return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
"Ulula" UK -- BD Baby Foods
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: 'A Matter of Opinion'
By ldenike aol.com
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
re: who has the right to criticize Waldorf/was "the popularity of Waldorf school
By ldenike aol.com
RE: who has the right to criticize Waldorf/was "the popularity of Waldor
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:20:37 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: "Ulula" UK -- BD Baby Foods
Biodynamic foods are increasingly well-accepted -- let's
see how this business does. Will people not buy the baby
food because some think of it as on the "fringe" or will it
satisfy the needs of parents who want pure foods for their
babies? We'll see...
Serena Blaue
http://business.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=BIZOnline&category=B
usiness&tBrand=bizonline&tCategory=business&itemid=NOED30%20May%202005%2017%3A
28%3A01%3A620
Organic babyfood on the net
31 May 2005
IAN BULLOCK, ASSISTANT EDP BUSINESS EDITOR
Creating a one-stop shop for organic baby food is the aim of a Norfolk
couple's new internet business.
Ruediger and Sabine Gaszow, of Whitwell, near Reepham, have set up a company
called Ulula and a website - www.ulula.co.uk - which offers parents a choice
of 30 baby food products from birth onwards.
All the products are 100pc organic, and the majority are biodynamic.
"Biodynamic farming not only avoids chemicals and herbicides but strengthens
and restores the health of soil, plant and animal husbandry by using
homoeopathic preparations of very ordinary raw materials such as quartz crystal,
dandelions, stinging nettles and yarrow," said Mr Gaszow.
[...............]
"Our baby food is produced with respect and love for nature. It strengthens
the infant or small child and is full of natural nutritional content," she said.
Mrs Gaszow is a qualified food technologist, trained as a wholefood assistant
and has run an organic bakery. Her husband has produced vegetables, herbs and
fruits on a biodynamic farm at Thornage, near Holt.
"Ulula takes great care in choosing partners who are truly devoted to
healthy, natural and pure products. All partners have long traditions in producing
biodynamic baby food," he said.
ends
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:41:13 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: 'A Matter of Opinion'
One would think that Victor would know that Rudolf Steiner's first name is spelled with an "f" and not with a "ph" if he went to a Waldorf school ...
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:49:03 EDT
Subject: 'A Matter of Opinion'
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without Botox! Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to
reduce wrinkles by 68% Click here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadslIb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/books/chapters/0529-1st-navasky.html
First Chapter
'A Matter of Opinion'
By VICTOR S. NAVASKY
Published: May 29, 2005
[..................]
I had by accident what I later came to feel was an ideal education: From age
five to eleven I attended the Rudolph Steiner School, whose aim was to
cultivate the spirit by way of the arts; from eleven to seventeen I went to the
Little Red School House and its high school, Elisabeth Irwin, whose mission,
through community engagement, was to imbue students with a social conscience;
and
from eighteen to twenty-one I attended Swarthmore College, which focused on the
intellect and the life of the mind in a Quaker context. For dessert, and as a
correction to all of the above (age twenty-two to twenty-four), I served in
the U.S. armed forces, after which I attended Yale Law School, which served as a
bridge to the so-called real world.
My father chose the Rudolph Steiner School because, based on his own
experience, he believed that public school "broke the spirit." Little did he
know that
Rudolph Steiner the man, founder of something called anthroposophy, literally
believed that two weeks after the body expired the spirit surveyed the arc of
its life and then was reincarnated in another vessel. (This I discovered only
many years later-we were not taught reincarnation in school.) I chose Little
Red because the best stickball player on my block went there. When I enrolled,
neither I nor my parents knew that it had started as an experimental public
school based on John Dewey's theories of progressive education and broke away
when Elisabeth Irwin discovered that the Board of Education couldn't tolerate
its independent ways. My parents knew mainly that it meant my taking a daily
subway ride down to Greenwich Village, then still a bohemian redoubt, where the
school was located.
Swarthmore chose me in the sense that it was the only college to which I had
applied that accepted me.
At none of these institutions did I take a course in journalism or writing.
At Rudolph Steiner I learned my vowel sounds by acting them out in eurythmy
classes ("O is for oak tree, tall and strong"). But I remember that after a
third-grade field trip to a farm in upstate New York (an organic farm, of
course-Rudolph Steiner was light-years ahead of the curve), our assignment the
following week was to write 300 words on the trip. I chose as my topic "A Day in
the
Life of a Farmer" and dutifully turned in my paper. When it came back my
teacher had written, "This is lovely, Victor. But what about the milking of the
goat and the cows, and what about making the fire and dinner around the family
table, and what about that tractor you rode on?" I had also forgotten to
mention pitching hay. "Please fix."
So I dutifully fixed and a few days later turned in my much expanded paper.
This time my teacher wrote, "This is wonderful, Victor. You have really
captured what it is like to be a farmer. But it is far longer than 300 words.
Please
revise, keeping in all the facts, but don't use more than 300 words."
And so I did and so I didn't.
[..................]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees Automatically
invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
http://click.topica.com/caadtaKb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Sharebuilder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:52:50 +0000
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Lisa,
Thank you for your reply. I see that my ability (or inability ) to
maintain discourse is the issue now.
I am not an expert on Anthroposophy but I have some experience. My
experience with Waldorf goes back 10 years. I have worked at both
Waldorf and mainstream schools in two different countries. I am educated
both in Anthroposophy, including waldorf, as well as pre school
certified in California. I have met and worked with waldorf families on
a number of occasions. I AM A PARENT AS WELL. I am currently living in
Sweden, but have lived in Germany and Austria. I have been vaguely aware
of Dan Dugan and Waldorf critics a while now but have not taken the time
to listen to your words. I apologize however I fear that there is NO
POSSIBLE WAY you could be a very devoted student of Steiner’s work, and
support the non sense this site promotes.
Put another way, doesn’t it seem strange to you that there is not a
single recognized anthroposophical scholar represented on this list?
Supposedly if this list had significant issues with Waldorf education,
the experts would listen.
There are some associated with Waldorf who claims to have done esoteric
work to gain points, when the point is not to gain points. The laughable
idea one meets here is to hold Waldorf ( a being) accountable to ones
own (individual) whimsical needs is at best inadequate and misguided and
worst, destructive. Ego driven power hungry critics are not the best
objective co workers a school could hope to attract. While there is
always room for improvement in any system, first one should have some
idea of what the system is. The love of destroying the system in
ignorance finds its way into many posts. How on earth can one claim to
be “helpful” when the OBJECTIVE is to transform Waldorf to mainstream
schools, with such disrespect for the SACRIFICES honest, loving people
have made on behalf of others children at great personal expense? A
constructive co worker will take the time to understand, not demonize.
(How often have you invited a teacher home just to get to know them?)
They will not try to call themselves “heroes” trying to “save the
children”. That is egoism talking and anyone with clear sight on this
list can see that. Or shall some claim that they are not driven by
personal egoistic needs here? Of course there are faculty members who
are unsuited for the job, but they OFTEN tend to be also the least
qualified (read=untrained) to begin with…Significant? Perhaps. I have
yet to meet a single trained teacher who has not had the child’s well
being foremost in their waking and sleeping moments. How many parents
can attest to that level of intimacy?
Put another way, what GOOD has come of this critics movement ( for this
is a movement)? What are WCs individually proud of in their work? What
have they created? Good, Now lets look at what they hope to destroy: an
international peace loving school, based on human insight, which
represent the single best defence against rampant industrializing of
human beings. Hmm. Or I suppose one could pretend that the world is
doing just fine. To each her own.
I am a student of Steiners and a Wadolf supporter and I think I have
earned my right to speak about Waldorf. But that is my own perspective
which will certainly be met by others.
Gabriel
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:26:29 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: re: who has the right to criticize Waldorf/was "the popularity of Waldorf schools"
Gabriel,
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain to me and the rest of the list your relationship with and interest in Waldorf schools.
I would like to respond to some of the things you said in your message. Forgive me if I jump around. You said quite a few things that I wish to comment upon:
Gabriel, you said: (( ... there is no possible way you could be a very devoted student of Steiner's work, and support the nonsense this web site promotes.))
Lisa here: I hope I did not say that I was a "devoted" student of Steiner. If I did, I was remiss. The word "devoted" connotes an attachment to a subject or thing or person, and I am NOT devoted/attached to Steiner. I took up the study of Steiner because I found what had transpired at our former Waldorf school to be bizarre, confusing and, yes, sometimes, disturbing. It seemed to me that the only way to really understand what transpired/occurred was to go directly to the source: Steiner's lectures (in English translation, of course, as I do not read German.) Over the years at our former Waldorf school, I had seen teachers carrying around Steiner tomes as if they were holy books. (I think, to some of them, that was the case.) I began to read Steiner for the same reason many critics did: it was the only chance we had of halfway understanding what the heck had gone on in regard to our children and ourselves at school.
Gabriel, you seem to think that there is no way a person could study Steiner and come away not only not agreeing with his worldview and teachings, but actually criticizing it! That's ridiculous. Of course one can study and read the works and words of any person and not agree with what that person said. Why is that so unbelievable?
Perhaps what you mean to say is that if I really did read and study Steiner I would surely see what a kind, well intentioned, loving person he was. Is that what you mean? If so, well, Steiner's *intentions* are largely irrelevant to my criticism of Waldorf education. In fact, I am pretty sure he was a well intentioned person. However, it is how Steiner's philosophies and teachings and approaches are put into practice in the real world of many Waldorf schools that disturb me. I frankly find it disturbing when any group of people are so devoted to the teachings of a "leader" that they operate in lock step/automatic pilot, rather than using their God-given common sense and intelligence in various situations! For instance, at our former Waldorf school, parents were clamoring for a human sexuality unit or block to be taught, but the teachers refused. Why? Because STEINER did not leave instructions about giving young people education in sexuality! As a result, parents had to hire and pay for a special sexuality educator to come and do an after school program with the middle school aged kids.
Ask some of the critics here (who, combined, have many many years of experience as Waldorf parents) and you will hear quite a few stories of teachers constantly saying "But Steiner said ...." as if the man himself were standing alive and real in the room and ready to pounce on any teacher who dared to deviate from the script he left. According to some Waldorf teachers I spoke with privately, devotion to Steiner was far, far more important than was innovation or imagination or creativity in applying Waldorf methods, etc. in the classroom. In fact, one teacher told me how she was pulled aside and told that if she did not "devote herself to Steiner," she would *never* be accepted by the other teachers or the school, and might as well resign. She did. "I sometimes felt I was at a meeting of a big cult," she confessed to me, after she resigned. She told me that she also disagreed strongly with the other teachers' attitudes about parents, that they were a big, unwelcome burden that the teachers had to carry around to get to the goal: the children. She said that the teachers viewed themselves as the *real* and true parents of the students, and the parents were just "the door" through which the children came, by karma, to the Waldorf school.
Which brings me to another statement you made, about how devoted Waldorf teachers are.
Gabriel, you said : ((I have yet to meet a single, trained teacher who has not had the child's well being foremost in their waking and sleeping moments. How many parents can attest to that level of intimacy?))
Lisa here: I would like to ask how many "trained" teachers you have met and how you ascertained what they were thinking and feeling and wishing and hoping in all their waking and sleeping moments? (A friend of mine had an Anthroposophical acquaintance who claimed to be able to "peer" into one's soul. She was quite rude about it, apparently, getting into people's faces and looking deep into their eyes. Perhaps you do the same thing ...) Gabriel, are you trying to say that Waldorf teachers are more intimate with their charges than the children's own parents are? If so, this falls right into line with what the former Waldorf teacher told me: that in the view of the Waldorf teacher, she (or he) is the REAL parent of the child, and knows far better than the parent what is good for the child.
My response to that? Bull shit.
Lisa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:15:29 +0000
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: RE: who has the right to criticize Waldorf/was "the popularity of Waldor
Lisa,
Thank you for your reply.
I am not sure where you are in your own self development, nor how you
will understand what I am going to say but:
By “trained” I mean a cumulative path of knowledge of ONE’S SELF which
begins with the first Steiner book one reads to completion and continues
throughout ones life. So criticising a path of knowledge that begins and
ends with one self is in fact “ridiculous”. Also, no one is lock-step
with Steiner( a nazis-expression…) and Philosophy of Freedom is quite
clear on this basic point. My mainstream pre school training in
California was shallow in comparison to Waldorf. These are two
completely different levels of dedication, both to one self and to other
fellow human beings. The more training one does the more accessible
invisible phenomena become, the more “strange” one behaves.
The word we are looking for to describe why waldorfians carry Steiner
books around is LOVE. Image a group of people who spent every moment of
every day meditating on how to treat one self and others through LOVE:
That is why they are doing those strange things at your school- if you
are still connected with that school. That is also the reason why it
seems that what they do is so mysterious: Because No system today is run
through LOVE, but instead through competition, sex, earning power,
reading competence, self aggrandizement.
Why is Waldorf different? Look a little closer to your Steiner.
The idealism that you and others harbour lives at every Waldorf school,
but anger is blinding you to the positive elements that are all around
you. I am sure that if you approached the school with positive energy
they would “read” it and be more open. Waldorfians usually do not give
energy to NEGATIVITY, but ignore it. That way it loses energy. I
challenge any critic to go to a Waldorf school and be QUIET. Simply
listen to the silence. Not to your own inner voice. Silence that too. It
is not like other silences but instead your heart may be changed,
unexpectedly.
By the way, I work every day to bridge the gap between parents and
teachers at our school.
Gabriel
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1770
-- Topica Digest --
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By nanetteblank hotmail.com
RSteiner: Pioneer in "Organic Architecture"
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
RE: who has the right to criticize Waldorf/was
"the popularity of Waldor
By diana.winters verizon.net
re: who has the "right" to criticize Waldorf/was "popularity of Waldorf"
By ldenike aol.com
RE: who has the "right" to criticize Waldorf/was
"popularity of Waldorf"
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By motormouth punkAss.com
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
Student Art on Display at SF Airport Gallery
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By ldenike aol.com
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By ldenike aol.com
Re: Student Art on Display at SF Airport Gallery
By ldenike aol.com
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By motormouth punkAss.com
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:59:58 -0400
From: "nanette blank" (nanetteblank hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Gabriel stated:
)Put another way, doesn’t it seem strange to you that there is not a
)single recognized anthroposophical scholar represented on this list?
)Supposedly if this list had significant issues with Waldorf education,
)the experts would listen.
)
Nanette remarks:
Representation of an anthrosophical scholar does not invalidate the
criticisms of WE. In many cases, the schools do not address the problems in
the educational system when taken directly to them. Why would they address a
group? I was glad that Serena found a case where a Waldorf school took
action to improve the level of education provided. It took the state
threatening to not renew the charter, but if it works it could provide some
hope that the methodology can incorporate actual currriculum.
Gabriel stated:
While there is always room for improvement in any system, first one should
have some
idea of what the system is.
My reply: Keep in touch with Waldorf critic and you will find that many
understand the system, curriculum, and methodology very well, both in the
ideal and actual application.
Gabriel again:
(How often have you invited a teacher home just to get to know them?)
Me: Knowledge of family's home lifestyle at our school is often gossip, and
cruelly used by faculty. Don't go there.
Gabriel:
I have yet to meet a single trained teacher who has not had the child’s well
being foremost in their waking and sleeping moments. How many parents
can attest to that level of intimacy?
ME: Because the teachers "hold the children in their thought" they believe
that they undersatnd the children and neglect that their ideas color
perception of all events too. In grades the teachers actively try to
seperate the parents and children. Not a healthy. Interfering.
Gabriel:
What are WCs individually proud of in their work? What
)have they created? Good, Now lets look at what they hope to destroy: an
)international peace loving school, based on human insight, which
)represent the single best defence against rampant industrializing of
)human beings. Hmm. Or I suppose one could pretend that the world is
)doing just fine. To each her own.
ME: WE is made of people who fall into the same mistakes as everyone. So
maybe more of them could acknowledge this, then they could show their love
by providing an education and a school safe of physical and emotional harm.
Gabriel:
)I am a student of Steiners and a Wadolf supporter and I think I have
)earned my right to speak about Waldorf. But that is my own perspective
)which will certainly be met by others.
Me: I would not deny you right to speak about Waldorf or your experiences,
but ask that you hear what others have thought and experienced too. It is
part of discourse.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:05:32 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: RSteiner: Pioneer in "Organic Architecture"
www.tampere.fi/english/ vapriikki/exhibitions/organic.htm
Organic Architecture
The Human Being and Nature As a Source of Inspiration
19 May – 25 September 2005 at Vapriikki, Tampere
The Tampere Museum of Contemporary Art and the Museum Centre Vapriikki are
contributing to the topical debate on architecture by presenting an exhibition
that offers a broad review of the history, current state, and future of organic
architecture. This travelling exhibition, put together by the Dutch Iona
Stichting Foundation, showcases more than 50 architectural sites. It includes
substantial photographic material, scale models, draft blueprints, and some pieces
of furniture. The curator of the exhibition is architect Prof. Pieter van der
Ree from Utrecht. The exhibition was previously on display in Amsterdam and
Berlin.
Organic architecture has its foundation in living nature, which offers an
endless supply of ideas, aesthetic forms, and structural solutions for the
practical design of both the external form and internal functions of buildings.
Pioneers of organic architecture
The movement stems from an undercurrent in the architecture of the last
century that created some of our best loved buildings. The buildings of pioneers
Frank Lloyd Wright, Antonio Gaudi, Rudolf Steiner, and Erich Mendelsohn received
a great deal of attention immediately upon their creation. Today, they are
classified as works of early Modernism. As representatives of organic
architecture, they have stood the test of time and the passing of styles and fashions,
and they are now being awarded increasing appreciation.
The term ‘organic architecture’ was coined by Louis Sullivan (1856–1924), an
architect and thinker from Chicago. He arrived at his famous axiom that ‘form
follows function’ by observing nature. For Sullivan, function was not
restricted only to external function but was more about the internal essence of a
building. Every architectural element and detail had to be related to the whole,
and the whole had to be in harmony at a higher level. Sullivan’s most famous
student and implementer of organic architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–
1959), brilliantly captured the character of the landscape in his ‘Prairie Style’
houses by letting the living spaces flow together seamlessly, by having indoor
spaces open to outdoor living spaces, and through his choice of materials.
[...........]
Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), in turn, brought into focus a spiritual view of
man and the world. These views were evident in his buildings, especially the
Goetheanum in Dornach. His basic idea was based on the laws of metamorphosis
found in natural processes, originally presented by Goethe. In buildings designed
by Steiner, forms emerge from preceding forms – repetition and the monotonic
raster are replaced with organic design.
[.......}
Organic architecture today
The exhibition concentrates for the most part on organic architecture of
recent years around the world. A new generation of architects now continues the
work of the pioneers. Today, modern techniques are in use, and a strong
awareness of ecological connections, local building methods, and health considerations
affects designs. The involvement of users of buildings in both the design and
the building process is also increasingly important. The works of well-known
architects such as Calatrava, Makowecz, Eble, and Pietilä, as well as many new
innovations, such as the FurnÃ(c)mont barn in Belgium or the Portus-Bau nursery
school in the desert, presented at the exhibition, show that approaches may be
different while all remaining close to users.
Many users of modern buildings are unhappy with the monotonous bleakness of
mainstream modern architecture. They seek more comfortable forms that better
meet people’s needs, and usually these forms are found in the past. The
exhibition, however, offers many choices. It displays premises for modern,
experiential, and humane architecture that coincides with the ideas and experiences of
people today.
Finnish architectural firms offering organic architectural solutions will be
displayed in a separate section in Vapriikki on 1 June – 14 August 2005.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:20:36 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: who has the right to criticize Waldorf/was
"the popularity of Waldor
Wow! Boy, are you ever a clear advertisement for what Waldorf is all about.
Couldn't ask for better. I especially appreciate the observation that "The
more training one does the more accessible invisible phenomena become, the
more 'strange' one behaves." This is certainly something Waldorf parents
have observed in their children's teachers!
This post, combined with your earlier comments:
"I have yet to meet a single trained teacher who has not had the child's
well being foremost in their waking and sleeping moments. How many parents
can attest to that level of intimacy?"
. . . tell parents quite a bit about what they need to know of Waldorf
teachers' attitudes and beliefs, especially regarding the teacher's
superiority in every way to the child's parents.
Thank you, Gabriel!
Diana
Gabriel wrote:
)Lisa,
)Thank you for your reply.
)I am not sure where you are in your own self development, nor how you
)will understand what I am going to say but:
)By "trained" I mean a cumulative path of knowledge of ONE'S SELF which
)begins with the first Steiner book one reads to completion and continues
)throughout ones life. So criticising a path of knowledge that begins and
)ends with one self is in fact "ridiculous". Also, no one is lock-step
)with Steiner( a nazis-expression.) and Philosophy of Freedom is quite
)clear on this basic point. My mainstream pre school training in
)California was shallow in comparison to Waldorf. These are two
)completely different levels of dedication, both to one self and to other
)fellow human beings. The more training one does the more accessible
)invisible phenomena become, the more "strange" one behaves.
)The word we are looking for to describe why waldorfians carry Steiner
)books around is LOVE. Image a group of people who spent every moment of
)every day meditating on how to treat one self and others through LOVE:
)That is why they are doing those strange things at your school- if you
)are still connected with that school. That is also the reason why it
)seems that what they do is so mysterious: Because No system today is run
)through LOVE, but instead through competition, sex, earning power,
)reading competence, self aggrandizement.
)Why is Waldorf different? Look a little closer to your Steiner.
)The idealism that you and others harbour lives at every Waldorf school,
)but anger is blinding you to the positive elements that are all around
)you. I am sure that if you approached the school with positive energy
)they would "read" it and be more open. Waldorfians usually do not give
)energy to NEGATIVITY, but ignore it. That way it loses energy. I
)challenge any critic to go to a Waldorf school and be QUIET. Simply
)listen to the silence. Not to your own inner voice. Silence that too. It
)is not like other silences but instead your heart may be changed,
)unexpectedly.
)By the way, I work every day to bridge the gap between parents and
)teachers at our school.
)Gabriel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:20:47 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: re: who has the "right" to criticize Waldorf/was "popularity of Waldorf"
Gabriel,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Where to begin to respond to your response? How about I plunge right in? (g)
Gabriel, you said: ((Also, no one is lock-step with Steiner (a nazi's expression.)))
Lisa: Yes, Gabriel, there certainly *are* teachers and students of Anthroposophy who *are* in lock-step with Steiner, or who at least attempt to be. You take issue with my use of the term "lock-step," which you associate with the Third Reich. Actually, the expression that connotes association with the Nazis would be "goose step." (g) Nevertheless, quite a few teachers of my acquaintance and those of other critics (and we have discussed this rather in depth here and on the survivors' list for years and years) attempted to do things "by the book," that is, according to how Steiner would have done it. (Or, rather, how they imagined Steiner would have done it.) To an insider such as yourself (who is clearly sympatico with Anthroposophy and its tenets and beliefs and ways), this probably seems quite normal. To those of us who enrolled our children in Waldorf schools because the schools were advertised and promoted as nonsectarian, non religious, arts based and progressive (all wrong, wrong, wrong!), this attempt by teachers to do things as Steiner would have done them (had he lived in the 21st century!) was often reminiscent of the culture around Chairman Mao Zedong's People's Republic of China, right down to the carrying of the Steiner books (remember Mao's Little Red Book of quotations?) and the cult of personality around Rudolf Steiner. I think this lock-step, what-would-Steiner-do mentality is probably not at all what Steiner himself would have wanted teachers to do, but it is what happens many times in modern Waldorf schools, where the objective seems often to be "Anthroposophical purity" rather than "What works best to help educate the children?" An example: Gabriel, do you really think it is a good idea in modern life to put a dunce cap on a child's head to shame him or her? It might have been acceptable back in Steiner's day, but very few modern educational psychologists and human development experts today would think that is a good idea! Yet former parents from Waldorf schools around the world have reported this happening in the last ten years! Why does it allegedly happen? Because, apparently, Steiner taught thus. Shaming was apparently an acceptable behavior modification technique in turn-of-the-century Germany, but has little place in the modern world of education, to my way of thinking.
Gabriel, you said: ((The word we are looking for to describe why Waldorfians carry Steiner books around is LOVE. Imagine a group of people who spent every moment of every day meditating on how to treat one self and others through LOVE: That is why they are doing strange things at your school ...))
Lisa: I would say something sarcastic, but I don't want to be unkind. You clearly are in earnest here, and it is certainly your right to believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you don't harm anyone else in the process. Yes, I think that the reason Waldorfians carry Steiner books around is LOVE: they LOVE Steiner. It's the same reason some Christians carry around The Bible, or Muslims carry around the Koran (or certain people in China in the 1960s carried around Mao's Little Red Book.) In the case of Waldorfians, they are devoted to the man, Steiner, and his ideas, and they carry the book around as a token of that affection, devotion, and -- quite frankly -- to show off to the other people in their school how devoted they are. (I don't know what old Rudy would think about this, but I know what Jesus taught about praying in public to win other people's admiration for one's piety. He said not to do it.) Call me cynical, but I honestly believe that some Waldorf teachers carry around Philosophy of Freedom and other books of Steiner's teachings because it is an ostentatious display of how devoted they are.
Now, on to your assertion that Waldorf teachers spend every minute of every day meditating on how to treat one's self and others through LOVE. Gabriel, do you *really* believe that? I don't. It simply is not possible for someone to meditate every minute of every day and still participate and live in the real world. And why do they need to do so, anyway? Clearly, the best way to treat others is simple: the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, conversely (and also) do not do unto others as you do not want them to do unto you (Confucius.)
While I have no doubt that many (most) Waldorf teachers are honestly nice people with the best of intentions, that often comes up short in the real world of working each day with children. (It's also the sad truth that not every Waldorf teachers -- or teacher at any school for that matter, Waldorf or otherwise -- is a truly nice person.) Case in point: an online friend of mine worked for a few years as an assistant to a very Anthroposophically correct Waldorf teacher at a Waldorf kindergarten. This teacher rarely missed an opportunity to be cruel to the children in little sniveling ways, from pinching their ears to shaming them. Apparently, this woman was well thought of by the other Anthroposophists/teachers at the school, as she was doctrinally quite correct, knew her Steiner inside and out, etc. This was a woman that others may have thought spent every second of every day and night "holding" the children in her thoughts. Too bad she was mean to them and rigid beyond belief in the classroom.
Gabriel, you said: ((I challenge any critic to go to a Waldorf school and be quiet. Simply listen to the silence.))
Lisa: Gabriel, I was an active and valued member of our former Waldorf school's community for almost six years. I did a lot of volunteer work for the school and was in the classrooms (or meetings related to the school) several times a week. You seem to have the misguided notion that we critics know nothing of the workings of Waldorf. Wrong. We do. We and our children LIVED the day to day in Waldorf for many years combined. We know the good things. Heck, it was the good things (or what we were told would be the good things) that brought us through the front doors in the first place, and prompted us to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars and untold amounts of energy working with and for the school. When we or our children encountered problems, many of us tried to work with the schools to correct those problems. Unfortunately, we came to learn that the folks at our schools were not interested in correcting the problems. They were interested, instead, in protecting their teachers and the system, even when the teacher or the system, or both, were clearly in need of fixing!
By the way, I am intrigued by your notion that a Waldorf school should be silent. What really good school exists in silence? A good school should be full of life, complete with the voices of children talking, laughing, asking questions, interacting. Yes, there is a time for silence. But I wonder that silence is the word you choose, above all others, to describe Waldorf.
Gabriel, you said: (( By the way, I work every day to bridge the gap between parents and teacheres at our school.))
Lisa: That's good to hear. Do you perceive that there is a large gap between those two parties at your school? If so, how are you working to resolve it? If I can give you some input, please make sure that all the parents of children at your school truly understand that their children are getting an education according to the tenets of Anthroposophy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:27:35 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: who has the "right" to criticize Waldorf/was
"popularity of Waldorf"
Thanks for such a great reply to Gabriel, Lisa . . .
You coined a great phrase here (G):
)I think this (snip)what-would-Steiner-do mentality
)By the way, I am intrigued by your notion that a Waldorf school should be
)silent. What really good school exists in silence?
Oh c'mon Lisa, he means a "spiritual" silence (G)
)Gabriel, you said: (( By the way, I work every day to bridge the gap
)between parents and teacheres at our school.))
)Lisa: That's good to hear.
I think, Lisa, that he means that posts like that one, communications like
that one, are what he does to bridge the gap. That is honestly how he
perceives himself.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:40:39 -0400
From: motormama (motormouth punkAss.com)
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Nanette Blank wrote:
) Gabriel:
) I have yet to meet a single trained teacher who has not had the
) child’s well
) being foremost in their waking and sleeping moments. How many parents
) can attest to that level of intimacy?
nanette writes:
) ME: Because the teachers "hold the children in their thought" they
) believe that they undersatnd the children and neglect that their ideas
) color perception of all events too. In grades the teachers actively
) try to seperate the parents and children. Not a healthy. Interfering.
)
M rosso says to gabriel:
i'm sorry but that is just such utter nonsense - there is NO WAY your
average waldorf "teacher" (veeeery often a stay at home mom without a
background in education who starts substituting and then slowly does
her teacher training by having a mentor and taking classes at a waldorf
college - without any knowledge of any other educational thinker or
theory than steiner!) will have "the child's well being foremost in
their walking and sleeping moments" !!!
first of all because your/their idea of a child's wellbeing differs
drastically from that of that child's parents or doctor or psychologist
or any other adult involved with that particular child - secondly -
because there is the issue of the karma of the class - which in a
waldorf environment (as any other cult) overrides the well being of a
singular child - n'est ce pas? and what are you saying, that the
teacher has a higher level of intimacy with the child than the
parent???
do you understand _what_ you are writing???
thank you for sharing - reinforces my decision to get out of the
"family" before it was too late.
M rosso
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:58:03 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
M. Rosso:
)what are you saying, that the teacher has a higher level of intimacy with
)the child than the parent???
Make no mistake that that is what he is saying.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 17:53:31 +0000
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Which of these two options is more realistic:
1) Waldorf is based on a path of knowledge which is so unique and offers
so much to so many – even the redemption of mankind - that it has the
100 percent support of all who UNDERSTAND what Steiner has offered. They
are neither stupid, nor crazy, nor inclined to cult behaviour- simply
convinced using their god given rationality, and proof through direct
experience. The path of knowledge is so unlike any other religion,
philosophy or psychological theory, that those people who do not take
the time to understand this schooling simply judge it from extremities.
This superficial judgement, while well intentioned, lacks all
comprehension of the subject and uses common terms to try to
“pigeon-hole” it. The result is a gulf between those who know what they
are involved in and those outside looking in angrily.
Or
2) Waldorf is the world’s largest, fastest growing independent school
system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
As I see it option one is more plausible.
Gabriel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:24:29 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Gabriel:
)1) Waldorf is based on a path of knowledge which is so unique and
offers
)so much to so many - even the redemption of mankind -
Ah yes there it is, the redemption of mankind.
)that it has the 100 percent support of all who UNDERSTAND what Steiner has
)offered. They are neither stupid, nor crazy, nor inclined to cult
)behaviour- simply convinced using their god given rationality, and proof
)through direct experience. The path of knowledge is so unlike any other
)religion, philosophy or psychological theory, that those people who do not
)take the time to understand this schooling simply judge it from
)extremities.
I am guessing you meant to write "externals" rather than "extremities";
unfortunately, most movements do end up getting judged by those who go to
extremes, and it's up to the wiser heads to reign in those who tend to
extremes. Equally unfortunately, those going to extremes usually think
they're really quite moderate and reasonable (though when they are a bit
further gone, they will sometimes openly state that they can redeem
mankind).
)Or
)2) Waldorf is the world's largest, fastest growing independent school
)system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
)As I see it option one is more plausible.
Or:
Option 3: Waldorf is full of well-intentioned, idealistic people who got
caught up in a spiritual movement, as well as a number of real die-hard
zealots (who tend to be adept at manipulation and know how to maneuver
themselves into power positions from which they can make life a living hell
for many below them in the hiearchy). Like many spiritual movements,
anthroposophy and thus Waldorf has its good points and bad, but sorely needs
to move on, at this point, past dogmatic adherence to its long-dead guru,
and to listen to outside critiques, as any movement needs, in order to
flourish.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:06:20 +0000
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
I’m sorry but I continue to fail to see how Diana Winters can determine
what Waldorf schools need. I believe my posts have covered this
misconception.
I wonder what moderate you are referring to. This is not a relative
situation where your understanding of how things should be interpreted
can be qualitatively more appropriate. One either knows what one is
involved in or one doesn’t. I am quite sure that from your post you have
no idea how a Waldorf school SHOULD run, but are determined to provide
personal insight into what you believe is wrong. Obviously those who are
faithful to Steiner’s intent do NOT share your distain for his “dogma” (
THAT is a riot! Now I am sure you have no idea what Steiner offered) and
are happily continuing their work.
Well life is filled with REAL evil and then on the other hand there are
people who fill their days demonizing the Good. Do you know there is a
distinct difference between old and new souls? Do you know which you
are?
Gabriel
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Gabriel:
)
) )1) Waldorf is based on a path of knowledge which is so unique and
) offers
) )so much to so many - even the redemption of mankind -
)
) Ah yes there it is, the redemption of mankind.
)
) )that it has the 100 percent support of all who UNDERSTAND what Steiner
) )has
) )offered. They are neither stupid, nor crazy, nor inclined to cult
) )behaviour- simply convinced using their god given rationality, and proof
) )through direct experience. The path of knowledge is so unlike any other
) )religion, philosophy or psychological theory, that those people who do
) )not
) )take the time to understand this schooling simply judge it from
) )extremities.
)
) I am guessing you meant to write "externals" rather than "extremities";
) unfortunately, most movements do end up getting judged by those who go
) to
) extremes, and it's up to the wiser heads to reign in those who tend to
) extremes. Equally unfortunately, those going to extremes usually think
) they're really quite moderate and reasonable (though when they are a bit
) further gone, they will sometimes openly state that they can redeem
) mankind).
)
)
) )Or
)
)
) )2) Waldorf is the world's largest, fastest growing independent school
) )system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
)
) )As I see it option one is more plausible.
)
) Or:
)
) Option 3: Waldorf is full of well-intentioned, idealistic people who got
) caught up in a spiritual movement, as well as a number of real die-hard
) zealots (who tend to be adept at manipulation and know how to maneuver
) themselves into power positions from which they can make life a living
) hell
) for many below them in the hiearchy). Like many spiritual movements,
) anthroposophy and thus Waldorf has its good points and bad, but sorely
) needs
) to move on, at this point, past dogmatic adherence to its long-dead
) guru,
) and to listen to outside critiques, as any movement needs, in order to
) flourish.
)
) Diana
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:16:11 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Student Art on Display at SF Airport Gallery
http://hs.sfwaldorf.org/news/
- May 2005 -
Founders’ Night 2005
Last Thursday evening Founders’ Night continued the impressive tradition
of presenting a rich array of high school student work, both academic and
artistic from the 2004-2005 year. On display were main lesson books representing
all aspects of our curriculum –humanities, math, science, cultural studies,
and aesthetics – together with artistic work from all the art blocks. It was a
very impressive display of work! The evening included brief words from a
student representative from each of the four classes – freshman Audrey Tommassini,
sophomore Alejandro Artiga-Purcell, junior Sylvia Pines, and seniors Zoe Deeg
and Patrick Lingane – followed by a musical concert showcasing each of the
ensembles that represent the year-long music classes: guitar, jazz band, chamber
chorus, orchestra, and all-school choir.
The 18-student guitar ensemble, under the direction of David Amato, gave
its first performance with two very fine pieces Eleanor Rigby and Norwegian
Wood (Lennon/McCartney). The Jazz Band, which meets twice each week during
their lunch break for rehearsals, played two outstanding pieces by Duke Ellington
and Thelonious Monk. Bravo to Director Cory Combs for the great work of this
group! Director Victor Floyd selected Vivaldi, Mozart, T.Bone Burnett & Elvis
Costello, and the spiritual The Scarlet Tide for the Chamber Chorus pieces,
all beautifully sung with an outstanding solo by Haley Selmon.
The orchestra presented two excellent pieces by Grieg and Piazzolla, but
the highlight of their performance was Director Cory Comb’s piece Instrument
Closet, and Vivaldi’s Winter (from the Four Seasons) featuring violin soloist,
Kayo Miki. The All-School Choir ended the performance with Beethoven’s Ich
liebe dich and Haydn’s The Heavens are Telling (from The Creation), challenging
work performed with passion that was a joy to hear! Thank you to our students
and music faculty for your outstanding efforts! - Barbara Allen, High School
Administrator
Student Art on Display at Airport Gallery
SFWHS is delighted once again to have drawings and paintings by our high
school students featured at the San Francisco Airport Gallery. During the
months of June and July 2005 a selection of works from the 9th grade Black &
White Drawing, 11th grade Veil Painting and Acrylics, and 12th grade elective Oil
Painting classes will be on exhibit at the Airport Gallery. You may view the
exhibition along the walls on Concourses A and C; and on the lower level of
Terminal One. Congratulations to our students for their fine work!
[...........]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:46:39 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Frankly, Gabriel, both options are unrealistic and implausible. Anthroposophy is not completely unlike other religious or faith based/spiritual paths: whether you choose to admit it or not, it has much in common (belief in a non-physical world and reality, etc.) And it is, of course, ridiculous to make a sweeping statement that Waldorf schools are ALL run by liars and imbeciles, etc. BOTH are wrong.
-----Original Message-----
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 17:53:31 +0000
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
==========================================================
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Get the latest weather,
sports, and lifestyle news you can't afford to miss, all
at a price you can afford to pay! Click now!
http://click.topica.com/caaa9eYb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/TopOffers
==========================================================
Which of these two options is more realistic:
1) Waldorf is based on a path of knowledge which is so unique and offers
so much to so many – even the redemption of mankind - that it has the
100 percent support of all who UNDERSTAND what Steiner has offered. They
are neither stupid, nor crazy, nor inclined to cult behaviour- simply
convinced using their god given rationality, and proof through direct
experience. The path of knowledge is so unlike any other religion,
philosophy or psychological theory, that those people who do not take
the time to understand this schooling simply judge it from extremities.
This superficial judgement, while well intentioned, lacks all
comprehension of the subject and uses common terms to try to
“pigeon-hole†it. The result is a gulf between those who know what they
are involved in and those outside looking in angrily.
Or
2) Waldorf is the world’s largest, fastest growing independent school
system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
As I see it option one is more plausible.
Gabriel
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:51:19 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Gabriel, I am not sure if you know how pompous you sound! You sound as if you are the only person who *really* knows and understands how waldorf schools operate in the real world. That is, of course, ridiculous. Diana worked at a Waldorf school for some time; she has seen it from the inside out, and from the outside in.
I am puzzled as to why you cannot seem to either understand or admit that there are some Waldorf families whose children had very unhappy and even harmful experiences with Waldorf schools. You seem to dismiss our families' pain and yes, suffering (not to mention incidentals such as expense, etc.) out of hand, because it doesn't fit with *your* idealized notions of what Waldorf's potential is. Surely you can admit that even the most well intentioned spiritual movement is run by human beings, and that those human beings are imperfect and prone to making mistakes, can't you?
Diana has just as much right to state what she views as the deficits and shortcomings of Waldorf as you do.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:06:20 +0000
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
==========================================================
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Get the latest weather,
sports, and lifestyle news you can't afford to miss, all
at a price you can afford to pay! Click now!
http://click.topica.com/caaa9eYb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/TopOffers
==========================================================
I’m sorry but I continue to fail to see how Diana Winters can determine
what Waldorf schools need. I believe my posts have covered this
misconception.
I wonder what moderate you are referring to. This is not a relative
situation where your understanding of how things should be interpreted
can be qualitatively more appropriate. One either knows what one is
involved in or one doesn’t. I am quite sure that from your post you have
no idea how a Waldorf school SHOULD run, but are determined to provide
personal insight into what you believe is wrong. Obviously those who are
faithful to Steiner’s intent do NOT share your distain for his “dogma†(
THAT is a riot! Now I am sure you have no idea what Steiner offered) and
are happily continuing their work.
Well life is filled with REAL evil and then on the other hand there are
people who fill their days demonizing the Good. Do you know there is a
distinct difference between old and new souls? Do you know which you
are?
Gabriel
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Gabriel:
)
) )1) Waldorf is based on a path of knowledge which is so unique and
) offers
) )so much to so many - even the redemption of mankind -
)
) Ah yes there it is, the redemption of mankind.
)
) )that it has the 100 percent support of all who UNDERSTAND what Steiner
) )has
) )offered. They are neither stupid, nor crazy, nor inclined to cult
) )behaviour- simply convinced using their god given rationality, and proof
) )through direct experience. The path of knowledge is so unlike any other
) )religion, philosophy or psychological theory, that those people who do
) )not
) )take the time to understand this schooling simply judge it from
) )extremities.
)
) I am guessing you meant to write "externals" rather than "extremities";
) unfortunately, most movements do end up getting judged by those who go
) to
) extremes, and it's up to the wiser heads to reign in those who tend to
) extremes. Equally unfortunately, those going to extremes usually think
) they're really quite moderate and reasonable (though when they are a bit
) further gone, they will sometimes openly state that they can redeem
) mankind).
)
)
) )Or
)
)
) )2) Waldorf is the world's largest, fastest growing independent school
) )system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
)
) )As I see it option one is more plausible.
)
) Or:
)
) Option 3: Waldorf is full of well-intentioned, idealistic people who got
) caught up in a spiritual movement, as well as a number of real die-hard
) zealots (who tend to be adept at manipulation and know how to maneuver
) themselves into power positions from which they can make life a living
) hell
) for many below them in the hiearchy). Like many spiritual movements,
) anthroposophy and thus Waldorf has its good points and bad, but sorely
) needs
) to move on, at this point, past dogmatic adherence to its long-dead
) guru,
) and to listen to outside critiques, as any movement needs, in order to
) flourish.
)
) Diana
)
)
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:54:15 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Student Art on Display at SF Airport Gallery
I am happy to see that the kids at this school are allowed to play jazz. When my daughter was a Waldorf student and wanted to choose a saxaphone as her instrument, we were told, unequivocally, that it was NOT an appropriate choice. Why? Not because the school did not have access to a sax teacher: it did. But because the music played by and on a saxophone was not spiritually OK for a third grader. They wanted her to play the violin, and they insisted she play it. She was miserable. She gave it up as soon as she could and refuses to learn another instrument to this day.
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:16:11 EDT
Subject: Student Art on Display at SF Airport Gallery
==========================================================
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Get the latest weather,
sports, and lifestyle news you can't afford to miss, all
at a price you can afford to pay! Click now!
http://click.topica.com/caaa9eYb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/TopOffers
==========================================================
http://hs.sfwaldorf.org/news/
- May 2005 -
Founders’ Night 2005
Last Thursday evening Founders’ Night continued the impressive tradition
of presenting a rich array of high school student work, both academic and
artistic from the 2004-2005 year. On display were main lesson books
representing
all aspects of our curriculum –humanities, math, science, cultural studies,
and aesthetics – together with artistic work from all the art blocks. It was a
very impressive display of work! The evening included brief words from a
student representative from each of the four classes – freshman Audrey
Tommassini,
sophomore Alejandro Artiga-Purcell, junior Sylvia Pines, and seniors Zoe Deeg
and Patrick Lingane – followed by a musical concert showcasing each of the
ensembles that represent the year-long music classes: guitar, jazz band, chamber
chorus, orchestra, and all-school choir.
The 18-student guitar ensemble, under the direction of David Amato, gave
its first performance with two very fine pieces Eleanor Rigby and Norwegian
Wood (Lennon/McCartney). The Jazz Band, which meets twice each week during
their lunch break for rehearsals, played two outstanding pieces by Duke
Ellington
and Thelonious Monk. Bravo to Director Cory Combs for the great work of this
group! Director Victor Floyd selected Vivaldi, Mozart, T.Bone Burnett & Elvis
Costello, and the spiritual The Scarlet Tide for the Chamber Chorus pieces,
all beautifully sung with an outstanding solo by Haley Selmon.
The orchestra presented two excellent pieces by Grieg and Piazzolla, but
the highlight of their performance was Director Cory Comb’s piece Instrument
Closet, and Vivaldi’s Winter (from the Four Seasons) featuring violin soloist,
Kayo Miki. The All-School Choir ended the performance with Beethoven’s Ich
liebe dich and Haydn’s The Heavens are Telling (from The Creation), challenging
work performed with passion that was a joy to hear! Thank you to our students
and music faculty for your outstanding efforts! - Barbara Allen, High School
Administrator
Student Art on Display at Airport Gallery
SFWHS is delighted once again to have drawings and paintings by our high
school students featured at the San Francisco Airport Gallery. During the
months of June and July 2005 a selection of works from the 9th grade Black &
White Drawing, 11th grade Veil Painting and Acrylics, and 12th grade elective
Oil
Painting classes will be on exhibit at the Airport Gallery. You may view the
exhibition along the walls on Concourses A and C; and on the lower level of
Terminal One. Congratulations to our students for their fine work!
[...........]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
--- Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se) wrote:
) Which of these two options is more realistic:
)
) 1) Waldorf is based on a path of knowledge.
Anthroposophy. Now why can't the Waldorf PR machine
be as straightforward as you are?
) which is
) so unique
Actually, Steiner borrowed from many religions,
spiritual movements and philosophies - Zoroastrianism,
Christianity, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, to name just
a few.
) and offers
) so much to so many – even the redemption of mankind
Nothing unique about offering the redemption of
mankind. Numrous religions, cults, and individuals
have been doing that throughout history.
) - that it has the
) 100 percent support of all who UNDERSTAND what
) Steiner has offered.
Not true.
) They
) are neither stupid, nor crazy,
Of course not (although there might be some
exceptions). Cults draw in intelligent, sane people,
most of whom want to live meaningful, good lives.
) nor inclined to cult
) behaviour
It's only those outside the cult or who have left the
cult who can recognize the cult's behavior as "cult
behavior."
) - simply
) convinced using their god given rationality
Convinced, yes. Using their god given rationality?
That's your opinion. I don't believe rationality
enters into it. My guess is they are more likely
using their desperation for answers coupled with the
erosion of their critical thinking skills.
) and
) proof through direct
) experience.
The human being is a marvelous creature, capable of so
much delusion. There's a lot of conviction in our
world, especially religious conviction. I'm not
saying there isn't any truth in any of people's
convictions but a rational person knows that all
religions cannot have an exclusive handle on the
ultimate truth. Even in the ordinary material world,
ten people can witness an event and be convinced that
their perception of what happened is accurate when in
fact all ten describe details that are in complete
contradiction of each other. What you describe as
direct experience is really a matter of perception.
) The path of knowledge is so unlike any
) other religion,
) philosophy or psychological theory,
Again, not an accurate perception. Any well educated
person who has studied Anthropsophy and Steiner knows
that he drew from many different sources.
) that those
) people who do not take
) the time to understand this schooling simply judge
) it from extremities.
You're having this discussion with people who have
taken the time to experience, study and think
critically about this schooling.
) This superficial judgement,
An inaccurate assessment.
) while well intentioned,
I'm glad you can recognize that.
) lacks all
) comprehension of the subject
Hardly.
) and uses common terms
) to try to
) “pigeon-hole” it.
Common terms? Are there some favorite
Anthroposophical words you would prefer we used? Are
you aware that creating jargon and using words
differently from their standard definitions is a cult
practice?
) The result is a gulf between those
) who know what they
) are involved in and those outside looking in
) angrily.
Here we go again with the enlightened people in the
cult and the unenlightened from the mainstream outside
the cult!
) Or
)
) 2) Waldorf is the world’s largest, fastest growing
) independent school
) system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent
) misguided imbeciles.
)
) As I see it option one is more plausible.
Presenting these two options as though there were the
only two represents limited thinking, Gabriel. There
is a multitude of other options.
An example of another option: Waldorf schools are run
by a cult, which, like any cult, promotes the myth
that it is good and mainstream is bad, degrades the
critical thinking skills of its mostly
well-intentioned members through a gradual process of
thought reform and, worst of all, engages in deception
which opens the door to all kinds of negative
consequences for everyone involved.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here. I
do recognize your good intentions.
Best wishes,
Margaret
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 17:16:33 -0400
From: motormama (motormouth punkAss.com)
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
)
) 2) Waldorf is the world’s largest, fastest growing independent school
) system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
there is some truth to that dear Sune, or, hrm - Gabriel; they might
not be imbeciles but definitely slightly misguided.
some of us here also know how that "independent" school system grows...
some of us have been approached in the park, by strangers asking if
we would be interested in starting a private waldorf school in our
area, we've gone to meetings and given money and started studygroups
and attended study groups and we've asked tons of questions and gotten
that "enlightened" smile in response: "steiner is difficult - you'll
know when it's time..."
still, some of us didn't give up, we gave more money (we were told that
we are very special people, real leaders, and that we definitely we're
in the top group of the (local) organisation - we were lectured on the
hierarchy, on how we have to embrace that we are leaders and not feel
bad that we were picked rather than voted in, we were told that we
would have to give a lot of money, or even better - find someone really
rich that could fund the start up - but not to worry, once we had some
serious money the rudolf steiner foundation (and some other secret
sources) woul chip in - it was all very hierarchical and hush hush and
weird.
when we wanted the woman who was "mentoring" us to be on the board
officially it got very weird - because she wanted to stay "behind the
scenes" - it was supposed to look as if the school was started by
parents.
a really interesting detail from our "adventures" as a waldorf
initiative was also that most of the parents wanted it to be a charter
school - and the "mentor" was so against it that she basically
threatened to back out if we pursued a charter school option. finally
she convinced the other "leader" in our group to drop the charter
school issue which was fine with me, because not long after that we
found dan dugan's website and after doing a lot of research we decided
that none of the twenty families involved were ready to join a cult.
mazel tov!
m rosso
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 17:17:21 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
In a message dated 6/1/2005 3:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Lisa writes:
And it is, of course, ridiculous to make a sweeping statement that Waldorf
schools are ALL run by liars and imbeciles, etc. BOTH are wrong.
------------
Lisa -- you'd better let Pete know about this: he claims that there are
only "one or two" honest people in the WE movement!
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 06:09:42 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
)
)
) In a message dated 6/1/2005 3:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Lisa
) writes:
)
) And it is, of course, ridiculous to make a sweeping statement that
) Waldorf
) schools are ALL run by liars and imbeciles, etc. BOTH are wrong.
)
) ------------
)
) Lisa -- you'd better let Pete know about this: he claims that there are
) only "one or two" honest people in the WE movement!
)
) Serena Blaue
)
) [Non-sense portions of this message have been removed]
)
Yeah, but I'm sure everyone who read it thought *they* were the
exceptions...
Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1771
-- Topica Digest --
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By nanetteblank hotmail.com
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By ldenike aol.com
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By ldenike aol.com
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Is Waldorf Education "fringe"?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By nanetteblank hotmail.com
RE: Is Waldorf Education "fringe"?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Pete and all: What Ails Thee?
By paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk
Re: purpose of education/was "Is Waldorf ed fringe?"
By paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk
Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk
Re: *** SPAM *** Re: Newton & Goethe, round 247
By paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk
Steiner stream fought - parents oppose school change
By dan dandugan.com
Fwd: Short info on California School Case
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Short info on California School Case
By motormouth punkAss.com
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Pete and all: What Ails Thee?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Short info on California School Case
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:34:57 -0400
From: "nanette blank" (nanetteblank hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
)
) 2) Waldorf is the world’s largest, fastest growing independent school
) system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
About the first phrase: world's largest, fastest growing independent school
system...I looked for facts on this and found none to support this.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:14:40 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Pete is, of course, entitled to his opinion. Mine, however, is that there are many very nice and wonderful people involved in the Waldorf movement: people who care about children, humanity, and all of that good stuff. People like, frankly, me and many of the critics here, all of whom began this journey as ardent fans of Waldorf, or, at least, what we thought Waldorf was.
However, as in any movement or group, there also are people who take things too far, are dishonest, who have bad intentions, etc. etc. As in any school or educational system, there are people who are attracted to it for the wrong reasons: they honestly do not like children and like to have power over them. There are awful teachers and administrators who should never be allowed access to children in every school approach.
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 17:17:21 EDT
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
==========================================================
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Get the latest weather,
sports, and lifestyle news you can't afford to miss, all
at a price you can afford to pay! Click now!
http://click.topica.com/caaa9eYb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/TopOffers
==========================================================
In a message dated 6/1/2005 3:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Lisa writes:
And it is, of course, ridiculous to make a sweeping statement that Waldorf
schools are ALL run by liars and imbeciles, etc. BOTH are wrong.
------------
Lisa -- you'd better let Pete know about this: he claims that there are
only "one or two" honest people in the WE movement!
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:15:51 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
It's a claim that Waldorf makes, and people involved in Waldorf (and reporters) repeat it, so it has taken on a life of its own.
It may be true. Or, it may not. It is hard to prove.
But if something is repeated enough times, people begin to believe it, and it takes on a life of its own.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Nanette Blank (nanetteblank hotmail.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:34:57 -0400
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a Laptop? Get a Sony Vaio Laptop Free!
http://click.topica.com/caadAcrb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/ProductTestPanel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) 2) Waldorf is the world’s largest, fastest growing independent school
) system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent misguided imbeciles.
About the first phrase: world's largest, fastest growing independent school
system...I looked for facts on this and found none to support this.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without painful injections with Nexiderm SP.
Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to reduce wrinkles by 68% Click
here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadAclb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:11:34 +0000
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Ok, I see that this is hopeless.
Sadly the information and the spirit are both insufficient to stand the
test of truth. The truth about exactly what ANTHROPOSPHY is is factually
documented in thousands of lectures and organizations all over the
world. It is not a secret, hundreds of books are available to be READ,
yet there is little that you have shared which is accurate so I have to
ask both myself and the group as INDIVIDUALS: what is your point, as it
clearly is not to share accurate information?
This needs repeating: Anthroposophy is NOT a religion.
It is not based on Christianity, Zoroastrianism, theosophy nor
Rosicrucianism. One can say that Anthroposophy shared some language and
pictorial similarities. One reading these statement should NOT get the
false impression that he “borrow” from any religious movement, to quote
“to name just a few”. What Anthroposophy is is ONCE AGAIN a school of
knowledge that Steiner created, not borrow, stole, misappropriated or
any other non-sense, from individual spiritual insight. ( I feel sadly
that I am talking to a brick wall here.) The fact that he speaks of a
Christ Being/Event is not to be misunderstood to mean Christianity- but
of course you all knew that. Waldorf BY DEFINITION is not a cult as
anthroposophy is not at odds with any majority religion, nor is there a
leader. The word cult signifies that adherents have an alternative view
of reality which is inferior to the majority. It is negative in its use
on this list, over and over and over. There is now a question as to
whether “rationality” is used in Waldorf schools, now that IS a good
question, but not as it was posed here. That discussion I will leave
that for someone else. Direct perception is the foundation of
anthroposophy, but of course you knew that from your studies. Actually
using that insight before making statements about anthroposophy would
help tremendously.
I fear that the collective group intent is to misunderstand
anthroposophy and then go out loudly declaiming it. How should one
respond? Lets forget about the rampant disinterest in actual knowledge
about what anthroposophy is or isn’t. I am not as pompous as you assume,
but I am shocked by the things that I have read on this list as fact.
I suppose this saga can end with mutual disdain, “the indignant prince
and princess rode off into the sunset having no idea what had transpired
nor what anyone else had said.”
Gabriel
Margaret Sachs wrote:
)
) --- Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se) wrote:
)
) ) Which of these two options is more realistic:
) )
) ) 1) Waldorf is based on a path of knowledge.
)
) Anthroposophy. Now why can't the Waldorf PR machine
) be as straightforward as you are?
)
) ) which is
) ) so unique
)
) Actually, Steiner borrowed from many religions,
) spiritual movements and philosophies - Zoroastrianism,
) Christianity, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, to name just
) a few.
)
) ) and offers
) ) so much to so many – even the redemption of mankind
)
) Nothing unique about offering the redemption of
) mankind. Numrous religions, cults, and individuals
) have been doing that throughout history.
)
) ) - that it has the
) ) 100 percent support of all who UNDERSTAND what
) ) Steiner has offered.
)
) Not true.
)
) ) They
) ) are neither stupid, nor crazy,
)
) Of course not (although there might be some
) exceptions). Cults draw in intelligent, sane people,
) most of whom want to live meaningful, good lives.
)
) ) nor inclined to cult
) ) behaviour
)
) It's only those outside the cult or who have left the
) cult who can recognize the cult's behavior as "cult
) behavior."
)
) ) - simply
) ) convinced using their god given rationality
)
) Convinced, yes. Using their god given rationality?
) That's your opinion. I don't believe rationality
) enters into it. My guess is they are more likely
) using their desperation for answers coupled with the
) erosion of their critical thinking skills.
)
) ) and
) ) proof through direct
) ) experience.
)
) The human being is a marvelous creature, capable of so
) much delusion. There's a lot of conviction in our
) world, especially religious conviction. I'm not
) saying there isn't any truth in any of people's
) convictions but a rational person knows that all
) religions cannot have an exclusive handle on the
) ultimate truth. Even in the ordinary material world,
) ten people can witness an event and be convinced that
) their perception of what happened is accurate when in
) fact all ten describe details that are in complete
) contradiction of each other. What you describe as
) direct experience is really a matter of perception.
)
) ) The path of knowledge is so unlike any
) ) other religion,
) ) philosophy or psychological theory,
)
) Again, not an accurate perception. Any well educated
) person who has studied Anthropsophy and Steiner knows
) that he drew from many different sources.
)
) ) that those
) ) people who do not take
) ) the time to understand this schooling simply judge
) ) it from extremities.
)
) You're having this discussion with people who have
) taken the time to experience, study and think
) critically about this schooling.
)
) ) This superficial judgement,
)
) An inaccurate assessment.
)
) ) while well intentioned,
)
) I'm glad you can recognize that.
)
) ) lacks all
) ) comprehension of the subject
)
) Hardly.
)
) ) and uses common terms
) ) to try to
) ) “pigeon-hole” it.
)
) Common terms? Are there some favorite
) Anthroposophical words you would prefer we used? Are
) you aware that creating jargon and using words
) differently from their standard definitions is a cult
) practice?
)
) ) The result is a gulf between those
) ) who know what they
) ) are involved in and those outside looking in
) ) angrily.
)
) Here we go again with the enlightened people in the
) cult and the unenlightened from the mainstream outside
) the cult!
)
) ) Or
) )
) ) 2) Waldorf is the world’s largest, fastest growing
) ) independent school
) ) system run by liars, cheaters and 100 percent
) ) misguided imbeciles.
) )
) ) As I see it option one is more plausible.
)
) Presenting these two options as though there were the
) only two represents limited thinking, Gabriel. There
) is a multitude of other options.
)
) An example of another option: Waldorf schools are run
) by a cult, which, like any cult, promotes the myth
) that it is good and mainstream is bad, degrades the
) critical thinking skills of its mostly
) well-intentioned members through a gradual process of
) thought reform and, worst of all, engages in deception
) which opens the door to all kinds of negative
) consequences for everyone involved.
)
) Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here. I
) do recognize your good intentions.
)
) Best wishes,
) Margaret
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
) http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:36:57 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Hi Gabriel,
I'm doing a little catch up and here and noticed that you wrote:
)Ok, I see that this is hopeless.
There is always hope when one is willing communicate openly - which means
trying to understand/empathize with other people and their
experiences/research.
)Sadly the information and the spirit are both insufficient to stand the
)test of truth. The truth about exactly what ANTHROPOSPHY is is factually
)documented in thousands of lectures and organizations all over the
)world. It is not a secret, hundreds of books are available to be READ,
)yet there is little that you have shared which is accurate so I have to
)ask both myself and the group as INDIVIDUALS: what is your point, as it
)clearly is not to share accurate information?
)This needs repeating: Anthroposophy is NOT a religion.
If you repeat an opinion, it does not follow that your opinion is correct.
My dictionary definition of "Anthroposophy" disagrees with you but I *still*
believe the matter is up for debate. Claiming that people here are sharing
inaccurate information seems strange, Gabriel. Inaccurate information would
be something like... Waldorf School web sites describing Steiner as a
philosopher and a scientist and an educator while neglecting to mention his
real life's work as an occultist. The "point" as I see it and based on years
of being "inside" the movement and years of research after having left the
movement, is to share accurate about Waldorf/Anthroposophy *because* such
vital information is rarely shared by those who promote and work at Waldorf
Schools. That is "the point" and can be clearly shown to be true by virtue
of information found on this list, a very active Waldorf Survivors list, web
sites and various opinions expressed by those still inside the movement. For
example, please share your feelings after reading the words of master
Waldorf teacher of teachers, Eugene Schwartz:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
Gabriel wrote:
)It is not based on Christianity, Zoroastrianism, theosophy nor
)Rosicrucianism.
And:
)I fear that the collective group intent is to misunderstand
)anthroposophy and then go out loudly declaiming it. How should one
)respond? Lets forget about the rampant disinterest in actual knowledge
)about what anthroposophy is or isn't. I am not as pompous as you assume,
)but I am shocked by the things that I have read on this list as fact.
I can understand how you might not like reading people's experiences and
research on this list but to discount these experiences as being the result
of "misunderstanding" Anthroposophy is just plain silly, imo. And the bit
about Anthroposophy not being based on Christianity, Zoroastrianism,
Theosophy or Rosicrucianism makes me wonder how familiar you are with
Anthroposophy? I know Anthroposophists (decent people, btw) who would find
that statement rather odd.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:34:25 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Is Waldorf Education "fringe"?
Hi Margaret,
Margaret Sachs wrote:
[Keith:]
) ) But this can happen in any organisation, not just a
) ) "cult":
)
) Margaret here:
)
) Like a lot of people, I have been involved in many
) non-Waldorf organizations, including schools. I have
) never seen people shunned, slandered, and driven out
) in any of them.
Well, it does happen where there is passionate disagreement and/or
(political) agendas at work.
)
) Keith's reply continued:
)
) ) In political
) ) parties there is limited tolerance of different
) ) views, and members are
) ) encouraged to "toe the party line";
)
) Margaret here:
)
) Politicans might not like different views within their
) own parties but democracy in the U.S. thrives on the
) freedom to express any such disagreement. It's a far
) cry from being "encouraged" to toe the party line to
) being slandered, shunned and driven out.
You haven't seen Australian politics, then. ;)))
)
) The analogy does not work for me on other grounds.
) For example, I don't think that breaking laws designed
) to protect children and covering it up should be
) accepted on the grounds that it's a different view of
) how things should be done at a school. I don't think
) that bullying and silencing parents who want answers
) about such situations in which their children have
) been involved can be justified as a mere matter of
) people having different views.
No, that's true. But I would expect egotism as well as actual concern in
such situations.
)
) Keith's reply continued:
)
) ) corporations
) ) must always appear
) ) positive to the public, in order to protect business
) ) dealings and
) ) revenue, so they use PR to maintain a public image,
) ) and may release
) ) employees who don't pay heed to the corporate
) ) culture and organisational
) ) objectives;
)
) Margaret here:
)
) We're not talking about parents not paying heed to
) school culture and organizational objectives. We're
) talking about parents being mistreated merely for
) asking questions or sharing their concerns with
) faculty members about problems. Any successful
) corporation allows questions and discussions about
) potential problems or they wouldn't stay in business.
Well, as we've seen with some corporate activity in recent years,
deception and contacts can provide years of longevity for a business,
unfortunately.
)
) Keith's reply continued:
)
) ) sports clubs are full of politics,
) ) particularly football,
) ) where footballers are protected and treated like
) ) royalty wherever
) ) possible, etc.
)
) Margaret here:
)
) The fact that footballers might be protected and
) treated like royalty does not, in my opinion, justify
) teachers giving each other preferential treatment when
) it comes to inappropriate behavior. I don't believe
) in the concept of treating any group as superior to
) another. I certainly don't expect that sort of
) behavior from a school that promotes itself as having
) teachers who are pursuing a path of spiritual
) enlightenment.
No, I'm not saying this justifies bad conduct in Waldorf schools. The
comparision with sports culture is to demonstrate that we're looking at
commonplace or culturally prevalent (in certain contexts) human
behaviours. There is little use saying the troubles are Waldorf, when it
seems they are the product of attitudinal rather than philosophical
patterns.
)
) Keith's reply continued:
)
) ) It's totally wrong that critics
) ) suppressed, but they have
) ) to bring something that is totally substantiated to
) ) the table, showing
) ) it is not merely political posturing posing as
) ) objective criticism.
)
) Margaret here:
)
) The people I know, myself and my husband included, who
) found themselves up against a barrier at their
) children's Waldorf schools had not done anything that
) warranted such an extreme and bizarre response. It
) wasn't about political posturing. It was about
) inappropriate behavior by teachers.
)
Thanks,
Keith
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:41:14 -0400
From: "nanette blank" (nanetteblank hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
----- Original Message -----
From: "Why Not" (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
what is your point, as it clearly is not to share accurate information?
..Waldorf BY DEFINITION is not a cult as anthroposophy is not at odds with
any majority religion, nor is there a
leader....
Nanette:
I questions one your facts and you have no response of accurate inforamtion.
Waldorf is not the largest independant school movement by either number of
schools or number of students. Nor was it the fastest growing. I question
the accutracy of your information.
Again, I must question your understanding of the facts. Waldorf Education
has been stated as a cult of personality repeatedly on this list. This is an
important distinction. One interesting fact that I found was that Montessori
schools intentionally focus on the methodology when begining schools in the
U.S. because they believed that a cult of personality does not meet with the
culture in the country.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:17:55 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Is Waldorf Education "fringe"?
Hi Margaret,
You wrote:
) Keith wrote:
)
) ) They could be, it's clearly possible. When you have
) ) a group of people,
) ) invariably divergent views and attitudes from the
) ) stated group aims are
) ) present.
)
) Margaret here:
)
) "Stated group aims" is the key phrase here. If
) Waldorf stated its aims in a manner that represented
) the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
) I wouldn't be here having this discussion with you.
) In fact, this particular list wouldn't even exist.
I agree they could be more clearly stated.
)
) Keith wrote:
)
) ) As to my comparision examples, politicians
) ) are clear examples
) ) of hypocrisy, but it can happen anywhere where
) ) people think that
) ) deception is acceptable.
)
) Exactly. I haven't seen or heard of such deception in
) non-Waldorf schools so, to my knowledge, hypocrisy is
) not an issue in other schools, whatever other problems
) they might have.
)
) ) The problem or at least
) ) debate with Waldorf
) ) appears to be essentially about ideas and attitudes,
) ) not whether or not
) ) teaching or teachers as a category is bad.
)
) Perhaps you have not followed discussions here for
) long but the teaching is very much an issue.
Teaching skill and personal attitude of a teacher have a reciprocal
relationship, I think. If a teacher lacks knowledge or perspective, it
could affect their skill level in teaching.
)
) ) It's
) ) about *attitudes* and
) ) *perception*,
)
) It's also about facts.
And what about **social* facts**? Again, what about attitudes and
perceptions, and how they shape work and activity, how they effect
teaching.
)
) ) whether we mean Waldorf teachers,
) ) parents, administrators
) ) or critics.
)
) I see confusion in lumping critics in with the
) teachers/parents/administrators grouping because, in
) most cases (Pete K as an obvious exception), critics
) were not critics until the dark underside of Waldorf
) drove them away.
)
) ) It's *human beings* and their behaviour
) ) we should be looking
) ) at, and the specific examples of such in the Waldorf
) ) education *and* the
) ) debate over it.
)
) I think that's exactly what people have been doing at
) Waldorf Critics for the past ten years.
)
(snip)
) [Keith:]
) ) If Waldorf is a "cult", why isn't it being
) ) criticised in the mainstream
) ) media? They have devoted news space to the "Branch
) ) Davidians",
) ) "Scientology", "Heaven's Gate" and others.
) [Margaret:]
) Given the apocalyptic nature of the Branch Davidians
) and Heavens Gate, they are far more newsworthy than
) non-apocalyptic cults. I believe that Scientology, on
) the other hand, is comparable in some ways to
) Anthroposophy. I think what saves Anthroposophical
) schools from the same level of publicity is the fact
) that children are involved. Responsible parents help
) their children move on from negative experiences
) rather than exposing them to situations that might
) garner media attention. I'm sure that if you have
) children you will fully understand this. I believe,
) however, that there has been some negative publicity
) about Waldorf schools in Holland and/or Germany.
)
) Margaret Singer states in "Cults in Our Midst" (San
) Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003, pg.3) "The cults whose
) names you tend to recognize are more visible because
) of their size, their flagrant behavior, and for some,
) their self-destructive tendencies. But there are many
) other groups that are subtle and sophisticated, yet
) just as insistent and just as dangerous."
Yes, makes sense.
) [Keith:]
) ) Also, why
) ) aren't the
) ) scientifically based anti-cult organisations after
) ) Waldorf?
) [Margaret:]
) What are the "scientifically based anti-cult
) organisations?"
This group is what I was thinking of:
http://www.cultinfobooks.com/infoserv_icsa/icsa_about.htm
http://www.cultinfobooks.com/infoserv_icsa/icsa_notmaintainlist.htm
)
) ) The word "cult" is a synonym for "sect" and refers
) ) to any religious
) ) group or devoted following, or branch thereof. So
) ) Catholicism,
) ) Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Zen Buddhism,
) ) Mormonism, Hasidism,
) ) Mahayana Buddhism and so on are cults or branchs of
) ) belief system.
)
) You yourself the Branch Davidians and Scientology as
) examples of cults, so it is not clear to me why you
) are pointing out the broader definition of the word
) "cult."
Because cults are either considered socially acceptable or unacceptable.
The unacceptable ones are labelled as cults to entail a deviant aspect,
while mainstream religions are rarely referred to as cults, even though
technically they are. The cults that are considered deviant are labelled
as such by the public because they are felt to be threatening to
society. That's the implication of using the word cult to imply "crazy,
obsessed loons" about a given group. The question is, is the label
really deserved or not?
)
) ) Why
) ) does one have take the tabloid approach, and howl
) ) down with the word
) ) "cult"?
)
) I disagree with you that it is a tabloid approach.
) Many respected professionals are involved in research
) about cults, counseling people who have been involved
) in cults, and publishing books and articles about
) cults. I don't read the tabloids so all the knowledge
) I've gained about cults over the years has come from
) other sources. You've chosen the phrase "howl down,"
) which creates an unattractive image of people who use
) the word. I use the word because it fits.
Look at the ICSA links I've posted above just now.
)
) ) Whilst one can see Waldorf has a devoted
) ) following, it's quite
) ) another thing to use the word "cult" for an emotive,
) ) accusative effect -
) ) it is a **pejorative** term when used in a
) ) **political** way.
)
) It is a pejorative word when used to describe the
) Branch Davidians, Scientology, Heavens Gate, and
) Steiner schools. Its application is based not on the
) fact that a group has a devoted following but rather
) on a set of characteristics that most cults share.
)
) ) Once you
) ) label someone or a group as evil or bad, that label
) ) **sticks**
)
) "Cult" may be used in a pejorative sense but that is
) not the same as labeling its members as evil or bad.
) On the contrary, most cult members are people who want
) to do good in the world but have become misguided in
) some ways in their attempts to do so.
)
) ) and you
) ) create more victims in a society that is held
) ) together to some extent by
) ) fear, self-loathing and self-interest (- this
) ) ***my*** opinion, one
) ) which ***I*** have formed).
)
) By "society" do you mean Anthroposophists or the world
) in general?
The world in general. If you have been following the Australian Schappel
Corby's trial in Indonesia, that would be an example of a ruckus and
scapegoating from all directions by strangers.
)
) ) So, you end up with
) ) people who have had
) ) nothing to do with Waldorf but are angry or
) ) dissatisified about
) ) something, thinking "Hey, Waldorf is bad, someone
) ) else to kick around!
) ) Cool!" - they have another opportunity for
) ) scapegoating someone.
)
) I don't think you end up with any such thing. Why
) would people who have never had anything to do with
) Waldorf waste time thinking about it? It's not about
) scapegoating. It's about people having full knowledge
) about Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf and it's cultish
) nature so they can decide whether or not they want to
) send their children to a Waldorf school.
If it's cultish, then it would be reasonable to be concerned.
)
) ) It's possible that Waldorf fails in many respects
) ) without it having to
) ) do with psychological cult characteristics. Bad
) ) policy,
)
) For example, Steiner's instructions to teachers to
) deceive parents about the role of Anthroposophy by
) calling prayers "verses," and so forth. Deception in
) recruitment is a characteristic behavior of cults.
)
) ) poorly conceived methodology,
)
) conceived by a guru who claimed to have acquired his
) knowledge through clairvoyance. Typically, cult
) leaders claim special powers.
Jesus claimed special status, yet do we consider Him dishonest? No.
)
) This methodology is vaunted as superior to all other
) methodology in the way that all cults claim their way
) is the best and only way.
Like corporations are dominant and influential, and are given
significant freedom sometimes at great public cost? Oh, yes, the "free
market". Microsoft says their computer systems are the best and only way
for computer users, etc.
)
) ) unrealistic expectations of staff
)
) Staff expected to work long hours both running the
) schools and teaching, often for low salaries. Cult
) members are typically overworked and the exhaustion
) interferes with their critical thinking skills.
I've read that about scientology.
Thanks,
Keith
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:39:56 +0100
From: "Paul Georghiades" (paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk)
Subject: Pete and all: What Ails Thee?
I'm sure I have not endeared myself by suggesting your land is a cult. However, I really do promise to stop on that, if you all will let it be as well. Something I would far rather ask:
While I've been off doing The Merchant of Venice, the note that has really struck me in the incoming has been the very real pain many of you allude to. Perhaps you have already exchanged details of your experiences over the years and may not wish to do so again. But I would really appreciate knowing some of this. My reason: some of what I've read has seemed so beyond my experience that I got the "definitely not Kansas any more" feeling. I can't go on defending mostly abstract principles when you are referring to horribly concrete experiences.
About which, I absolutely promise to be non-ironic, if you are willing to hit me with the detail. If you want to do it off-list, my address is paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk
(I hope I'm not breaking list rules by doing this)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:16:21 +0100
From: "Paul Georghiades" (paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk)
Subject: Re: purpose of education/was "Is Waldorf ed fringe?"
This is something I'm not sure I understand, about delaying reading until 9
years old. Did the Waldorf school(s) of your experience actually not teach
literacy until that age, or was it the case that there wasn't an expectation
that all the children would be independent-and-for-pleasure readers before
that age? I can make sense of the latter, but not the former.
It's a good point about children from deprived backgrounds - but I think the
broader question has to do with how children with learning difficulties are
supported, whatever background they come from. And when I say learning
difficulties, I do mean as defined and assessed by broad concensus in
education generally, and not, "your child, madam, is karmically handicapped
and it's probably all your fault"...
----- Original Message -----
From: (Ldenike aol.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: re: purpose of education/was "Is Waldorf ed fringe?"
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a new washer and dryer set? You could get one free!
http://click.topica.com/caadtaGb1dkiGbOVyTGa/ProductTestPanel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course education should elevate the human mind and heart. Agreed. But in
the practical world, people need to be able to survive, which means that
most
will need to be gainfully employed. That means being articulate, literate,
and,
in many cases, knowledgeable. It means knowing about the world we live in
and
about other cultures and "worlds," and by that, I don't mean the "beyond the
threshold" world of Rudy and company. It means being able to express oneself
at least adequately in writing and better than average (it would be hoped)
in
discussions/talking/interviews.
It is only the very wealthy who don't have to worry about how their children
will make it in the world once they grow up. That group does not include (I
wouldn't think) most of us here. It sure doesn't include most people in the
world.
That is why we had a discussion here some months ago about how delaying
reading is a luxury that only very few kids can afford. Perhaps children
from quite
well to do homes with educated parents would not be unduly harmed by holding
them back from reading until they are 9 years old. Do that to a child from a
deprived background, and you are really setting that young person up for
failure.
Lisa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without Botox! Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to
reduce wrinkles by 68% Click here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadslIb1dkiGbOVyTGf/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:24:56 +0100
From: "Paul Georghiades" (paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk)
Subject: Re: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Not me, because 1) I am a Waldorf teacher
2) All Waldorf teachers are liars
cheers
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Karaiskos" (pkcompany netzero.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
==========================================================
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Get the latest weather,
sports, and lifestyle news you can't afford to miss, all
at a price you can afford to pay! Click now!
http://click.topica.com/caaa9eYb1dkiGbOVyTGa/TopOffers
==========================================================
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
)
)
) In a message dated 6/1/2005 3:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Lisa
) writes:
)
) And it is, of course, ridiculous to make a sweeping statement that
) Waldorf
) schools are ALL run by liars and imbeciles, etc. BOTH are wrong.
)
) ------------
)
) Lisa -- you'd better let Pete know about this: he claims that there are
) only "one or two" honest people in the WE movement!
)
) Serena Blaue
)
) [Non-sense portions of this message have been removed]
)
Yeah, but I'm sure everyone who read it thought *they* were the
exceptions...
Pete
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:58:01 +0100
From: "Paul Georghiades" (paul paulgeorghiades.wanadoo.co.uk)
Subject: Re: *** SPAM *** Re: Newton & Goethe, round 247
I want to change the image. I'm more like the guy who lasted 1 round with
the Blackburn Bruiser and tapped Mike Tyson on the chest the next day: "Hey,
big boy, want to rumble?" This is your home ground, and I know I'm going to
regret it in the end, but here goes.
What I observe when darkening the light by placing tracing paper without
blue lines in front of it is that the perceived colour progresses toward
warm orange. At the beginning, however, it seems to me to be more diffused
white. This isn't earth shattering, but it may match sun seen through
mist/haze. This would be light seen through a thicker medium, light seen
through darkness.
When I look at storm clouds, I don't think of light seen through darkness
(which would go towards red by Goethean theory, as you say), but of a darker
medium (the cloud) being illuminated by light going towards it. That would
match looking into the tank from the point of view of the beam, and that is
why I was interested in the grey/lilac colour perceptions. And yes, in my
confused and limited way, I did realise that the thing is to be done in two
ways....
I want also to have another go at the distinction I tried to make between
proving the already given, and thinking through for oneself. I am NOT trying
to kid anyone that these prism experiments just might come up with a
different set of phenomena one day, so that the students were hot on the
trail of something new. But I remember hating physics at school (and it was
a good school, full of high achievers) because every experiment we ever did
we had already been given the complete outcome for. In fact we used to try
and make it come out differently just to mess up the teacher's plan for the
20 minutes afterwards. I had to think about what you've written back for a
while in order to see that I appeared to be claiming very high ground
indeed. So I repeat, what I was excited about was that the students were
able to make sense of what they saw out of their own thinking, and not
through my coaching them. Nevertheless, I'd done it before them. The
question for me as a teacher was, am I going to have to set it all out for
them, or will they get there for themselves?
That's why I would like you to check out whether you see a valid difference
between knowing and knowing in learning. You say we shouldn't have to repeat
cultural development, and Anthros drive to school, too. Quite right. But
certain subjects, in order to be real, require the learning to be the doing:
maths is one, I think science is another. I have a very long paper on this I
could attach for anyone who can be bothered to tackle it: is it OK to post
it?
So, incidentally, we stripped down a 4-stroke engine while studying Karl
Benz and Henry Ford.
My own objection to computers from playschool on to the grave is only that
you can learn to use the damn things in about 5 hours. It's harder to learn
to drive, but I haven't noticed the British government building go-kart
circuits outside every school here. Is it better-resourced for
pre-first-car-skills-acquisition-and-consolidation where you are?
Thanks
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 5:42 AM
Subject: *** SPAM *** Re: Newton & Goethe, round 247
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without Botox! Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to
reduce wrinkles by 68% Click here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadslIb1dkiGbOVyTGa/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
)Thanks for taking time over my short optics unit. I'm going to do
)some work on re-mixing the colours back into white when I'm done
)with Shakespeare and the Class trip.
That should be illuminating.
)On the whiteness of the sun seen through mists, have you tried this
)one? Take a strong beam of light in a darkish room, and place over
)it sheets of tracing paper one by one. You are looking into the
)light source with the paper getting in the way, very close to the
)lens. Overall, the perceived colour as the paper thickens tends
)towards warm yellow, even orange. Before it goes to yellow, however,
)how do you describe the colour?
The only tracing paper I have has light blue grid lines on it. More
layers didn't seem to change the color of the light at all. Tell me
what you observed with your paper.
)Storm clouds grey not red?
Exactly. If warm colors are generated when light is obscured by
darkness, why aren't rain clouds red? Why is the setting sun yellow
or red, but the sun behind a thin cloud goes from white to gray? My
point is that Goethean color theory can't explain these common
phenomena. The "primary phenomenon" or "archetypal phenomenon" isn't
a basic characteristic of color in nature. It's a special case, and
not all that easy to understand.
The most common color phenomenon is the appearance of colored
objects, is it not? The red apple, the green leaves. If the task of
physics is to explain phenomena, how does Goethean science explain
that?
)When I tried the light going into the water (lighting up the
)darkness), groups of students and adults reported two sets of colour
)perceptions. They all agreed a lemon yellow area was visible - but
)beyond that, some said lilac, some said blue-ish, and some said grey.
I'm not clear whether you're describing looking down the beam at the
light source through the milky water (darkness over light), or the
beam of light seen from the side passing through the water against a
dark background (light over darkness). In that demonstration you're
supposed to observe both ways. Did you understand that?
)Sideline 1. The adults were the parents of the children. I showed
)some prism experiments as part of a parents' evening. Please take my
)word for it I did not peddle an ideology outside the experiment,
The "experiment" itself is designed to inculcate an ideology. Did it
work for them?
)and here's why. I have found two very sore spots in many Waldorf
)parents. They suffered through their sports lessons at school, and
)they believe science is a hard, cold world to which they have no
)possible relation. I've managed to get them to a new view of
)competitive sports and their value for children, and with a few
)simple, low-tech experiments, I've managed to warm them back towards
)a positive view of science. And it does have a lot to do with being
)able to think the phenomena through for oneself.
If people had to think everything in human knowledge through for
themselves, it would take, maybe 10,000 years. I prefer to stand on
the shoulders of those who have gone before.
)So, with the sharpness I'm both delighting in AND fearing, your
)distinction between the emphasis on thinking for oneself and resting
)on the bases of progressive cultural achievement is right on the
)nail. In my own case, I wish I could get across to you how exciting
)it is for an arts graduate to begin to get a bridge across to
)science - though I acknowledge I can't too far without mathematizing
)beyond my abilities.
You needn't worry about that too much. Simple algebra will do, maybe
a little calculus (area under a curve, for example) that can be
explained graphically.
)Sideline 2. The students did hypothesise the forces of the siphon
)for themselves based on other simple experiments we'd done the day
)before. I'm glad you agree the equation isn't the main event.
)
)Back to Goethe and Newton, in relation to the scandal I caused other
)onlookers by not knowing enough about Newton's experiments: the
)students got a science lesson, not a history lesson. Their lessons
)and bookwork contain no references to either gentleman, nor did I
)set up any conflict.
The historical approach is a valid one; in the case of Newton and
Goethe, however, Goethe was going backwards, so you wouldn't expect
him to come up in a lesson on the physics of light.
)I did refer to the refraction of differing frequencies, and
)indicated that they would learn more about that in the coming years.
)And they did see the narrower beam producing the spectrum without
)the "white middle".
I don't think that gets you off the hook for confusing them about an
important area of physics.
)Again: the advantage of the prism work AT THIS STAGE is that it
)allowed the students to order the phenomena entirely within the
)range of their thinking. This is really the fundamental divide,
)isn't it - and you have referenced it very exactly in relation to
)thinking and/or culture.
I don't buy that. You presented a demonstration intended to teach the
"archetypal phenomenon" of color, and by your report it succeeded. I
don't think you've accepted my assertion that what you did teach them
was a confused approach to either the physics of color or the
perception of color.
)I take it your epistemological credo (great that it could fit across
)a T-shirt) includes the achievements of culture as empirical,
)observable givens in the concrete world? So that, "Go and find out
)what Richard Dawkins thinks about genetic Darwinism" is at least
)approximable to "Go and do genetics." This isn't a chess move by the
)way: I don't have a problem accepting that. Otherwise I'd be nailed
)to saying, "Don't drive that car until you've built one yourself".
)Except there's a lot of value in that approach, too...It's exactly
)what Henry Ford did, and where would we all be without him?
)(Watching the sunset over cherry blossoms at the Kyoto agreement,
)perhaps..)
That's the excuse for not letting Waldorf students use computers;
that they're supposed to understand how a machine works before they
can use it. But Waldorf teachers drive their cars to work...
)The bit about you can't be expected to do better in an Anthro
)environment was a good hard slug. I've spat out a couple of teeth,
)watched a couple of Sylvester Stallone movies, drunk 6 raw eggs
)every day, and I'm coming back in for more: I think most of what I'm
)posting up I have to attribute to my own stupidity.
Lack of preparation and support, rather, don't beat yourself up about it.
)But the move I think you SHOULD take a little more time on is
)whether there is a distinction to be made between "knowing" and
)"knowing in learning". My whole understanding of Waldorf education,
)at least at this stage in my experience, rests in there somewhere,
)and I suspect that yours does too.
I'm not clear what you're getting at with that, please expand on it.
)We can come at sect, cult, religion, academic underachievement,
)hidden agendas any old time.
)
)Did you know the famous wax crayons were only "invented" a number of
)years after the Waldorf school started, and after Steiner's death? I
)think they probably drew with anything they could get their hands on
)before then...
The Advent Spiral was invented later, too.
-Dan Dugan
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Take movies and games anywhere with a Free Playstation Portable!
http://click.topica.com/caadwPbb1dkiGbOVyTGf/ProductTestPanel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:21:04 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Steiner stream fought - parents oppose school change
The Advertiser [Central Victoria, Australia]
http://bendigo.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&story_id=397779&m=6&y=2005
Steiner stream fought - parents oppose school change
MELISSA IARIA
Wednesday, 1 June 2005
A NEWLY FORMED parents action group is opposing a move to deliver
Steiner education at Castlemaine Secondary College.
The Parents for State Education group is arguing a decision to
incorporate a Steiner stream at the college for students from Year 9
starting next year was made without consultation.
The group's Julianne Barclay said there was a lack of information
about the move, and a public forum was needed so parents could be
informed.
She was concerned delivering Steiner education at the college would
contravene the notion public education was intended to be free and
secular.
"It was the Castlemaine school's decision and they say they've had
consultation, but the consultation had been with the Steiner
community," she said.
"Our group is not opposing independent or religious schools, but
rather supporting the right of all students to access high-quality
free and secular education."Castlemaine's Steiner School approached
the secondary college two years ago expressing an interest in
expanding its curriculum at the secondary campus, as it presently
only goes to Year 8.
The college's school council president, Barry Sheen, said it
undertook a detailed investigation and received education department
approval to incorporate the Steiner stream.
"Following a good deal of discussion, the college council voted in
favour of it. It wasn't a narrow decision."Mr Sheen said the school
had kept the community informed through its newsletters distributed
to families each fortnight, and an information session on the issue
would be held next Monday.
"An analysis of the newsletters over the last two years would
probably indicate there's been more information on the Steiner stream
proposal than any other single subject."Under the proposal, Steiner
students and college students could take classes together, and a
number of senior college teachers have been studying to gain insight
into Steiner education.
Mr Sheen pointed to Collingwood Secondary College as an example of
the Steiner and state school systems co-existing.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:21:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Fwd: Short info on California School Case
The following was posted on the SJU Waldorf list:
)Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 11:04:26 -0800
)From: me spring (eviaspring LYCOS.COM)
)Subject: Short info on California School Case
)To: WALDORF maelstrom.stjohns.edu
)
)Dear Readers,
)
)Anthroposophy, comparatively, is a small world movement.
)
)These are the reasons I feel Waldorf Education
)should not be funded by government money in the
)United States:
)
)Increased and potential harm to children by predators.
)
)Unnecessary conflict brought upon the children,
)parents and school by inviting parents openly
)who have no inkling what is at the heart and
)soul of Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy
)until it is too late.
)
)Lack of teacher accountability by the public sector and AWSNA.
)
)Curriculum interference by the state.
)
)Funds and energy generated by these law suits
)have had an ill effect upon the schools and the
)movement as a whole.
)
)Most importantly, Anthroposophy is Christ
)centered. This practice is denied in the Public
)Waldorf Schools and educators are not allowed to
)follow though or practice their thoughts openly.
)They are often told to find “creative” ways to
)bring what is at the center of Waldorf Education
)into the class room or a thought process is
)justified that this Christ center can be denied
)all together. This is dishonest and a corrupting
)force, anyone who has read Steiner's lectures in
)the Karma of Untruthfulness will know exactly
)what I mean.
)
)In my personal opinion Waldorf in the public
)sector was not thought out comprehensively and
)the way it has been implemented has fractured
)the movement substantially. At a time, in the
)history of the world when the truth is more
)difficult to find, corruption is pervasive at
)the highest levels, and lies are the order of
)the day, this Branch of Anthroposophy and the
)Society should stand true to the challenge and
)not be a party to the deceit.
)
)Standing like the John the Beloved. Thank you
)for allowing me to voice my opinion in this
)forum.
It met with a predictable response:
)Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 15:43:20 -0700
)From: "Bob and Nancy's Services" (writeus BOBNANCY.COM)
)Subject: Re: Short info on California School Case
)To: WALDORF maelstrom.stjohns.edu
)
)Dear Members,
)
)I have removed eviaspring LYCOS.COM from this list for violation of our
)guideline that requires all members refrain from baiting and trolling.
)
)In so doing, I want to be clear that whoever this person is was not removed
)for objecting to Waldorf charter schools, etc. Anonymous inflammatory
)statements that are unsupported by reason or fact are de facto
)trolling/baiting and that is the sole reason for removal in this instance.
)
)In other words, should any of you wish to have a considered discussion on
)this list about any of the points eviaspring LYCOS.COM mentioned, you may
)do so providing the discussion is supported by facts, the tone is
)respectful, and your comments reasoned.
)
)All the best,
)Nancy, co-manager, not MoM but stepping in on a holiday weekend anyway
This is why waldorf-critics exists. The Waldorf
movement talks a lot about -freedom-, but its
proponents too often allow their instinct to
-control- to suppress dissent.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:18:51 -0400
From: motormama (motormouth punkAss.com)
Subject: Re: Short info on California School Case
)) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 15:43:20 -0700
)) From: "Bob and Nancy's Services" (writeus BOBNANCY.COM)
)) Subject: Re: Short info on California School Case
)) To: WALDORF maelstrom.stjohns.edu
))
)) Dear Members,
))
)) I have removed eviaspring LYCOS.COM from this list for violation of
)) our
)) guideline that requires all members refrain from baiting and trolling.
))
)) In so doing, I want to be clear that whoever this person is was not
)) removed
)) for objecting to Waldorf charter schools, etc. Anonymous inflammatory
)) statements that are unsupported by reason or fact are de facto
)) trolling/baiting and that is the sole reason for removal in this
)) instance.
))
)) In other words, should any of you wish to have a considered
)) discussion on
)) this list about any of the points eviaspring LYCOS.COM mentioned,
)) you may
)) do so providing the discussion is supported by facts, the tone is
)) respectful, and your comments reasoned.
))
)) All the best,
)) Nancy, co-manager, not MoM but stepping in on a holiday weekend anyway
)
) This is why waldorf-critics exists. The Waldorf movement talks a lot
) about -freedom-, but its proponents too often allow their instinct to
) -control- to suppress dissent.
)
) -Dan Dugan
and then there were the sickening emails of praise:
Nancy--
Thank you for taking this action; I appreciate the integrity observed by
you and the other list managers in maintaining respectful, yet open
conversation. Having been involved with Waldorf methods charters for
eight years, I felt sad to read anti-charter statements that seemed like
angry, unfounded attacks. I feel it's important we all support each
other. Both independent and charter schools are trying to do their best
for the children we serve.....
and:
This list works because we speaks respectfully to each other, listen
carefully, and ground our posts in our own direct experience and
perceptions.
!?!?!?!?!pretty amazing how they applaude the censorship!!!!!!!
m rosso
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:36:16 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: The popularity of Waldorf schools
Why Not wrot