return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Stunted imagination
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Waldorf roll call
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
OOPS Re: Stunted imagination
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Waldorf roll call
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Heindel, future human form
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Anthroposophical Christmas Tree
By mysplum earthlink.net
Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: Re: Stunted imagination
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:09:57 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
At 12-11-02 11:16 AM Tuesday, Alice wrote:
)on 11/11/02 6:29 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
)Imagination is a wonderful thing and a powerful tool when harnessed for
)learning. I do think too much emphasis on cold, hard facts dulls a child's
)interest in the world around them (which is not to say that facts should
)be avoided, just that a creative approach enhances their impact).
)Children learn best when they really connect with the material they're
)working with. Perhaps a well developed imagination in a young child can
)facilitate lateral thinking later in life. In our case we'll have to wait
)and see.
) )many snips(
)
)Alice here:
)My nine-year old son, current Montessori student, former 2plus years at W.
)school (his big sister, nine years there..) lost a tooth last night. He
)was completely convinced and thrilled at the tooth fairy 's kind attention
)and gifts this morning.
)Despite the montessori emphasis on science and cognition, the gift of
)magical thinking is still powerful in this age group.
I've never really thought that children were "age groups" - I think they're
just kids. Maybe that's because I've never really fit the developmental
model in many ways, ESPECIALLY in terms of mental aspects of my
development; if that's the case, my daughter's development is doing
nothing to change my views, so she must be as weird as I am. (LOL)
She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
sense of reality.
She LOVES playing pretend games, preferring them to all other forms of
play, and has a very creative imagination that draws on ALL of the sources
to which she is exposed (including the many quality educational and
children's shows which we watch on public TV - she loves many of the
upper-level educational shows, and is fascinated by volcanoes, states of
matter, and paleobiology (dinosaurs and the bird-ruled era that followed
them in particular), as well as her lifelong fascination with space, which
last isn't surprising, as she's planned to be an astronaut since before she
was 2). She also creates her own stories, which she loves to write down
(with our help, of course, since she limits her writing to single words
such as her name at this point, by her own choice - we provide learning
opportunities and gentle encouragement at the tasks she chooses to take on,
she chooses for herself what she is interested in and ready to learn).
However, at the same time, what makes HER comfortable with playing pretend
is the knowledge of the very clear line between "pretend" and
"reality". We do not worry about carrying the teddy bear by it's ear or
swinging the baby doll around by one leg - we are not allowed to, because
they are not real, they are just toys, as she has repeatedly informed us
when we told her that "if that were a real ____, you wouldn't want to treat
it like that".
)He was thrilled to be somehow "blessed" by this magical being..
This is very different from my daughter - she does not believe in that sort
of thing, and finds it rather disturbing. She likes stage magic, not
invisible people who are, at *best*, only semi-real. The one exception to
this is things like "wishing on thistledown" - she likes to do it, but she
doesn't expect it to work. Still, it's a fun "pretend".
)Personally, I think this is a sacred duty of parenting...to keep this
)alive as long as possible.. a child's personal connection to certain
)powers outside themselves.
She has a connection to powers outside of herself - us, and the very real
natural laws, such as the laws of physics.
)It is not the same, however, as W. theory on otherwordly thinking..it
)is psychological support for my children... another reassurance and
)connection to a benevolent influence outside themselves. NOT literal
)belief in the world of fairies and intrusion into trying to pry into the
)spirit world.
For our daughter, the psychological support comes from the fact that she
knows that we, her parents, will ALWAYS be honest with her, to the limits
of our knowledge, and will admit when we run into those limits. We tell
her when we don't know, and we tell her when our knowledge is more
theoretical than concrete. She prefers this, and does not understand why
some parents choose to lie to their children, telling them that there
really are people like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth
Fairy, when the parents know full well that there aren't. She'd rather
know that her parents love her enough to give her the joy and celebration
and gifts themselves, AND the gift of their honesty, than be given the idea
that something is real and later become disillusioned and left to wonder
what other things we might have lied to her about.
In short, it's not the age, it's the kid, and/or how they're raised. It's
also one of many reasons why Waldorf was totally unsuitable for our child -
in our home, the only ultimate authority is reality, we acknowledge that
people are fallible, and that conflicts with the Waldorf approach of
"imitation, authority, reverence". Where is there room in that for the
development of the capacity for independent thought??? We still "mess with
her" from time to time, to ensure that she questions anything that doesn't
sound right (no, there are NOT giant purple wombats in the bedroom, that
noise is really Daddy...), but only long enough to get her to say "are you
messing with me??", at which point we say "yes", and tell her the
truth. In my opinion, THAT is far more likely to ground her in the reality
in which she will live her whole life, child AS WELL as adult, than an
indoctrination into a codified recipe for so-called "imaginative play", or
a required participation in a fantasy life where she is asked to claim that
she sees through walls, has thoughts planted in her head by gnomes, or that
little tiny winged people steal her body parts from her bedroom at night.
Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you when
your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me more
like someone who works for the NSA, than someone I want to encourage my
child to venerate. Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise. That is the behaviour of
a stalker - what would YOU call it, if someone snuck into your home to
steal your discarded nail clippings and tossed some money on the night
stand as they left? The idea of anyone sneaking into a child bedroom at
night and rummaging around under their pillow for discarded body parts is
pretty freaky.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:23:46 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf roll call
At 15-11-02 01:18 PM Friday, you wrote:
)Ah, roll call. Should have been called
)"let's-make-the-children-squirm-with-impatience-and-drive-them-crazy" call.
)This morning "task" was the last thing my daughter wanted to do first thing
)in the morning with all that early morning energy. Another tedious
)slow-down-you're-in-our-control-now ritual was the shake the teacher's hand
)and look into her eyes every morning and at the end of the day.
Waldorf teachers do not seem to get the idea that it is OK for children to
act like children. The whole idea of the "calming" kindy space creeps me
out. Children are full of life and the joy of living and the joy of
moving. They need "fun" movement, not Steiner's weird eurythmy. They need
to have real conversations with people and to be addressed AS people.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:32:33 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
At 12-11-02 11:47 AM Tuesday, you wrote:
)Nicole: I know many wonderfully gifted, successful and well-adjusted
)Waldorf graduates, and also some who are struggling. I think it critically
)depends on who the child has for a teacher.
I suppose it would.
It would also be very helpful if the "teacher" actually was a teacher, with
the kind of knowledge that a teacher needs, not just somebody who was
taught all about Steiner. The only qualifications to be a Waldorf teacher
at the school here, is being trained at the college of teachers with 2
years of really bad metaphysical theories and completely incorrect ideas
about child development.
The only GOOD teacher I knew at the Waldorf school here was constantly at
odds with the "science" (what science?) curriculum. Where other children
have had lessons in science since they were very young, Waldorf children do
not. Real schools teach the periodic table of the elements, not the 4
elements of metaphysics as actual elements. He wanted to teach them the
truth (actual facts), but there is no room for the truth in Waldorf.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:34:02 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
Sorry again folks, I sent this message not my wife.
At 15-11-02 11:09 PM Friday, you wrote:
)At 12-11-02 11:16 AM Tuesday, Alice wrote:
))on 11/11/02 6:29 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
))Imagination is a wonderful thing and a powerful tool when harnessed for
))learning. I do think too much emphasis on cold, hard facts dulls a
))child's interest in the world around them (which is not to say that facts
))should be avoided, just that a creative approach enhances their impact).
))Children learn best when they really connect with the material they're
))working with. Perhaps a well developed imagination in a young child can
))facilitate lateral thinking later in life. In our case we'll have to wait
))and see.
)) )many snips(
))
))Alice here:
))My nine-year old son, current Montessori student, former 2plus years at
))W. school (his big sister, nine years there..) lost a tooth last night.
))He was completely convinced and thrilled at the tooth fairy 's kind
))attention and gifts this morning.
))Despite the montessori emphasis on science and cognition, the gift of
))magical thinking is still powerful in this age group.
)
)
)I've never really thought that children were "age groups" - I think
)they're just kids. Maybe that's because I've never really fit the
)developmental model in many ways, ESPECIALLY in terms of mental aspects of
)my development; if that's the case, my daughter's development is doing
)nothing to change my views, so she must be as weird as I am. (LOL)
)
)She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
)game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
)sense of reality.
)
)She LOVES playing pretend games, preferring them to all other forms of
)play, and has a very creative imagination that draws on ALL of the sources
)to which she is exposed (including the many quality educational and
)children's shows which we watch on public TV - she loves many of the
)upper-level educational shows, and is fascinated by volcanoes, states of
)matter, and paleobiology (dinosaurs and the bird-ruled era that followed
)them in particular), as well as her lifelong fascination with space, which
)last isn't surprising, as she's planned to be an astronaut since before
)she was 2). She also creates her own stories, which she loves to write
)down (with our help, of course, since she limits her writing to single
)words such as her name at this point, by her own choice - we provide
)learning opportunities and gentle encouragement at the tasks she chooses
)to take on, she chooses for herself what she is interested in and ready to
)learn).
)
)However, at the same time, what makes HER comfortable with playing pretend
)is the knowledge of the very clear line between "pretend" and
)"reality". We do not worry about carrying the teddy bear by it's ear or
)swinging the baby doll around by one leg - we are not allowed to, because
)they are not real, they are just toys, as she has repeatedly informed us
)when we told her that "if that were a real ____, you wouldn't want to
)treat it like that".
))He was thrilled to be somehow "blessed" by this magical being..
)
)This is very different from my daughter - she does not believe in that
)sort of thing, and finds it rather disturbing. She likes stage magic, not
)invisible people who are, at *best*, only semi-real. The one exception to
)this is things like "wishing on thistledown" - she likes to do it, but she
)doesn't expect it to work. Still, it's a fun "pretend".
))Personally, I think this is a sacred duty of parenting...to keep this
))alive as long as possible.. a child's personal connection to certain
))powers outside themselves.
)
)She has a connection to powers outside of herself - us, and the very real
)natural laws, such as the laws of physics.
))It is not the same, however, as W. theory on otherwordly thinking..it
))is psychological support for my children... another reassurance and
))connection to a benevolent influence outside themselves. NOT literal
))belief in the world of fairies and intrusion into trying to pry into the
))spirit world.
)
)For our daughter, the psychological support comes from the fact that she
)knows that we, her parents, will ALWAYS be honest with her, to the limits
)of our knowledge, and will admit when we run into those limits. We tell
)her when we don't know, and we tell her when our knowledge is more
)theoretical than concrete. She prefers this, and does not understand why
)some parents choose to lie to their children, telling them that there
)really are people like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth
)Fairy, when the parents know full well that there aren't. She'd rather
)know that her parents love her enough to give her the joy and celebration
)and gifts themselves, AND the gift of their honesty, than be given the
)idea that something is real and later become disillusioned and left to
)wonder what other things we might have lied to her about.
)
)In short, it's not the age, it's the kid, and/or how they're raised. It's
)also one of many reasons why Waldorf was totally unsuitable for our child
)- in our home, the only ultimate authority is reality, we acknowledge that
)people are fallible, and that conflicts with the Waldorf approach of
)"imitation, authority, reverence". Where is there room in that for the
)development of the capacity for independent thought??? We still "mess
)with her" from time to time, to ensure that she questions anything that
)doesn't sound right (no, there are NOT giant purple wombats in the
)bedroom, that noise is really Daddy...), but only long enough to get her
)to say "are you messing with me??", at which point we say "yes", and tell
)her the truth. In my opinion, THAT is far more likely to ground her in
)the reality in which she will live her whole life, child AS WELL as adult,
)than an indoctrination into a codified recipe for so-called "imaginative
)play", or a required participation in a fantasy life where she is asked to
)claim that she sees through walls, has thoughts planted in her head by
)gnomes, or that little tiny winged people steal her body parts from her
)bedroom at night.
)
)Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
)being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you
)when your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me
)more like someone who works for the NSA, than someone I want to encourage
)my child to venerate. Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
)steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise. That is the behaviour of
)a stalker - what would YOU call it, if someone snuck into your home to
)steal your discarded nail clippings and tossed some money on the night
)stand as they left? The idea of anyone sneaking into a child bedroom at
)night and rummaging around under their pillow for discarded body parts is
)pretty freaky.
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:35:02 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: OOPS Re: Stunted imagination
I really should just go to bed. This message really is from Willow. I
replied to a different message in the thread.
At 15-11-02 11:09 PM Friday, you wrote:
)At 12-11-02 11:16 AM Tuesday, Alice wrote:
))on 11/11/02 6:29 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
))Imagination is a wonderful thing and a powerful tool when harnessed for
))learning. I do think too much emphasis on cold, hard facts dulls a
))child's interest in the world around them (which is not to say that facts
))should be avoided, just that a creative approach enhances their impact).
))Children learn best when they really connect with the material they're
))working with. Perhaps a well developed imagination in a young child can
))facilitate lateral thinking later in life. In our case we'll have to wait
))and see.
)) )many snips(
))
))Alice here:
))My nine-year old son, current Montessori student, former 2plus years at
))W. school (his big sister, nine years there..) lost a tooth last night.
))He was completely convinced and thrilled at the tooth fairy 's kind
))attention and gifts this morning.
))Despite the montessori emphasis on science and cognition, the gift of
))magical thinking is still powerful in this age group.
)
)
)I've never really thought that children were "age groups" - I think
)they're just kids. Maybe that's because I've never really fit the
)developmental model in many ways, ESPECIALLY in terms of mental aspects of
)my development; if that's the case, my daughter's development is doing
)nothing to change my views, so she must be as weird as I am. (LOL)
)
)She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
)game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
)sense of reality.
)
)She LOVES playing pretend games, preferring them to all other forms of
)play, and has a very creative imagination that draws on ALL of the sources
)to which she is exposed (including the many quality educational and
)children's shows which we watch on public TV - she loves many of the
)upper-level educational shows, and is fascinated by volcanoes, states of
)matter, and paleobiology (dinosaurs and the bird-ruled era that followed
)them in particular), as well as her lifelong fascination with space, which
)last isn't surprising, as she's planned to be an astronaut since before
)she was 2). She also creates her own stories, which she loves to write
)down (with our help, of course, since she limits her writing to single
)words such as her name at this point, by her own choice - we provide
)learning opportunities and gentle encouragement at the tasks she chooses
)to take on, she chooses for herself what she is interested in and ready to
)learn).
)
)However, at the same time, what makes HER comfortable with playing pretend
)is the knowledge of the very clear line between "pretend" and
)"reality". We do not worry about carrying the teddy bear by it's ear or
)swinging the baby doll around by one leg - we are not allowed to, because
)they are not real, they are just toys, as she has repeatedly informed us
)when we told her that "if that were a real ____, you wouldn't want to
)treat it like that".
))He was thrilled to be somehow "blessed" by this magical being..
)
)This is very different from my daughter - she does not believe in that
)sort of thing, and finds it rather disturbing. She likes stage magic, not
)invisible people who are, at *best*, only semi-real. The one exception to
)this is things like "wishing on thistledown" - she likes to do it, but she
)doesn't expect it to work. Still, it's a fun "pretend".
))Personally, I think this is a sacred duty of parenting...to keep this
))alive as long as possible.. a child's personal connection to certain
))powers outside themselves.
)
)She has a connection to powers outside of herself - us, and the very real
)natural laws, such as the laws of physics.
))It is not the same, however, as W. theory on otherwordly thinking..it
))is psychological support for my children... another reassurance and
))connection to a benevolent influence outside themselves. NOT literal
))belief in the world of fairies and intrusion into trying to pry into the
))spirit world.
)
)For our daughter, the psychological support comes from the fact that she
)knows that we, her parents, will ALWAYS be honest with her, to the limits
)of our knowledge, and will admit when we run into those limits. We tell
)her when we don't know, and we tell her when our knowledge is more
)theoretical than concrete. She prefers this, and does not understand why
)some parents choose to lie to their children, telling them that there
)really are people like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth
)Fairy, when the parents know full well that there aren't. She'd rather
)know that her parents love her enough to give her the joy and celebration
)and gifts themselves, AND the gift of their honesty, than be given the
)idea that something is real and later become disillusioned and left to
)wonder what other things we might have lied to her about.
)
)In short, it's not the age, it's the kid, and/or how they're raised. It's
)also one of many reasons why Waldorf was totally unsuitable for our child
)- in our home, the only ultimate authority is reality, we acknowledge that
)people are fallible, and that conflicts with the Waldorf approach of
)"imitation, authority, reverence". Where is there room in that for the
)development of the capacity for independent thought??? We still "mess
)with her" from time to time, to ensure that she questions anything that
)doesn't sound right (no, there are NOT giant purple wombats in the
)bedroom, that noise is really Daddy...), but only long enough to get her
)to say "are you messing with me??", at which point we say "yes", and tell
)her the truth. In my opinion, THAT is far more likely to ground her in
)the reality in which she will live her whole life, child AS WELL as adult,
)than an indoctrination into a codified recipe for so-called "imaginative
)play", or a required participation in a fantasy life where she is asked to
)claim that she sees through walls, has thoughts planted in her head by
)gnomes, or that little tiny winged people steal her body parts from her
)bedroom at night.
)
)Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
)being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you
)when your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me
)more like someone who works for the NSA, than someone I want to encourage
)my child to venerate. Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
)steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise. That is the behaviour of
)a stalker - what would YOU call it, if someone snuck into your home to
)steal your discarded nail clippings and tossed some money on the night
)stand as they left? The idea of anyone sneaking into a child bedroom at
)night and rummaging around under their pillow for discarded body parts is
)pretty freaky.
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:07:05 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C28C7D.FCBF6EC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole wrote, among many other interesting points:
)Her current teacher came from the public system, but left as
that system became increasingly )stifling. It left him no room to be
creative and to ensure that the children had really understood the
)material before moving on to another topic. Our government doesn't
trust its public school teachers )and so feels the need to script
every moment of their day. Many are very demoralized and come to
)teach in schools like ours where the curriculum is given in very
general terms and they have a lot of )freedom in terms of
presentation and pace.
I think this is a good point, I'm sure there are others teaching
in Waldorf for this reason or similar reasons - or who are at least
attracted to Waldorf because they think they will have this sort of
freedom. But often these people are slowly pressured to "come to
anthroposophy." Our school aimed to be very anthroposophical, yet
with one crisis after another, they can't control what new people are
doing. When the latest crisis was surmounted, attention would return
to getting that new guy or gal to "come to anthroposophy."
)I like the crafts that they do at our school - I made a lot of
little felt things as well as Waldorf dolls )in the craft group in
the days when I was still personally involved. I was quite free to
design as well )as to copy the designs of others, indeed new designs
were particularly welcome.
This does seem unusual. Our crafts were quite controlled by the
very anthroposophical handwork teacher. I remember a mother who was
knitting socks, and had brought in some patterns she thought others
might like, perhaps to sell at a craft fair, and they had some kind
of design - checks or plaids or something. She was told that socks
like that would be too stimulating for children. Socks should be
solid colors.
)I also find value in recitation. It is reminiscent of an earlier
oral culture which modern people seem to )have lost. People used to
commit their entire cultural repertoire to memory, whereas these days
we )have difficulty remembering anything if we haven't written it
down. The ability to retain and relate or )apply large amounts of
complex information given orally does not develop to any great extent
)without practice (I remember back to my child development course
from university), but it is very )useful as a life skill. My younger
children (who do not have hearing problems to interfere with an oral
)learning style) can recite epic poems and perform long parts in
plays (even in foreign languages, with )a faultless accent) or tell
long stories in a spellbinding way. I could not do this if my life
depended on )it because my brain was never trained this way.
But I think some of this is genetic, or innate. I never had
training in recitation, but I find it easy and enjoyable to memorize
things, even long passages. I haven't found it to be a particularly
useful life skill, though; I guess it would be for actors or other
performers, maybe politicians. (Or Waldorf teachers.) (hm - a theme
- people who use oral language to entertain, manipulate, persuade . .
.)
Also - though there will be howls from Waldorfers - frankly, TV
works just as well. My son remembers dialogue from TV and movie
scripts months later, and we all know how hard it is to get
commercials or songs off the radio out of our heads. (My college
roommate used to say, if only they would read her organic chemistry
notes over the radio. . .) Of course there isn't much value to
memorizing TV commercials. But I'm not sure the recitation thing is
really much different. Isn't understanding the meaning the point?
What's the point of having epic poems in your head if you don't
understand them?
I have a theory that recitation actually works against literacy
in a way. You're actually *encouraging* kids to disconnect the words
from the meaning, and parrot things they don't understand, in an
uncurious way. Just my theory, I have nothing to back it up, but as
you say, our literate culture replaced the older oral one. It's easy
to romanticize oral culture but we don't live in one.
)If this means they learn to read later, then so be it (my older
two, who 9 and 11, read voraciously )already).
No reason they couldn't learn both together - unless of course
one really does impede the other - and yes, I think that's probably
what Steiner intended.
You said a lot of other interesting stuff Nicole, but I'm
supposed to be working . . .
.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:25:22 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
Willow wrote -
)She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
)game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
)sense of reality.
This is so interesting - they really are individuals - I'm the mother of one
like Alice's - a 9 year old who still believes fully in Santa Claus or the
Tooth Fairy, as far as I can tell.
)Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
)being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you when
)your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me more
)like someone who works for the NSA,
LOL!! You do have a point. I always felt a tad uncomfortable with that "he
sees you when you're sleeping" line too. We never chose to emphasize the
whole Santa-as-disciplinarian thing, only bringing toys to "good" children,
watching you all year long etc. We just portrayed Santa as a fellow who
wants to make children happy and bring presents. We never said "Santa won't
bring you anything if you do that" or that kind of crap.
)Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
)steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise.
Hmm, put that way, it does sound pretty creepy. Never thought of that one
like that, either, but my son *did* get the creeps when I tried telling him
(when he was much younger, in Waldorf), that angels checked on him while he
was sleeping. I had to do a lot of back-tracking on that one. He did *not*
want anyone flying by his window looking in.
I guess if they're going to leave him a present in the morning, that's
different. :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:25:40 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf roll call
)Another tedious slow-down-you're-in-our-control-now ritual was the shake
)the teacher's hand and look into her eyes every morning
This line cracked me up. ;)
)The whole idea of the "calming" kindy space creeps me
)out.
It doesn't work. It isn't a natural kind of calm. Kids are calm when the
adults are geuninely calm, not just because the adults are frantically
repeating supposedly calming verses or mantras to themselves or each other.
It had an
obsessive-compulsive quality to it - "If I just say the right words and do
everything in the right order, everyone will calm down. They. Will. Calm.
Down. Now." The kids were driven wild by the anxiety of the teacher trying
to calm them.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:28:26 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Heindel, future human form
on 11/15/02 4:04 AM, Willow Firesong at
willow.firesong creative-interweb.com wrote:
) At 12-11-02 06:25 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
)
)) mysplum wrote:
))) Too bad I can't find
))) Steiner's illustrations of future man, would particularly love to see
))) exactly how the wings will look growing off one's nose area!
)))
)) Klaudia:
)) Isn't here any artists to draw that?
)
) I'm willing to have a go at it, if only for my own amusement (and that of
) my daughter, who likes having me draw weird things for her, including a
) face on a stem, with leaves - a "face-plant", inspired by her repeated
) "faceplants" into the bed; we also draw her things like a "shoe-tree", and
) a pilloried "overworked servant of the Thing upstairs", which aficionados
) of "Trap Door" will recognize as a "Berk - in stocks") - but I'll need a
) more complete description. Any other little details I should include,
) Sharon and other Steiner experts?
Sharon: The problem is that we don't know how big the wings will be, nor
their color or shape. The wings might also be two antennae. We might also
lose that special Anthro quality - unless you have a nack for imitation and
forgeries! (G). Might I suggest that you get a hold of Fletcher's "Art
Inspired by Rudolf Steiner" in order to try to capture this in an
Anthroposophic way. Remember to use the wet-on-wet technique and keep the
paint as transparent as you can, so that the beings of color can shine in
their own light. You might also use a few sacred Anthro sigils for over the
heart. Also remember that the colors you choose are very telling
esoterically. You might find some tips from studying Steiner's apocalyptic
seals, if you can't find Steiner's seals, then use Eliphas Levi's for
reference because Steiner copied his. (G) Have fun, can't wait to see!
The description: At the root of the nose, beneath the forehead, lies the
two-petalled lotus-flower. This is an undeveloped astral organ which will
one day evolve into either two antennae or wings. These can already be seen
by the horns represented on the head of Moses.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:32:12 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Christmas Tree
on 11/15/02 12:33 AM, Willow Firesong at
willow.firesong creative-interweb.com wrote:
)
) Since the origins of the Christmas tree are far more interesting (and
) entertaining - those who are interested may do their own research into the
) tradition whereby the Roman followers of the god "Attis" would castrate
) themselves and fling their genitals through the windows of random
) individuals, "blessing" them by allowing their severed parts to lodge in
) the trees conveniently displayed in their windows during this festival -
Sharon: LOL! Busting my seams!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:13:19 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
At 12-11-02 04:13 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
)Very well put Alice. I agree with you on both points. I also think that
)magical thinking in young children is something to be cherished while it
)lasts, but, as you say, this is not the same thing as adults believing
)that myths and fairytales are literally true.
I guess that I am the fly in the ointment here. I totally disagree. I
look at it this way. At what age is it OK to lie to kids about reality,
and when does it become an abuse of the trust? My answer is that it is
always an abuse of trust.
Children go to their parents to learn about the world. This is a very
important relationship. It is what parents are there for - to teach their
kids about reality, not to trick them into believing in things that they
know are not the truth. If I wanted my kid to believe in fairies then she
would still be in a Waldorf school. I want my daughter to know that I will
never lie to her, so that she can trust the things that I tell her.
Children love to play pretend and they have no problem with intentional and
organized "pretend" games. They can play "tooth fairy" or "Santa" without
believing in it and have lots of fun. I think that parents are just
attached to the idea that it is somehow "cute" for their kids to be
deluded. I do not think that teaching children to have a serious mental
separation from reality is ever cute. In psychology a significant
separation from reality such as believing in mythical beings could indicate
schizophrenia.
The world is filled with wonder. There are no dry facts and there is no
dry science, there are just bad teachers who have no joy or excitement for
what they do. If science class is boring it is because the teacher is
bored with teaching science (and needs a different job). The world of
quantum physics is full of weird and magical things that are real (like
having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to make
things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
Why would I possibly want to lie to my kid about the nature of reality
anyway?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:06:26 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Barley wrote:
)I guess that I am the fly in the ointment here. I totally disagree. I
)look at it this way. At what age is it OK to lie to kids about reality,
)and when does it become an abuse of the trust? My answer is that it is
)always an abuse of trust.
Nah, not if their minds really don't work the way ours do. I think that's
the case. There isn't anything wrong with magical thinking in a 3 year old.
There isn't any need to say, "This is just a story." However, they grow and
develop and become more reality-oriented, much earlier than Waldorf wants to
allow.
)Children go to their parents to learn about the world.
The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
straightforwardly.
)The world of quantum physics is full of weird and magical things that are
real (like
)having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to make
)things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
This is a good point, maybe we just still have traditions like Santa Claus
because it is a holdover from ages when we didn't have all this amazing
knowledge. I still don't think the stories hurt children, however, unless
adults refuse to simply allow them to outgrow this stage.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:09:43 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
I wrote:
)The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
)straightforwardly.
What I mean is, *until* they are asking you this sort of question, the
distinction doesn't really exist in their minds yet, between whether
something is a "story" versus "true." Stories do often have truths that are
not literal in them, but these things are not separate categories in young
children's minds, I believe.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:42:56 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C28C93.C1EE5B60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
I like to take my cues from children as to how their minds are
working. I believe that young children think differently, but that
you can tell when they're ready to move on mentally by the questions
they ask and that this happens at different ages for different
children. There comes a point where you can either come clean or you
can spin a very complicated web of falsehoods to cover up the holes
that they're picking in the story. In my opinion, if their old enough
to pick out logical inconsistencies in a myth, then they're old
enough for the truth, what ever chronological age they may be at the
time. Conversely, if they still need to believe in the mythology for
a while longer, provided that they're not already in junior high
school by then :-), then who am I to strip away their illusions
prematurely?
----- Original Message -----
From: Diana Winters
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:05 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Barley wrote:
)I guess that I am the fly in the ointment here. I totally disagree. I
)look at it this way. At what age is it OK to lie to kids about reality,
)and when does it become an abuse of the trust? My answer is that it is
)always an abuse of trust.
Nah, not if their minds really don't work the way ours do. I think that's
the case. There isn't anything wrong with magical thinking in a 3 year old.
There isn't any need to say, "This is just a story." However, they grow and
develop and become more reality-oriented, much earlier than Waldorf wants to
allow.
)Children go to their parents to learn about the world.
The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
straightforwardly.
)The world of quantum physics is full of weird and magical things that are
real (like
)having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to make
)things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
This is a good point, maybe we just still have traditions like Santa Claus
because it is a holdover from ages when we didn't have all this amazing
knowledge. I still don't think the stories hurt children, however, unless
adults refuse to simply allow them to outgrow this stage.
Diana
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:04:26 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C28C96.C30409C0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Willow wrote:
It would also be very helpful if the "teacher" actually was a teacher, with
the kind of knowledge that a teacher needs, not just somebody who was
taught all about Steiner.
Nicole:
Some of the teachers at our school, including the one that my
daughter has, do have conventional teaching qualifications. They
haven't all done the Steiner 'teaching course', although many have.
We even had a wonderful, no-nonsense science teacher with a PhD in
biology. Her students graduated knowing more about (very real)
science than anyone from the local public school. Some of her board
drawings were more reminiscent of medical school than junior high.
The teacher makes all the difference.
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:08:07 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C28C97.46C8A4A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
Conversely, if they still need to believe in the mythology for a
while longer, provided that they're not already in junior high school
by then :-), then who am I to strip away their illusions prematurely?
I agree. It hardly seems possible to me that my son (age 9) has
not thought about how Santa Claus comes up with the same stuff that
is in the Lego catalogs - he will stand in the aisle of the toy
store, copying the model numbers down in a notebook so that he can
put them in his letter to Santa - okey doke. He has never asked me
any probing questions about any of this so we carry on. My husband
thinks he knew years ago, and somehow feels he is shielding his
mother from the truth. :)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:00:01 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Diana, you wrote,
)There isn't anything wrong with magical thinking in a 3 year old.
)There isn't any need to say, "This is just a story." However, they grow and
)develop and become more reality-oriented, much earlier than Waldorf wants to
)allow.
Exactly. Magical thinking is innate. It has to be educated out of us.
) )Children go to their parents to learn about the world.
)
)The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
)straightforwardly.
Amen. Doesn't mean a straight answer can't be playful, though. Kids
love to kid.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:02:35 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Diana, you wrote,
)It hardly seems possible to me that my son (age 9) has not thought
)about how Santa Claus comes up with the same stuff that is in the
)Lego catalogs - he will stand in the aisle of the toy store, copying
)the model numbers down in a notebook so that he can put them in his
)letter to Santa - okey doke. He has never asked me any probing
)questions about any of this so we carry on. My husband thinks he
)knew years ago, and somehow feels he is shielding his mother from
)the truth. :)
I remember that game. Of course he knows, but the game is profitable,
isn't it? It's in his interest to continue it as long as possible!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:53:13 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: Stunted imagination
)Sorry again folks, I sent this message not my wife.
Please sign your name at the bottom of your messages.
-Dan Dugan
moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:42:30 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Dan:
)Exactly. Magical thinking is innate. It has to be educated out of us.
I'm not even sure it has to be "educated out." It's not a bad thing you have
to get rid of. I think kids just start to be able to understand things that
are more complex and abstract as their brains develop. That's why you keep
explanations for little kids simple, and preferably pictorial - they don't
think abstractly, they need an illustration. This is what I thought Waldorf
meant when they told me to "avoid intellectualizing" my child - talk at his
level, don't try to make a little genius out of him, don't explain your
political views till he's a little older. :) - I really hate seeing little
kids carrying political signs.
I didn't know they meant don't talk to him much; if he is really curious
about something, put him off; don't read to him; answer his questions by
saying, "Hmmmm, there goes a butterfly . . ."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:50:01 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
)It hardly seems possible to me that my son (age 9) has not thought
)about how Santa Claus comes up with the same stuff that is in the
)Lego catalogs - he will stand in the aisle of the toy store, copying
)the model numbers down in a notebook so that he can put them in his
)letter to Santa - okey doke. He has never asked me any probing
)questions about any of this so we carry on. My husband thinks he
)knew years ago, and somehow feels he is shielding his mother from
)the truth. :)
Dan:
)I remember that game. Of course he knows, but the game is profitable,
)isn't it? It's in his interest to continue it as long as possible!
Ah! You're probably right. Maybe I should casually mention that when you get
older, your parents still get you presents . . .
I dunno Dan. He said recently that we needed to come up with something
better to leave as a present for Santa. We've always just left cookies, and
carrots for the reindeer. He feels this is getting old. Is he completely
pulling my chain? quite possibly. If so he's quite poker-faced about it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:18:22 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28CC2.9E6D4320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Diana wrote:
Our crafts were quite controlled by the very anthroposophical
handwork teacher. I remember a mother who was knitting socks, and had
brought in some patterns she thought others might like, perhaps to
sell at a craft fair, and they had some kind of design - checks or
plaids or something. She was told that socks like that would be too
stimulating for children. Socks should be solid colors.
Nicole:
How ridiculous! That level of control freakery is so petty and
annoying. If my hard work had got that kind of response, it would
have been the very last thing I ever made for them.
Diana wrote:
I have a theory that recitation actually works against literacy in a
way. You're actually *encouraging* kids to disconnect the words from
the meaning, and parrot things they don't understand, in an uncurious
way. Just my theory, I have nothing to back it up, but as you say,
our literate culture replaced the older oral one. It's easy to
romanticize oral culture but we don't live in one. Isn't
understanding the meaning the point? What's the point of having epic
poems in your head if you don't understand them?
Nicole:
I don't think recitation necessarily works against literacy, but it
depends who is teaching it and with what goal in mind. I've seen
recitation done as a completely lifeless drone or in a foreign
language where the kids clearly had no idea what they were talking
about, and I wouldn't presume to defend such a practice. However, it
doesn't have to be that way. My son learned a wonderful old Scottish
selkie story in grade 2 and a couple of poems (by a well known poet
whose name currently escapes me) about the French-Canadian voyageurs
in grade 3. These works had considerable literary merit and were
performed with feeling and a keen interest in the subject matter. I
love to hear him recite things like that - they clearly speak to him
and to me.
I think kids learn best in an oral milieu when they are young
(perhaps until the age of seven, although it depends on the child)
and need to reach a certain level of mental maturity before they can
learn well through the medium of the written word (which involves a
greater degree of abstraction). A gradual transition from oral to
written lessons therefore seems to me to be an effective educational
strategy. I didn't like the enforced (very) early literacy programme
that we experienced in England. For many children it was a prolonged
and demoralizing battle (akin to trying to toilet-train a 6-month
old) that put them off reading for years.
Diana wrote:
I never had training in recitation, but I find it easy and enjoyable
to memorize things, even long passages. But I think some of this is
genetic, or innate. My son remembers dialogue from TV and movie
scripts months later, and we all know how hard it is to get
commercials or songs off the radio out of our heads.
Nicole:
I know what you mean. I remember walking past the playroom and hearing
my son (who was 3 at the time) reciting the shipping forecast that
he'd heard on BBC Radio 4. He's obviously much more of an oral
learner than I am (I couldn't do that if my life depended on it).
----- Original Message -----
From: Diana Winters
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:07 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
REE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:42:47 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3120223368_508604_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 11/13/02 6:28 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
Her current teacher came from the public system, but left as that system
became increasingly stifling. It left him no room to be creative and to
ensure that the children had really understood the material before moving on
to another topic. Our government doesn't trust its public school teachers
and so feels the need to script every moment of their day. Many are very
demoralized and come to teach in schools like ours where the curriculum is
given in very general terms and they have a lot of freedom in terms of
presentation and pace.
Sharon: Your government is different than ours since you are in Canada I
think, but I've heard the same accusations, mainly from American Waldorfers,
many times before. I supposed those in charge of education are in a tough
position, wanting to have a certain standard etc. I think it's not such a
shabby idea to hold teachers and schools responsible, but I also understand
how this could be stifling. Too much freedom can lead to lunacy in the
classroom. My child's Waldorf lessons certainly reflect a lot of nonsense. I
preferred her public school lessons, and now her private school lessons. In
my heart I'm a supporter of what I think the public schools stand for, I
don't believe that they are as bad as everyone makes out. There are some
wonderful dedicated teachers in the public schools that I admire. I've had
good and bad experiences with them, but mostly good. Public school reflects
life. My daughter *loved* her public school and teachers. I write this with
a certain amount of hypocrisy and guilt because my child is not in public
school at the moment. Had we stayed in rural Wisconsin she would be. (We are
now in a huge city where the public schools are rated last or second to last
in the nation and the school she would attend is enormous). Still, I've
heard some good things about some of them. (My husband is the one who
insists on private school down here in Miami). I was always a fan of Jimmy
Carter's egalitarian ideals and I always thought I would send my child to
public school, as the Carter's did. Instead of bashing public schools, I'd
rather be useful and try to make them better, which I plan to do. Several
ex-Waldorfers that I know are trying to do just this. I always find it
interesting that public schools produced many Waldorf parents and
alternative, counter-culture folks like us, so they can't be that bad (G).
When I wrote my letter to the newspaper about Waldorf's deception, and there
was a flurry of responses, one person wrote a very touching letter in
support of the public schools which tugged at my old heart strings. (Chokes
me up every time I read it). I'll quote some of her letter here:
"....When my first son was born, I imagined that he would receive the
highest quality upbringing that I could offer him, and in my mind this
included the plan of sending my son to the Waldorf school...Before my son
ever reached "school age", however, he was diagnosed as autistic. The
medical experts who diagnosed him told us that the only known treatment for
autism is early and intensive special education. They specifically advised
us against "alternative" type schools...
Miracles are in the heart of the beholder, but I consider the changes in all
of our lives that came after Jay began attending school...to be miraculous.
Jay receives occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech therapy.
Other skillful professionals with caring hearts and dedicated minds work
with him in special ed and he is "mainstreamed" for part of the day with his
peers who are non-disabled. I cannot say enough good about the special
education program...or praise each and every teacher there enough.
There are many ways to measure greatness (my son has taught me so much about
that!) Private schools may be great if you meet their criteria. Public
schools stand with doors open to everyone, as if to say, "Bring us your
tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." Public
schools embrace the great truth that "All...are created equal"...Societies
measure can be accorded by how it treats the least of its citizens.
My vote goes wholeheartedly to public schools." (P. Roth. Vernon County
Broadcaster March 1 2001).
Nicole: What is beautiful is beautiful, and art, by its very nature, means
different things to different people. None of it meant anything otherwordly
to my children. I want them to learn to put in the effort that it takes to
produce something of quality for its own inherent value, not just because
someone might give them an A for it.
Sharon: Beauty is in the heart of the beholder it is true. I did not find
the Waldorf aaesthetic beautiful in any way. I did notice my daughter's
frustration at not being able to artistically express herself. I had given
her tools for creating with since she was able to hold a pencil, so by the
time she entered kindergarten, she was used expressing herself artistically,
and very good at it. Waldorf squelched that.
I'm not accusing you here, but just want to point out that many
Waldorf-critics share your sentiments. Be careful not to make the mistake of
thinking we care about attaining A's. My child's Waldorf "art" was a waste
of good paper. There was no free artistic expression at all. I have piles of
Anthro/Rosicrucian-based color exercises. That is the evidence of "art" that
I have, that was our experience with Waldorf. Many people come onto
W-critics and assume that because we are critical of Waldorf, that we
somehow condone mediocrity, or we get accused of being pop tart-
eating-materialists. This is really not the case...(although I don't mean to
be self righteous about pop tarts.) I'm sure you would find that you have
far more in common with ex-Waldorfers than you might think.
Nicole: I also find value in recitation. It is reminiscent of an earlier
oral culture which modern people seem to have lost.
Sharon: I think that's a bit of a stretch. I think the oral tradition is
alive and well in the modern world. Chanting things you don't understand
doesn't help you much, which is what I believe goes on in Waldorf.
Nicole:
If, however, I sent them to public school, I am quite sure that I would be
allowing them to be trained as the next generation of consumers - part of
the me-first generation - not just through the education itself (although I
do find very superficial), but through peer-group association with the
mainstream values I object to.
Sharon: I guess I just think that you can send your child to public school
and raise kids that are alternative. I don't hate public school. Sure there
is always room for improvement.
Nicole: We live on a farm and aspire to be as self-sufficient as possible. I
want my children to know where everything comes from and understand just how
much work went into producing it (no instant gratification, everything worth
having is worth waiting for and working hard for). I want them to know how
to work with their hands as well as with their minds, which is something
else they are getting from the Waldorf school. They are developing an
appreciation for the simple life that I think will serve them well in the
future.
Sharon: I sat on a piece of land that we reforested (planted 50 thousand
trees) for nine years and am very happy to be swimming once again with
humanity, in a large city. I sense a tinge of millenarianism in what you
say. Civilizations rise and civilizations fall...shrug. I expect that if we
are bombed to the stone age, or run out of oil, or whatever the calamity is
that hits us, people will adapt.
We are all consumers. Every time I get out of my *car* and go into our local
"natural" food store, I'm always struck by this fact. So, some products
might be a bit better for the environment, or for people and animals, but
they are also bottled or canned, boxed, shipped around for distribution...
Nicole: I believe that, in many ways, the future is more likely to resemble
the past than it is to resemble the present, hence the relevance of the
practical skills they are learning.
Sharon: If it resembles the past, magic based religions will survive (so
some religion scholars say). By the sound of you, next you'll be buying a
Mormon survival kit (G)! I have to laugh every time I think of the hoopla
the Waldorfers at our ex-school made a year before Y2K. I didn't but a
generator, or stock up on food or sprouting kits. Lots of people made lots
of money with their survival seminars and sales of survival goods.
Nicole: I have spent many years studying economics and finance (I was a
research fellow at Oxford University when I lived in England), specifically
the history of financial markets and the large swings of positive feedback
inherent in them (bubbles, manias, panics, crashes and other manifestations
of the herd instinct). We have just lived through the largest credit bubble
since the 1720s, exceeding the extent of the one whose demise marked the
beginning of the Great Depression by a considerable margin. Debt has
ballooned to historic proportions, while both stocks and real estate are
grossly overvalued and the futures market is a house of cards. I fully
expect that my children will grow up in a deflationary era where there will
generally be very little material wealth of any kind. It is extremely
important therefore that they not have unrealistic material expectations,
expectations that may be unavoidable if we were to become part of the
mainstream. I know I sound like a crackpot, but I don't have the time or the
space here to fully explain my logic, nor do I want to bore others with
something they would probably consider off-topic.
Sharon: Perhaps being raised in South Africa, by parents who were poor,
gives me assurance that life will go on - rich or poor. People adapt. I
guess I just have faith in people, they are generally quite adaptable, kind
and caring. I certainly don't buy into the botox culture, nor do I condone
"materialism" (my definition), but I don't feel I have to prepare my child
for the end of the world.
Nicole:
I would rather that my children did not have to study biblical stories,
although my son really enjoyed learning about the saints (particularly the
one whose name he shares).
Sharon: I was a bit shocked when I discovered that my child was being taught
violent, patriarchal Bible stories and other grim tales. I thought Waldorf
would be "new paradigm".
Nicole: It's something I put up with just as I put up with daily worship at
our previous (state) school in England, where there was no choice but to be
subjected to religion at school.
Sharon: In South Africa we had this problem as well, though Jehova Witnesses
were allowed to sit outside during morning prayers. My child did not have to
pray or say the pledge at public school, nor does she have to now at her
*nonsectarian* private school.
Nicole: I have always filtered dogma out of their education by dealing with
the issues at home. As for Christ the Sun Being (which I don't recall ever
having seen a reference to in their lesson books or heard them speak about),
I don't find that any more (or less) strange than mainstream religious
dogma.
Sharon: No suns? No morning prayer? No lessons depicting angelic beings or
gnomes mining in metal mines? (G) How odd for a Waldorf school! I don't
discriminate between religions, I'm opposed to them all (G). Certain ones
are wackier than others. I am much more interested in the really wacky ones
for some reason. (G)
Nicole: My older daughter has spent time learning about ancient India,
Babylon, Greece and Rome, but I have been present at some of those lessons
and they were not based on religion. It seemed to me like a way of bringing
history to life, giving modern children a sense of what it meant to have
lived in ancient times. Greek Olympics was a particularly positive
experience. If at any time I felt that they were being steeped in Aryan
superiority (and I am watching carefully), I would withdraw them.
Sharon: We left in fourth grade, so didn't get that far. I have looked at
lesson books from older kids that were very religious. (Not history). A
fellow poster here on list found the Aryan Atlantis myth in one of his
child's books. Dutch parents also found some racist stereotyping, which
prompted the Dutch Report, which consisted oof a panel of Anthroposophists
who determined that Steiner's works aren't racist! What a joke that report
is!
Nicole: I am grateful to the members of this list for sharing their
experiences in order that others, such as myself, will have a better idea of
what to watch out for. There are many outstanding issues with our school.
Its governance structure is a closed shop and demonstrates very little
administrative competence. Although we have been very lucky with our
children's teachers, others have not. I am no longer personally involved
with the school because of the conflicts we have had. It has been a very
painful experience for me, although fortunately not for my children. I don't
plan to stop working to change what is wrong with the place (that would be
hypocritical), so I suppose they will probably get tired of us eventually
and ask us to leave. If there were any viable alternative, we may very well
have left already. There are still many positives, but the negatives are
mounting and may soon tip the balance.
Sharon: At least you have a clue about the subtext, which is more than I
had. I just couldn't unite in Anthroposophy now that I understand it. My
advice to you is not to read too much Steiner, or you might become an ardent
critic like me (G).
I don't think Threefolding works very well, I'd love to hear what you think
of it since you have a background in economics. Just remember that Waldorf
feeds people's fears. Good luck to you. I'll close with a few words from a
couple of ex-Waldorf teachers:
"I think most parents get "attached" to their kids being in the Waldorf
schools and they just want to look the other way when something
uncomfortable comes up. Or, they view the teaching as somehow -superior-
because it is not of this "materialistic" world we live in. Especially when
a parent starts their child in the younger grades. By the time the child is
in the school for a number of years, the school has become -so- much a part
of their -identity- that they cannot face the possibility of letting go.
It's very subtle but one begins to feel it is more and more difficult to
relate to others outside the Waldorf circle. Eventually I felt I was living
on some sort of "Anthroposophical island." This alienation, coupled with my
troubling questions finally convinced me that something was very wrong."
(Heather, fax to Dan Dugan of May 8, 1996).
And a few words from Charmaine Usher Paulson who recently filed a
discrimination suit against the NY school. (She said I could quote her):
"I realized today, that we all are in mourning. We mourn the loss of what
could, should have been. The sorrow, anguish, and anger that are laced
within our words demonstrate the sincerity of our aspirations for true
community and our reaction to deception. I believe that we will utilize our
strength, integrity, vision and hope towards true renewal. The Waldorf
movement does not "own" beauty, art, songs, and the idea of reverence for
the earth. These ideals belong to us all and we will impart these principles
to our own family and community. Furthermore, we will impart these things to
others in a way the Waldorf movement could never do. We will impart these
things with love. That is the thing that is missing from them, love".
Sharon: You cannot love people if you are duping them. It is my hope that
Waldorf schools become forthright about who they are and what their mission
is, and that they respect the First Amendment. It is also my hope, that
Steiner's racism is repudiated by the Goetheanum.
Church and state, keep them separate!
==^==^=============================================================
This email was sent to: nmfoss hotmail.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b3gycV.bm1mb3Nz
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^==^=============================================================
==^==^=============================================================
This email was sent to: mysplum earthlink.net
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b2JmGo.bXlzcGx1
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^==^=============================================================
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:20:17 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C28CCB.44E67980
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sharon wrote:
I'm not accusing you here, but just want to point out that many
Waldorf-critics share your sentiments. Be careful not to make the
mistake of thinking we care about attaining A's. My child's Waldorf
"art" was a waste of good paper. There was no free artistic
expression at all. I have piles of Anthro/Rosicrucian-based color
exercises. That is the evidence of "art" that I have, that was our
experience with Waldorf. Many people come onto W-critics and assume
that because we are critical of Waldorf, that we somehow condone
mediocrity, or we get accused of being pop tart- eating-materialists.
This is really not the case...(although I don't mean to be self
righteous about pop tarts.) I'm sure you would find that you have far
more in common with ex-Waldorfers than you might think.
Nicole:
I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Waldorf critics were shallow,
materialistic, pop-tart-eating, mediocity-condoning people. On the
contrary, I agree with a great deal of what I read and find the
debates you have quite fascinating. You are all clearly thinking
people whose opinions I value. I am merely trying to explain why we
are still at the school I have had so many problems with and why it
has been so difficult for us to find an alternative. I have no
intention of being an apologist for anthroposophy. I'm sure I have a
great deal in common with ex-Walforfers, more in fact than I have
with many current ones, but nevertheless there are still positive
aspects for my children at their current school that I have yet to
find anywhere else. There is good and bad in every system.
Sharon wrote:
If the future resembles the past, magic based religions will survive
(so some religion scholars say). By the sound of you, next you'll be
buying a Mormon survival kit (G)! I have to laugh every time I think
of the hoopla the Waldorfers at our ex-school made a year before Y2K.
I didn't but a generator, or stock up on food or sprouting kits. Lots
of people made lots of money with their survival seminars and sales
of survival goods.
Nicole:
I am not a survivalist, I am an academic. I don't believe anything
that I haven't got very solid, logical reasons for believing. The
lessons of history are there for anyone who cares to learn from them
and I would rather learn from those experiences in advance than be
condemned to repeat them. Financial bubbles are a product of human
nature and as such will always occur from time to time (often just as
the last one is passing out of living memory and everyone has assured
themselves thatit could never happen again). The results are always
unpleasant (just ask the Japanese, the Argentines or anyone who was
an adult in the 1930s).
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 4:27 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
on 11/13/02 6:28 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
Her current teacher came from the public system, but left as that
system became increasingly stifling. It left him no room to be
creative and to ensure that the children had really understood the
material before moving on to another topic. Our government doesn't
trust its public school teachers and so feels the need to script
every moment of their day. Many are very demoralized and come to
teach in schools like ours where the curriculum is given in very
general terms and they have a lot of freedom in terms of presentation
and pace.
Sharon: Your government is different than ours since you are in
Canada I think, but I've heard the same accusations, mainly from
American Waldorfers, many times before. I supposed those in charge of
education are in a tough position, wanting to have a certain standard
etc. I think it's not such a shabby idea to hold teachers and schools
responsible, but I also understand how this could be stifling. Too
much freedom can lead to lunacy in the classroom. My child's Waldorf
lessons certainly reflect a lot of nonsense. I preferred her public
school lessons, and now her private school lessons. In my heart I'm a
supporter of what I think the public schools stand for, I don't
believe that they are as bad as everyone makes out. There are some
wonderful dedicated teachers in the public schools that I admire.
I've had good and bad experiences with them, but mostly good. Public
school reflects life. My daughter *loved* her public school and
teachers. I write this with a certain amount of !
hypocrisy and guilt because my child is not in public school at the
moment. Had we stayed in rural Wisconsin she would be. (We are now in
a huge city where the public schools are rated last or second to last
in the nation and the school she would attend is enormous). Still,
I've heard some good things about some of them. (My husband is the
one who insists on private school down here in Miami). I was always a
fan of Jimmy Carter's egalitarian ideals and I always thought I would
send my child to public school, as the Carter's did. Instead of
bashing public schools, I'd rather be useful and try to make them
better, which I plan to do. Several ex-Waldorfers that I know are
trying to do just this. I always find it interesting that public
schools produced many Waldorf parents and alternative,
counter-culture folks like us, so they can't be that bad (G). When I
wrote my letter to the newspaper about Waldorf's deception, and there
was a flurry of responses, one person wrote a very tou!
ching letter in support of the public schools which tugged at my old
heart strings. (Chokes me up every time I read it). I'll quote some
of her letter here:
"....When my first son was born, I imagined that he would receive the
highest quality upbringing that I could offer him, and in my mind
this included the plan of sending my son to the Waldorf
school...Before my son ever reached "school age", however, he was
diagnosed as autistic. The medical experts who diagnosed him told us
that the only known treatment for autism is early and intensive
special education. They specifically advised us against "alternative"
type schools...
Miracles are in the heart of the beholder, but I consider the changes
in all of our lives that came after Jay began attending school...to
be miraculous. Jay receives occupational therapy, physical therapy
and speech therapy. Other skillful professionals with caring hearts
and dedicated minds work with him in special ed and he is
"mainstreamed" for part of the day with his peers who are
non-disabled. I cannot say enough good about the special education
program...or praise each and every teacher there enough.
There are many ways to measure greatness (my son has taught me so
much about that!) Private schools may be great if you meet their
criteria. Public schools stand with doors open to everyone, as if to
say, "Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to
breathe free..." Public schools embrace the great truth that
"All...are created equal"...Societies measure can be accorded by how
it treats the least of its citizens.
My vote goes wholeheartedly to public schools." (P. Roth. Vernon
County Broadcaster March 1 2001).
Nicole: What is beautiful is beautiful, and art, by its very nature,
means different things to different people. None of it meant anything
otherwordly to my children. I want them to learn to put in the effort
that it takes to produce something of quality for its own inherent
value, not just because someone might give them an A for it.
Sharon: Beauty is in the heart of the beholder it is true. I did not
find the Waldorf aaesthetic beautiful in any way. I did notice my
daughter's frustration at not being able to artistically express
herself. I had given her tools for creating with since she was able
to hold a pencil, so by the time she entered kindergarten, she was
used expressing herself artistically, and very good at it. Waldorf
squelched that.
Nicole: I also find value in recitation. It is reminiscent of an
earlier oral culture which modern people seem to have lost.
Sharon: I think that's a bit of a stretch. I think the oral tradition
is alive and well in the modern world. Chanting things you don't
understand doesn't help you much, which is what I believe goes on in
Waldorf.
Nicole:
If, however, I sent them to public school, I am quite sure that I
would be allowing them to be trained as the next generation of
consumers - part of the me-first generation - not just through the
education itself (although I do find very superficial), but through
peer-group association with the mainstream values I object to.
Sharon: I guess I just think that you can send your child to public
school and raise kids that are alternative. I don't hate public
school. Sure there is always room for improvement.
Nicole: We live on a farm and aspire to be as self-sufficient as
possible. I want my children to know where everything comes from and
understand just how much work went into producing it (no instant
gratification, everything worth having is worth waiting for and
working hard for). I want them to know how to work with their hands
as well as with their minds, which is something else they are getting
from the Waldorf school. They are developing an appreciation for the
simple life that I think will serve them well in the future.
Sharon: I sat on a piece of land that we reforested (planted 50
thousand trees) for nine years and am very happy to be swimming once
again with humanity, in a large city. I sense a tinge of
millenarianism in what you say. Civilizations rise and civilizations
fall...shrug. I expect that if we are bombed to the stone age, or run
out of oil, or whatever the calamity is that hits us, people will
adapt.
We are all consumers. Every time I get out of my *car* and go into
our local "natural" food store, I'm always struck by this fact. So,
some products might be a bit better for the environment, or for
people and animals, but they are also bottled or canned, boxed,
shipped around for distribution...
Nicole: I believe that, in many ways, the future is more likely to
resemble the past than it is to resemble the present, hence the
relevance of the practical skills they are learning.
Nicole: I have spent many years studying economics and finance (I was
a research fellow at Oxford University when I lived in England),
specifically the history of financial markets and the large swings of
positive feedback inherent in them (bubbles, manias, panics, crashes
and other manifestations of the herd instinct). We have just lived
through the largest credit bubble since the 1720s, exceeding the
extent of the one whose demise marked the beginning of the Great
Depression by a considerable margin. Debt has ballooned to historic
proportions, while both stocks and real estate are grossly overvalued
and the futures market is a house of cards. I fully expect that my
children will grow up in a deflationary era where there will
generally be very little material wealth of any kind. It is extremely
important therefore that they not have unrealistic material
expectations, expectations that may be unavoidable if we were to
become part of the mainstream. I know I sound like a crackp!
ot, but I don't have the time or the space here to fully explain my
logic, nor do I want to bore others with something they would
probably consider off-topic.
Sharon: Perhaps being raised in South Africa, by parents who were
poor, gives me assurance that life will go on - rich or poor. People
adapt. I guess I just have faith in people, they are generally quite
adaptable, kind and caring. I certainly don't buy into the botox
culture, nor do I condone "materialism" (my definition), but I don't
feel I have to prepare my child for the end of the world.
Nicole:
I would rather that my children did not have to study biblical
stories, although my son really enjoyed learning about the saints
(particularly the one whose name he shares).
Sharon: I was a bit shocked when I discovered that my child was being
taught violent, patriarchal Bible stories and other grim tales. I
thought Waldorf would be "new paradigm".
Nicole: It's something I put up with just as I put up with daily
worship at our previous (state) school in England, where there was no
choice but to be subjected to religion at school.
Sharon: In South Africa we had this problem as well, though Jehova
Witnesses were allowed to sit outside during morning prayers. My
child did not have to pray or say the pledge at public school, nor
does she have to now at her *nonsectarian* private school.
Nicole: I have always filtered dogma out of their education by
dealing with the issues at home. As for Christ the Sun Being (which I
don't recall ever having seen a reference to in their lesson books or
heard them speak about), I don't find that any more (or less) strange
than mainstream religious dogma.
Sharon: No suns? No morning prayer? No lessons depicting angelic
beings or gnomes mining in metal mines? (G) How odd for a Waldorf
school! I don't discriminate between religions, I'm opposed to them
all (G). Certain ones are wackier than others. I am much more
interested in the really wacky ones for some reason. (G)
Nicole: My older daughter has spent time learning about ancient
India, Babylon, Greece and Rome, but I have been present at some of
those lessons and they were not based on religion. It seemed to me
like a way of bringing history to life, giving modern children a
sense of what it meant to have lived in ancient times. Greek Olympics
was a particularly positive experience. If at any time I felt that
they were being steeped in Aryan superiority (and I am watching
carefully), I would withdraw them.
Sharon: We left in fourth grade, so didn't get that far. I have
looked at lesson books from older kids that were very religious. (Not
history). A fellow poster here on list found the Aryan Atlantis myth
in one of his child's books. Dutch parents also found some racist
stereotyping, which prompted the Dutch Report, which consisted oof a
panel of Anthroposophists who determined that Steiner's works aren't
racist! What a joke that report is!
Nicole: I am grateful to the members of this list for sharing their
experiences in order that others, such as myself, will have a better
idea of what to watch out for. There are many outstanding issues with
our school. Its governance structure is a closed shop and
demonstrates very little administrative competence. Although we have
been very lucky with our children's teachers, others have not. I am
no longer personally involved with the school because of the
conflicts we have had. It has been a very painful experience for me,
although fortunately not for my children. I don't plan to stop
working to change what is wrong with the place (that would be
hypocritical), so I suppose they will probably get tired of us
eventually and ask us to leave. If there were any viable alternative,
we may very well have left already. There are still many positives,
but the negatives are mounting and may soon tip the balance.
Sharon: At least you have a clue about the subtext, which is more
than I had. I just couldn't unite in Anthroposophy now that I
understand it. My advice to you is not to read too much Steiner, or
you might become an ardent critic like me (G).
I don't think Threefolding works very well, I'd love to hear what you
think of it since you have a background in economics. Just remember
that Waldorf feeds people's fears. Good luck to you. I'll close with
a few words from a couple of ex-Waldorf teachers:
"I think most parents get "attached" to their kids being in the
Waldorf schools and they just want to look the other way when
something uncomfortable comes up. Or, they view the teaching as
somehow -superior- because it is not of this "materialistic" world we
live in. Especially when a parent starts their child in the younger
grades. By the time the child is in the school for a number of years,
the school has become -so- much a part of their -identity- that they
cannot face the possibility of letting go. It's very subtle but one
begins to feel it is more and more difficult to relate to others
outside the Waldorf circle. Eventually I felt I was living on some
sort of "Anthroposophical island." This alienation, coupled with my
troubling questions finally convinced me that something was very
wrong." (Heather, fax to Dan Dugan of May 8, 1996).
And a few words from Charmaine Usher Paulson who recently filed a
discrimination suit against the NY school. (She said I could quote
her):
"I realized today, that we all are in mourning. We mourn the loss of
what could, should have been. The sorrow, anguish, and anger that are
laced within our words demonstrate the sincerity of our aspirations
for true community and our reaction to deception. I believe that we
will utilize our strength, integrity, vision and hope towards true
renewal. The Waldorf movement does not "own" beauty, art, songs, and
the idea of reverence for the earth. These ideals belong to us all
and we will impart these principles to our own family and community.
Furthermore, we will impart these things to others in a way the
Waldorf movement could never do. We will impart these things with
love. That is the thing that is missing from them, love".
Sharon: You cannot love people if you are duping them. It is my hope
that Waldorf schools become forthright about who they are and what
their mission is, and that they respect the First Amendment. It is
also my hope, that Steiner's racism is repudiated by the Goetheanum.
Church and state, keep them separate!
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
REE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:06:41 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28CF3.46F81440
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Walden wrote:
Tell me - what are your thoughts on Steiner's Threefolding? If you
are familiar with his social/economic model I would be interested in
your views. Some folks say that is what Waldorf is all about.
Nicole:
I am not particularly familiar with what Steiner meant by the
threefold order. I've heard the term bandied about of course, but no
one ever tried to explain what it referred to. I must admit, my eyes
tended to glaze over when I was subjected to Steiner readings for any
length of time - they're just so convoluted and impenetrable. If you
can pass on a synopsis or a link to one of his lectures on the
subject, I'll try to digest it.
----- Original Message -----
From: walden
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:34 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^=^==============================================================Get
more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:28:39 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: grades/was stunted imagination
In what is an increasingly interesting exchange between Nicole Foss, Sharon
Lombard and others here on how children's imaginations are stunted -- or not
-- in Waldorf and other school systems (public and other private,
non-Waldorf schools), Sharon points out to Nicole that many of the things
she (Nicole) values --- children being taught to appreciate and recognize
beauty, avoidance of the consumer culture, creativity -- are not exclusive
to Waldorf schools.
Sharon says: ((I'm not accusing you here, but just want to point out that
many Waldorf-critics share your sentiments. Be careful not to make the
mistake of thinking we care about attaining A's.))
Lisa here: I second much of what Sharon said. But I also admit that I
certainly *do* care about my children's achievement, and part of the measure
of that achievement involves -- at least in my daughters' school --
receiving a written grade. I would be lying if I did not say that I prefer
to see an "A" after "Science, Math, English, French, etc." more often than a
B or a C!
A "A" (or a B or a C, etc.) on my child's report card gives me (and
her!) information we need to understand how she is doing. These letter
grades are further enhanced by the extensive comments on effort,
participation in class, critical thinking skills, creativity in approaching
tasks, etc. that each class teacher adds to the report card.
As a child, I absolutely loved seeing all those A's lined up on my report
card not only because it made my parents proud of me, but also because it
showed me that I had tackled what was often hard work and conquered it, made
it mine.
Though we came into Waldorf thinking that the no grades thing would be
great, that maybe it would do what the school said (encourage children to
learn for its own sake), having no real yardstick with which to measure our
daughter's achievement and mastery of subjects ended up being quite a
problem for her when we withdrew her from the school in the middle of fourth
grade. We did not know what she knew, and what she did not know. (Though we
were sure she had an extensive knowledge of the world of fairies and gnomes!
) It took having her evaluated by an educational pyschologist to reveal the
truth depth of the disparity between her ability and her level of
achievement -- a gap the expert identified as the result of our child not
being offered the information and challenges she needed.
Now that my children are enrolled in a school where they do get report
cards, I find it much easier to quickly understand how they are doing and to
use that as a taking off point for my questions on their true level of work.
And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:30:35 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa wrote: (snip)
) Though we came into Waldorf thinking that the no grades thing would be
) great, that maybe it would do what the school said (encourage children to
) learn for its own sake), having no real yardstick with which to measure
our
) daughter's achievement and mastery of subjects ended up being quite a
) problem for her when we withdrew her from the school in the middle of
fourth
) grade. We did not know what she knew, and what she did not know. (Though
we
) were sure she had an extensive knowledge of the world of fairies and
gnomes!
) ) It took having her evaluated by an educational pyschologist to reveal
the
) truth depth of the disparity between her ability and her level of
) achievement -- a gap the expert identified as the result of our child not
) being offered the information and challenges she needed.
Snarly Old Walden simply must reply: Experts are people like the rest of us
(dime a dozen in as many fields) but I think I hear you saying that your
daughter was stifled in Waldorf rather than the "expert" felt she needed to
be *pushed academically?*
) Now that my children are enrolled in a school where they do get report
) cards, I find it much easier to quickly understand how they are doing and
to
) use that as a taking off point for my questions on their true level of
work.
) And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
Walden: Easier to understand how your children are doing based on a letter
grade from a teacher? Which teacher? What if a student has trouble
learning because a teacher has trouble teaching? (Not just *you* Lisa - it
is a hypothetical question as your post pushed buttons here at Walden Pond
(g)) Do we base our understanding on how they compare with other children
in the same age range? If so - totally unfair methinks. Who decides the
material to be learned and why? Slightly off topic but I have a problem
with *experts* deciding what should be memorized/studied to later be
regurgitated by children in the form of a test in order for society to
decide how *well* they are doing. I realize that Gatto, Holt, etc. are not
favorites of many here - but I just don't know about these so-called
measuring sticks for kids... UNLESS the children enjoy the challenge and
are comfortable with the concepts behind such systems.
If a report card helps us to work *with* our kids and their teachers and
*if* the kids can write report cards for the teachers... I might agree.
Respect is a two way street, n'est ce pas?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:49:04 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C28D09.F67CEEC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lisa wrote:
As a child, I absolutely loved seeing all those A's lined up on my report
card not only because it made my parents proud of me, but also because it
showed me that I had tackled what was often hard work and conquered it, made
it mine.
A "A" (or a B or a C, etc.) on my child's report card gives me (and
her!) information we need to understand how she is doing. These letter
grades are further enhanced by the extensive comments on effort,
participation in class, critical thinking skills, creativity in approaching
tasks, etc. that each class teacher adds to the report card.
Nicole:
As a young child, my report cards were usually covered in D's. I
almost failed every grade from grade 1 to grade 8 and no one knew
what to do with me. I was a strange and disturbed child with little
comprehension of the social rules others lived by. I had no interest
in what was being taught and never brought homework home. No one ever
thought why I might have been doing so badly, they just felt sorry
for the little misfit. Uninspired teaching and relentless bullying
made school a constant nightmare. They eventually suggested, at the
end of grade eight, that I should take high school classes in the
lowest stream and maybe go to trade school. I didn't listen,
fortunately, and now have four degrees (I was top graduate in all of
them so I did get my share of A's in the end).
My point is that if one is doing well, those comments on the report
card are not hard to write and the grades are fairly transparent. If,
however, one is doing badly, there may be a multitude of reasons,
none of which seem to be explored in any depth. One tends to be
written off with no attempt made to delve deeper into the reasons for
underachievement, even if those reasons should be relatively obvious.
These days, my public school teacher friends tell me that they aren't
even allowed to write their own comments any more - they're just
supposed to tick the most appropriate comment box on the
computer-generated report card! I find this system to be of rather
limited appeal to say the least. Perhaps it's better where you come
from (if you are happy there then it must be).
I have found that my children learn for the love of learning, which
is a wonderful thing for a parent to see. They have enquiring minds and
are mentally resourceful, as well as being happy, which is a huge
relief for me considering my own background. The lack of grades has
contributed to this state of affairs, in my opinion, by removing the
pressure and allowing their interest to flourish. I don't propose for
a moment that Waldorf has a monopoly on these things, indeed from
what I have seen in other classes (and read of your collective
experiences here) this is clearly not the case, but there are
positive aspects that have worked for us which would be difficult to
find elsewhere (at least in this area).
It seems to me that grades have value in high school and beyond, over
the years when achievement really needs to be measured objectively,
whereas for younger children a much greater degree of subjectivity is
appropriate. Grades are all too often a poor reflection of a young
child's potential and contribute to a culture of counter-productive
labelling which limits young children before they have had a chance
to demonstrate their true capabilities. Older children and young
adults, in contrast, seem to find them empowering. Grades give them
the feedback they need to balance the energy and degree of commitment
devoted to their education versus that to be reserved for other
aspects of their increasingly complex lives.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:28 PM
To: waldorf-critics
Subject: grades/was stunted imagination
==^================================================================Get
more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 877
-- Topica Digest --
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
re: stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Heindel, future human form
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
To the moderator
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:42:57 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa:
) And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
and snarly old Walden (g) has some problems with grades . . .
There *is* a middle ground. My son's school doesn't use letter grades and
yet is academically rigorous. They do score tests - a spelling test comes
back marked 12/15 for instance, if there were 15 words and he got 12 right.
I don't see how you avoid this altogether, if you want to know if the kids
have learned to spell the words. Homework gets a check for being completed,
and comments (like, "If you write slower, I'll be able to read it better").
They totally expect him to do the work assigned, so it is not a "free" style
type school at all, but it is small enough and personal enough and I have
practically daily contact with the teacher so I have no doubts about how
he's doing. It *can* be done without grades.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:04:29 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
)
)
)
) Lisa:
)) And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
)
) and snarly old Walden (g) has some problems with grades . . .
)
) There *is* a middle ground. My son's school doesn't use letter grades and
) yet is academically rigorous. They do score tests - a spelling test comes
) back marked 12/15 for instance, if there were 15 words and he got 12 right.
) I don't see how you avoid this altogether, if you want to know if the kids
) have learned to spell the words. Homework gets a check for being completed,
) and comments (like, "If you write slower, I'll be able to read it better").
) They totally expect him to do the work assigned, so it is not a "free" style
) type school at all, but it is small enough and personal enough and I have
) practically daily contact with the teacher so I have no doubts about how
) he's doing. It *can* be done without grades.
) Diana
)
Lisa: After reading Walden's, Nicole's and Diana's responses, I feel I
should have been clearer in my original post!
My daughters' current school -- a very mainstream college prep school
that offers kindergarten through 12th grades -- uses the following policy
regarding grades, and I endorse this policy:
* children in grades kindergarten through the end of third grade do
*not* get letter grades on their report cards (they are called "progress
reports"). Instead, there is a description of what the class has been
covering, subject-wise (addition and subtraction of numbers 20 and less;
regrouping; identifying parts of speech, etc.) followed by each teacher's
comments on the child's progress. There also is a place where the teachers
"score" (for lack of a better word!) the child's work habits, effort, etc.
with a "U" for "usually," an "S" for "sometimes" and an "O" for
"occasionally."
* beginning in fourth grade, children earn letter grades in the main
subjects of Language Arts/Reading; Math; Science and Social Studies.
Progress in French or Spanish (the girls take half a year of each beginning
in kindergarten through the end of third grade, and then choose which one
they want to pursue), art, music, dance (the school has a fabulous dance
department and the girls take dance all the way through high school as a
required course!) physical education, etc. all are "marked" as above.
* beginning in grade 6, the girls get letter grades for the core
subjects, including foreign languages and Latin, which are required, and get
"effort" grades for phys ed, drama, dance, art, etc.
In short, it sounds as if the system used in Diana's son's school (he is
in elementary or what we call "Lower School") is identical to what is done
at my daughters' school's lower school. My second grader has weekly spelling
"tests" of 15 words, and there is NO letter grade on them when they come
home ... instead, the paper might read "14/15" -- "Fantastic work, Juliet!"
or something similar. Same with the weekly "Mad Minute" math drills the
girls are given.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:28:42 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: grades/was stunted imagination
During an exchange about the value (or lack of value) of using grades to
evaluate how a student is doing, I recalled what had happened when we
withdrew our older girl from Waldorf school in the middle of the fourth
grade and had her "evaluated" by what I called an "expert."
My snarly buddy boy Walden felt he "simply must" reply thus:
(( Experts are people like the rest of us
(dime a dozen in as many fields) but I think I hear you saying that your
daughter was stifled in Waldorf rather than the "expert" felt she needed to
be *pushed academically?))
Lisa: Yes, experts are people too. And yes, some are not worth the paper
their degrees (if they have 'em!) are printed on.
On the other hand, there *are* experts who are, well, expert in their
fields. My children's pediatrician, for instance. Yes, he is just a person
like you and me, but unlike us, he spent years working his way through an
excellent medical school and did post-doctoral work with the World Health
Organization providing care for refugee children in Thailand.
Just the other day, I needed someone who knows a lot about politics on
the neighborhood level to help me put something done by the city council
here in perspective (they will be redistricting) for a story, so I did not
just grab someone off the sidewalk to consult on this: instead, I called
Johns Hopkins University's political science department and tracked down Dr.
Matthew Crenson, who is what I might call an "expert" observer of local
politics.
The same goes for the "expert" we consulted to help us decide where
Olivia was, educationally speaking, and what we ought to do with her
regarding school placement.
In this case, the "expert" was an educational psychologist who was able
not only to speak at length with Olivia to take a look at how she felt about
school, etc. but also administered (in what I can assure you was a really
pleasant, even fun way!) a battery of tests that, in the end, identified
that there was a startlingly large "gap" between Olivia's ability (IQ, etc.
etc.) and her level of achievement (what she knows, etc.)
Based on those results, the psychologist concluded that yes, Olivia had
been stifled at Waldorf (of which the doc knew little to nothing until we
stumbled, confused, into her office). More than stifled, however, Olivia
(the doctor said ) had simply not been given AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO USE HER
BRAIN, TO LEARN MORE THAN THE BAREST BASICS at Waldorf. The psychologist
basically called what was revealed in the test a "teaching disability."
The doctor concluded that far from Waldorf not "pushing" Olivia to
learn, the teacher there had actually been HOLDING her BACK from learning,
which lines up exactly with what that teacher had constantly told us, in one
way or another: "We need to move Olivia from her head into her trunk area.
She is too much in her head."
I can assure you that while my daughter is intelligent, she is *not*
some kind of Einstein who was working on a theory of relativity in her spare
time and who had an obvious need for "balance." She is, and was, simply a
very smart child -- gifted in the arena of language and verbal stuff -- who
liked to ask questions and to learn things because, well, that's what
children do, right?
Not at Waldorf, they don't.
For a child like my daughter, Waldorf was a disaster. And I daily thank
our "expert" for helping us navigate the confusion and pain of what we were
confronted with when we finally yanked our poor child from that quagmire of
esotericism and needed help figuring out not only where our child stood
emotionally and intellectually, but also where to go from there.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:30:40 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28D63.97C453A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
The grades policy in your school and in Diana's sounds good. I agree
that if someone has a spelling test of 15 words and spells 12
correctly, it makes perfect sense to score it numerically. One could
never escape from all forms of grading, nor would one want to, but a
progression over the years towards more rigorous and objective
assessment makes sense to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 11:05 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
==^================================================================Get
more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:41:27 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa:
) In short, it sounds as if the system used in Diana's son's school (he
is
)in elementary or what we call "Lower School") is identical to what is done
)at my daughters' school's lower school. My second grader has weekly
spelling
)"tests" of 15 words, and there is NO letter grade on them when they come
)home ... instead, the paper might read "14/15" -- "Fantastic work, Juliet!"
)or something similar. Same with the weekly "Mad Minute" math drills the
)girls are given.
Well, he's in fourth, so he'd be getting letter grades by now at your kids'
school. My son's school is K-6 and unless I'm mistaken no one gets letter
grades. I'm not speaking in favor or against grades, personally - it seems
to me the personal touch is what counts - the detailed reports and close
communication between parents and teachers. My son's teacher called my
husband at work yesterday because he noticed our son had been stuttering
*that morning* and the teacher wondered whether our child was under some
kind of stress. Whether there's a letter grade to accompany all this seems
almost moot.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:43:19 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: stunted imagination
In a discussion of the value (or lack thereof) of recitation as a learning
tool, Nicole says:
I don't think recitation necessarily works against literacy, but it depends
who is teaching it and with what goal in mind. I've seen recitation done as
a completely lifeless drone or in a foreign language where the kids clearly
had no idea what they were talking about, and I wouldn't presume to defend
such a practice ..
Lisa: You have just described the way French and German was taught at my
children's former Waldorf school and, from what I hear, at many others.
My daughter Olivia emerged from Waldorf in the middle of fourth grade
knowing little to no French or German beyond how to say "hello" and perhaps
(and I am being generous here!) counting to ten.
My former neighbor, whose step children used to attend Washington
Waldorf School in the suburbs of D.C., recounted going to that school to
watch one of them in a German class play and asking the boy afterwards "What
was that about? I don't speak any German" and having him reply "We have no
idea what we are saying. We just memorize the words."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:47:54 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
) Lisa:
)
)) In short, it sounds as if the system used in Diana's son's school (he
) is
))in elementary or what we call "Lower School") is identical to what is done
))at my daughters' school's lower school. My second grader has weekly
) spelling
))"tests" of 15 words, and there is NO letter grade on them when they come
))home ... instead, the paper might read "14/15" -- "Fantastic work, Juliet!"
))or something similar. Same with the weekly "Mad Minute" math drills the
))girls are given.
)
)
) Well, he's in fourth, so he'd be getting letter grades by now at your kids'
) school. My son's school is K-6 and unless I'm mistaken no one gets letter
) grades. I'm not speaking in favor or against grades, personally - it seems
) to me the personal touch is what counts - the detailed reports and close
) communication between parents and teachers. My son's teacher called my
) husband at work yesterday because he noticed our son had been stuttering
) *that morning* and the teacher wondered whether our child was under some
) kind of stress. Whether there's a letter grade to accompany all this seems
) almost moot.
) Diana
)
Lisa: Agreed, 100%. We have almost daily contact with Juliet's teachers (she
is the one in second grade) and Olivia's teachers (she is in 7th) are
accessible pretty much all the time, as well, by either phone or e-mail.
I think one of the big advantages of a private school such as my kids' is
that close interaction with the teachers and their accessibility, though I
daresay there must certainly be public schools where this is so, too.
I will note, however, that there *is* a "culture" of achievement at my
daughters' school; in other words, most of the children there (and their
parents) value doing well, so it is not "nerdy" to be smart, to do well on
your tests, etc. This works with our own value system.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:58:19 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28D6F.D6832380
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In a discussion of the value (or lack thereof) of recitation as a learning
tool, Nicole says:
I don't think recitation necessarily works against literacy, but it depends
who is teaching it and with what goal in mind. I've seen recitation done as
a completely lifeless drone or in a foreign language where the kids clearly
had no idea what they were talking about, and I wouldn't presume to defend
such a practice ..
Lisa: You have just described the way French and German was taught at my
children's former Waldorf school and, from what I hear, at many others.
My daughter Olivia emerged from Waldorf in the middle of fourth grade
knowing little to no French or German beyond how to say "hello" and perhaps
(and I am being generous here!) counting to ten.
My former neighbor, whose step children used to attend Washington
Waldorf School in the suburbs of D.C., recounted going to that school to
watch one of them in a German class play and asking the boy afterwards "What
was that about? I don't speak any German" and having him reply "We have no
idea what we are saying. We just memorize the words."
Nicole:
My son loves his language classes. In England, they don't study
foreign languages until year 6 (age 11), so he didn't know a word of
anything but English when we came. In two years he has made a huge
amount of progress and is in his element. He's very proud of the
language strip badges he earned at cubs a couple of weeks ago in
French and German. My daughter's teacher (the best teacher I've ever
met anywhere) used to be the German teacher (he's the gym teacher
now) and has a reputation for being the highlight of most kids' days.
They certainly didn't just recite things (they did that occasionally
for plays and always knew exactly what they were saying), but there
was a strong oral emphasis in the class, especially for the younger
children. If French was taught like that in our local public schools,
kids wouldn't be looking forward to the day they could drop the
subject, which most of them do at the earliest possible opportunity
(and this is in a bilingual city where French mat!
ters for almost all professional job prospects).
I have also seen language taught extremely badly at our school -
based totally on recitation with the maddening drone, the
lifelessness, the lack of comprehension - indeed it's probably the
subject with the greatest variability in terms of standards. It seems
to be the subject where teaching talent and grasp of the subject
matter more than any other. A teacher can make a language come to
life, or they can kill it completely.
My daughter doesn't study languages at all because of her hearing
problem (she has enough trouble with English). An oral approach could
never work for her, so she spends her time doing a staggering array
of craft work with a very talented woman in the Tobias class. If she
learns another language it will be through a written approach when
she's much older. She doesn't like recitation at all, even in
English, which is hardly surprising. It doesn't work for everyone. My
son, on the other hand, loves to learn long poems which 'speak to
him' and perform them for an (inevitably) appreciative audience. I
think he's destined for a life on the stage - I can't wait to see him
do Shakespeare when he's older (whatever school he's in by then).
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 11:44 AM
To: waldorf-critics
Subject: re: stunted imagination
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:14:04 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Heindel, future human form
Sharon writes:
) The description: At the root of the nose, beneath the forehead,
) lies the
) two-petalled lotus-flower. This is an undeveloped astral organ
) which will
) one day evolve into either two antennae or wings. These can
) already be seen
) by the horns represented on the head of Moses.
Regarding Moses, the key word is "represented" as in symbolically
represented as opposed to an actual phenomenon. Biblical scholars
attribute the horns on Moses as a mistranslation of Hebrew into Latin
by Jerome ("qaran" meaning rays or beams of light into "qeren" meaning
horns) due to the absence of vowels. The translation refers to Moses
descending Mt Sinai with the tablets of the covenant. His face was said
to glow or radiate light compelling him to wear a veil amongst his
people.
Alongside the scholarly interpretation is the understanding that the
horns of Moses symbolise the status of High Priest/Potentiate in the
mystery school traditions of ancient Egypt which Moses was, as the
Bible reports, a magi in Pharoah's court prior to his exile. The horns
come from the god Amon-Ra which, if memory serves, was a later
representation of Thoth the moon-god, the enlightener (which, btw,is
similar to the moon-god Sin of the Euphrates). This is First Dynasty
Egypt stuff.
What I find interesting is the literal interpretation of horns (and
other organs) as a physical manifestation. Seems Steiner was the
fundamentalist-literalist of the occult.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:32:53 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Barley writes:
) )The world of quantum physics is full of weird and magical things
) that are
) real (like
) )having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to
) make)things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
Diana:
) This is a good point, maybe we just still have traditions like
) Santa Claus
) because it is a holdover from ages when we didn't have all this
) amazingknowledge. I still don't think the stories hurt children,
) however, unless
) adults refuse to simply allow them to outgrow this stage.
Santa Claus is the Patron Saint of sailors. He was a Christian monk who
would give the families of Sailors food and treats anonymously during
the lean months when the dads/husbands were out to sea. Became a
tradition that was embellished over time. Current myth has some basis
in historical truth. Told this to my six year old when she asked if
Santa was real in response to my threat that "Santa's spies are
everywhere" when she was being particularly nasty (yes, I admit I am
quilty).
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 04:21:36 +0000
From: (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: To the moderator
I have regularly been posing to this list, by accident, under my wifes
email. This is because I have serious health problems that effect my
memory. This is disability issue, not laziness on my part. There is no
way that I can take any steps to make sure that this does not happen on
an irregular basis
With this in mind, I am going to drop my subscription to this list. I
do not want to be the source of constant confusion and conflict. Since
I cannot take steps to ensure that I no longer post as my wife (or even
steps to remember to sign my posts), the only choice I really have is to
leave.
I wish you all well.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 00:40:34 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa wrote: (snip) The doctor concluded that far from Waldorf not
"pushing" Olivia to
) learn, the teacher there had actually been HOLDING her BACK from learning,
) which lines up exactly with what that teacher had constantly told us, in
one
) way or another: "We need to move Olivia from her head into her trunk area.
) She is too much in her head."
) I can assure you that while my daughter is intelligent, she is *not*
) some kind of Einstein who was working on a theory of relativity in her
spare
) time and who had an obvious need for "balance." She is, and was, simply a
) very smart child -- gifted in the arena of language and verbal stuff --
who
) liked to ask questions and to learn things because, well, that's what
) children do, right?
) Not at Waldorf, they don't.
) For a child like my daughter, Waldorf was a disaster. And I daily
thank
) our "expert" for helping us navigate the confusion and pain of what we
were
) confronted with when we finally yanked our poor child from that quagmire
of
) esotericism and needed help figuring out not only where our child stood
) emotionally and intellectually, but also where to go from there.
Thanks for clarifying. To test or not to test... that is (not) the
question. My concerns have more to do with children and their place in
their community and our society. My oldest child enjoys the occasional
test - either keyboarding tests on the computer or at school. It is not a
big deal with him - what is a important is that he feels he is part of the
system which is ostensibly for and about... him. We speak of "democracy"
and beat our chests for all the world to see - yet we deny many of our young
people a single sniff of that same democracy we expect them to embrace in
their future. How many children truly feel involved - really involved - in
*their* education? That is a big part of my beef with Waldorf. The PR has
nothing to do with "nurturing the child" etc. Nonsense. It is about
control. Hell, even close to a hundred years ago some folks had clued into
the concept of democracy actually meaning democracy - *especially* at an
early age.
Look at John Dewey's "Democracy and Education" (New York: Macmillan, 1916)
In the chapter "The Democratic Conception in Education" Dewey says that a
democratic society "must have a type of education which gives individuals a
personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of
mind which secure social change without introducing disorder" (p. 115).
Many schools these days, it seems, do not embrace this ideal in the least.
I (stupidly) thought Waldorf had something to do with freedom, etc. I
thought it had to do with respect and I thought it had to do with
children.... Wrong. It had to do with reincarnation and occultism and
control. We look at voter turnout in our *democracy* and we look at how
disillusioned we have become with the "system" and we wonder why? I wonder
if too many real lessons in too many schools have more to do with control
than learning? We are coping. Teachers and students. "Is it 3 o'clock
yet....?" How can a child learn when she/he feels controlled and/or
disenfranchised in their own community? I suppose there are lessons to be
learned from those who control our learning but what *exactly* are those
lessons? How can one feel like an important part of a community (and we all
are - despite our age) when one has no voice in that community? How can one
ask so many redundant questions in the same post....? (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 878
-- Topica Digest --
Re: To the moderator
By nmfoss hotmail.com
National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
By dan dandugan.com
RE: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
Re: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: To the moderator
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: To the moderator
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I, Shakespeare
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Water Colour -sample
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:24:26 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: To the moderator
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28E1B.1F6D1960
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
Please reconsider. Your contributions to the on-going debate are very valuable.
----- Original Message -----
From: BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 11:21 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: To the moderator
I have regularly been posing to this list, by accident, under my wifes
email. This is because I have serious health problems that effect my
memory. This is disability issue, not laziness on my part. There is no
way that I can take any steps to make sure that this does not happen on
an irregular basis
With this in mind, I am going to drop my subscription to this list. I
do not want to be the source of constant confusion and conflict. Since
I cannot take steps to ensure that I no longer post as my wife (or even
steps to remember to sign my posts), the only choice I really have is to
leave.
I wish you all well.
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:45:45 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
Original with photos:
http://www.nationalpost.ca/search/site/story.asp?id=6563AA5E-E55F-49F5-AB72-ABD3AB5B892B
Text only:
Sunday ? November 17 ? 2002 NATIONAL POST
Gnomes and critics at Waldorf schools
Carol Milstone
National Post
[photo caption] Three gnomes hang from the ceiling in the house of a
child formerly enrolled at a Waldorf school in North Vancouver. The
schools were founded by Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher, who
believed in reincarnation, destiny and gnomes as life forms.
[photo caption] Drawing gnomes...is popular with children enrolled in
Waldorf schools. Gnomes are blamed for mistakes people make, one
critic says.
Waldorf schools claim to be North America's fastest-growing chain of
alternative independent schools. Parents praise them for encouraging
pupils' artistic expression and keeping pressure and competition to a
minimum. But critics are troubled by the schools' underlying
philosophy. It rejects modern medicine and psychiatry and promotes
belief in astrology and the existence of gnomes in the woods.
- - -
Last spring, Helen and Cam Dorion (not their real names) were
thrilled with the alternative school they had just selected for their
children.
"I've been looking into schools for about a year now, and the second
I walked in the door I just knew," said Helen, of the Ottawa Waldorf
School. "In the three weeks that the two boys have been here, they
have improved tremendously."
Helen and Cam were so impressed they moved their family from Ottawa's
west end to the outlying suburb of Stittsville, Ont., to be closer to
their newly chosen school.
"I go a lot on gut feelings," reported Cam with great fervour. "The
stuff they can do in the yard here is great -- it's the stuff I grew
up with. I'm from the country, and so I like the teeter-totter in the
yard made out of a stump," he says. "And from what I understand, the
school's main goal is to raise a nice person. They will fulfill their
own dreams, but they are not out to get someone else. It's not
dog-eat-dog [at Waldorf], and I think that's important."
The Dorions were not alone in their enthusiasm for Waldorf schools.
According to the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America,
Waldorf schools recently have become North America's fastest-growing
alternative independent schools. With their reputation for artistic
expression and non-conformity, it is hardly surprising that pop
psychologist David Elkind gives Waldorf schools full endorsement in
his best-seller, The Hurried Child.
Started more than 80 years ago in Europe (where they are called
Steiner Schools), there are more than 600 Waldorf schools in over 30
countries, with 20 in Canada. Named after a German cigarette factory
where the first school opened, Waldorf schools were founded by Rudolf
Steiner, a prominent New Age-style Austrian philosopher and
self-styled clairvoyant who started a movement called Anthroposophy.
Waldorf schools have no computers or high-tech gadgetry, and all
classroom supplies are made of natural fibre (cotton, wood, wool,
etc.). To keep pressure and competition to a minimum, there are no
clocks, drill cards, textbooks or tests. No mirrors of any kind are
allowed in Waldorf schools (they promo