out Anthroposophical doctrines in class, but this does not mean they withhold Anthroposophy — it only means they reduce their students' the ability to rationally discuss, analyze, and reach conclusions about the beliefs that underlie Waldorf education. Waldorf students spend their days in a miasma of unspoken but deeply felt, ever-present metaphysical conceptions, conceptions that are all the more likely to be absorbed and internalized precisely because they go unspoken. The most effective forms of brainwashing are not aimed at people's conscious minds but at the subconscious levels of being, swaying people in ways that function deep below the surface. This is how Waldorf schools operate, although Waldorf teachers and even some of their victims defend Waldorf practices as being sweetly beneficent.

Choosing not to explain complex metaphysical ideas to young children makes sense, of course — the children wouldn't understand. But Waldorf teachers generally follow the same policy of secrecy and indirection when dealing with all students, young and old; and they generally do the same when dealing with the students' parents. Anthroposophists consider themselves to be occult initiates. [See "Inside Scoop".] They think they possess "mystery wisdom" that should not be openly shared with the uninitiated. As a result, Waldorf schools are only mildly committed to the normal educational objective of sharing and spreading knowledge. Waldorf schools, in fact, are not primarily concerned with educating their students, if by "education" we mean conveying real knowledge about the real world. Waldorf schools, bright and colorful though they may appear, are places of darkness and occult secrecy, not the light of knowledge.

Waldorf methods affect kids at many levels and in multiple ways. Children who spend their days in an unrelieved Anthroposophical atmosphere are likely to be significantly influenced, even when they are not required to memorize an Anthroposophical catechism. Bear in mind, Anthroposophists think that leading people to Anthroposophy is a matter of the highest importance; absolutely everything depends on it. [See "Everything".] Devout Waldorf teachers consider themselves to be priests, charged with the spiritual welfare of their students. [See "Schools as Churches".] So while they may proceed circumspectly, protecting their secrets, true-believing Waldorf teachers nonetheless look for every possible way to nudge their students in the "right" direction. [2]

Waldorf schools do not promote freedom. They operate in the service of Anthroposophy, and their ultimate purpose is to spread Anthroposophy. Instead of laying out a vast array of options from which children and their parents might choose, Waldorf tries to maneuver children and parents in a single direction: toward Anthroposophy. True-believing Waldorf teachers want you and your children to "freely" come to Anthroposophy, sooner or later, in this life or the next. They are sure that they represent the one true way. If you select a different way, you may be headed toward perdition, and Waldorf faculties don't want you to make such a dreadful mistake. Sooner or later, you really must come to Anthroposophy or run the risk to losing your soul. Salvation requires you to "freely" submit, which essentially means surrendering your capacity for choosing a path different from Anthroposophy.

The Waldorf movement reduces, it does not enlarge, the scope of human freedom.

Footnotes for "Waldorf Schools and Freedom"

[1] As I say many times on this site, it is important to remember that not all Waldorf teachers are Anthroposophists — although the leaders of Waldorf faculties generally are. Steiner said all Waldorf teachers should be Anthroposophists, but in practice this goal is rarely attained. 

“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.

In "Waldorf Schools and Freedom", I am primarily discussing Waldorf schools that are devoted to Rudolf Steiner's vision and that are staffed by Waldorf teachers who are Anthroposophists or who are at least friendly to Anthroposophy. We should also remember that when non-Anthroposophists work in Waldorf schools and follow Waldorf traditions, they may be contributing to the Anthroposophical nature of Waldorf education without realizing it. Anthroposophical intentions are built into Waldorf traditions.

[2] Efforts to lure students' parents into Anthroposophy take different forms. If, having carefully evaluated you, Waldorf teachers conclude that you are susceptible, they may cautiously, indirectly begin alluding to various Anthroposophical concepts in your presence. They will probably invite you to evening gatherings in which, over the course of weeks and months, an exposition of basic Anthroposophical doctrines gradually unwinds. You may be given basic Anthroposophical texts to read. Slowly, slowly the veil may be lifted. But then again, if you do not seem susceptible, or if other factors intrude, none of this may occur. Many people have spent years in and around Waldorf schools without ever being taken into the teachers' confidence.

[R.R.]

POSTSCRIPT:

WALDORF AND THE GODS

The following is from a pdf file posted at the Online Waldorf Library

[http://www.waldorflibrary.org/images/stories/articles/roleofta.pdf]:

When visiting a Waldorf school we meet the faculty; getting to know them as individuals and sensing how they relate as a group. We experience how the character of the school is affected by who they are, and how they work together. 

If we return a few years later, faculty members may have left and the group working changed [sic]; the school, however, has retained its essential personality. What we are now recognizing is the element unique to each individual Waldorf school. 

Visiting a number of schools, we perceive each school as part of an educational movement, which includes more than just the schools themselves: national associations, colleges, teacher trainings, foundations, publications, and so forth, are all involved in maintaining and developing the Waldorf education movement. 

Looking further afield, we see the Waldorf school movement as part of a much larger phenomenon symptomatic of a global spiritual awakening....

ARCHAI  ::  GLOBAL SPIRITUAL AWAKENING 

ARCHANGELS  ::  WALDORF MOVEMENT

ANGELS  ::  INDIVIDUAL WALDORF SCHOOL

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS  ::  INDIVIDUAL WALDORF FACULTY

— Reg Down, 

"The Role of the Teacher-Artist 

in the Seven-Fold Waldorf School",

WALDORF ONLINE LIBRARY, 

downloaded Aug. 25, 2016

(I have edited the chart slightly. 

— R.R.)

Waldorf Watch Response:

This is how true-believing Waldorf faculties often see themselves and their schools. They believe they are part of a global spiritual awakening, which is overseen by gods three levels above mankind, the Archai. 

The Waldorf movement itself is overseen by gods two levels above mankind, the Archangels. 

Individual Waldorf schools are overseen by gods one level above mankind, the Angels. 

Individual Waldorf teachers are guided by the "college of teachers" — that is, the central controlling committee in each school, a committee consisting of the leading (initiated) members of the faculty. (In effect, these highly spiritual human beings take their place in the hierarchy of the gods: Archai, Archangels, Angels, and high initiated Waldorf teachers.) 

Thus, Waldorf schools serve the gods and they are supervised and protected by the gods. And high Waldorf teachers assume a virtually godlike role.

◊

[Anthroposophy is polytheistic.

Steiner taught that there are nine ranks of gods.

Evolved humanity will eventually become a tenth divine rank.

For a summary, see "Polytheism" and "Tenth Hierarchy".]