return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: parents researching schools
By einmalig optonline.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 07:05:55 +0000
From: Veritas (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: RE: parents researching schools
Yes, Peter, I would be interested to see them.
Veritas
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hello Veritas,
)
) I hope that your post was not in fact einmalig, as your email address
) would
) have it. Lots of similar posters pop up here, thinking they have brought
)
) important new information to somebody's attention, and then fade away
) again
) when invited to take part in conversation. Perhaps you could break that
) pattern?
)
) As you can see from Walden's reply, the point you raised is a very
) interesting one indeed, one that fans of Waldorf seem remarkably
) unwilling
) to discuss in public. Maybe you will agree that this sort of avoidance
) is
) not a promising path toward veritas. If you are interested, I would be
) very
) happy to provide you with copies of relevant articles from
) Erziehungskunst
) during the Nazi era, and you can see for yourself what attitude Waldorf
) leaders adopted toward the new regime. I am in Germany at the moment but
)
) will be back at home with access to my files in a couple weeks. Let me
) know
) if this sounds interesting to you, or if the history of Waldorf and
) anthroposophy between 1933 and 1945 was merely a passing whim from your
) point of view. Cheers,
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
) )From: Veritas (einmalig optonline.net)
) )Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) )To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) )Subject: RE: parents researching schools
) )Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:22:41 +0000
)
) )-------------------------------------------------------------------
) )
) )"In March 1936, Waldorf Schools were prohibited from taking on new
) )students; by summer of 1941, all Waldorf Schools in Germany had been
) )forced to close their doors." (see
) )http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articles/Werner1.htm)
) )
) )Veritas
) )
)
)
Veritas
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2171
-- Topica Digest --
RE: parents researching schools
By pstaud hotmail.com
Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 09:18:08 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: einmalig optonline.net
Subject: RE: parents researching schools
Hi Veritas,
I'm glad to hear from you again. Can you tell me your mailing address? You
are welcome to do so offlist; my email is pstaud hotmail.com. In the
meantime, I will try to post some more information on the source that you
cited last week. Thanks,
Peter
)From: Veritas (einmalig optonline.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: parents researching schools
)Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 07:05:55 +0000
)
)Yes, Peter, I would be interested to see them.
)
)Veritas
)
)
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Hello Veritas,
) )
) ) I hope that your post was not in fact einmalig, as your email address
) ) would
) ) have it. Lots of similar posters pop up here, thinking they have brought
) )
) ) important new information to somebody's attention, and then fade away
) ) again
) ) when invited to take part in conversation. Perhaps you could break that
) ) pattern?
) )
) ) As you can see from Walden's reply, the point you raised is a very
) ) interesting one indeed, one that fans of Waldorf seem remarkably
) ) unwilling
) ) to discuss in public. Maybe you will agree that this sort of avoidance
) ) is
) ) not a promising path toward veritas. If you are interested, I would be
) ) very
) ) happy to provide you with copies of relevant articles from
) ) Erziehungskunst
) ) during the Nazi era, and you can see for yourself what attitude Waldorf
) ) leaders adopted toward the new regime. I am in Germany at the moment but
) )
) ) will be back at home with access to my files in a couple weeks. Let me
) ) know
) ) if this sounds interesting to you, or if the history of Waldorf and
) ) anthroposophy between 1933 and 1945 was merely a passing whim from your
) ) point of view. Cheers,
) )
) ) Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 09:19:34 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Hello critics,
last week Veritas posted a snippet from one of Sune Nordwall's pages on
anthroposophy in the Nazi era; the page can be found here:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articles/Werner1.htm
It contains a small set of excerpts from Uwe Werner's large book on the
topic. I have probably said enough about Werner's book before, and for now I
will comment on the presentation on this webpage in particular. The
introductory paragraph reads:
"Recent accusations of "racist" and "Nazi" undertones of anthroposophy and
Waldorf Schools betray a curious case of history contradicting itself. To
the Nazis themselves, Anthroposophists were persecuted as guilty of the
opposite charges: "individualistic", "internationally oriented", and
"pacifistic", they were accused of maintaining close ties to Jews. Their
humanistic philosophy, contradictory to the ideas of race and "Volk" upheld
by the Nazis, was determined to be "directly opposed to National
Socialism"."
This is much too simple. Some Nazi officials did indeed consider
anthroposophy directly opposed to Nazism, but others endorsed a combination
of the two worldviews and adopted anthroposophist ideas and practices into
their own Nazi projects. There is nothing especially curious about this,
much less contradictory in the sense invoked above. What "the Nazis
themselves" believed on virtually any controversial topic depended on the
particular Nazis in question, on the time period, on the historical context,
on the internal balance of power within the party, and so forth. The same is
true, by the way, for the Waldorf movement itself during the Nazi era. This
is quite common, historically speaking, and it isn't really all that
confusing; there is no good reason to simplify matters in the way that
Werner, Nordwall et alia routinely do.
The excerpts from Werner on Nordwall's page, for example, mention Alfred
Baeumler's negative statements about Waldorf, but omit his positive
statements about Waldorf. Similarly, Jakob Hauer is again trotted out as an
anti-anthroposophist Nazi, with no context whatsoever for his claims or his
position or reputation within the Nazi leadership. And of course much is
made of Hitler's 1921 polemic against German foreign minister Walter Simons,
without any explanation, much less any critical exmination, of Steiner's
supposed connection to the matter. These are remarkable oversights, if we
can call them that.
For those who read German, a helpful way to get a fuller sense of this topic
is to examine the relevant secondary sources; there are three above all
worth looking at. The first is Werner's book, several chapters of which
address Waldorf specifically; it is important to keep in mind that the book
is an apologia for anthroposophist conduct during the Nazi era. The second
source is also by an anthroposophist: Norbert Deuchert's two-part article in
Flensburger Hefte no. 8 (1991); it is also predictably tendentious, but
contains important material. The best single source is Achim Leschinsky's
article “Waldorfschulen im Nationalsozialismus” in the journal Neue
Sammlung: Zeitschrift für Erziehung und Gesellschaft, vol. 23 no. 3 (1983).
This was the first serious study of the topic; it is telling that it came
from a non-anthroposophist. Leschinsky is a prominent figure in alternative
education circles in Germany, and his article is quite critical of the
behavior of much of the Waldorf movement during the Third Reich.
There is also. of course, quite a bit of worthwhile material in the archives
of this list. Greetings from sunny Berlin,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2172
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:05:50 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
(snip)
)What "the Nazis themselves" believed on virtually any controversial topic
)depended on the particular Nazis in question, on the time period, on the
)historical context, on the internal balance of power within the party, and
)so forth. The same is true, by the way, for the Waldorf movement itself
)during the Nazi era. This is quite common, historically speaking, and it
)isn't really all that confusing; there is no good reason to simplify
)matters in the way that Werner, Nordwall et alia routinely do.
Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or AGAINST
us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics, for
example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children, they
still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label. We are
atheists, materialists, human secularists, etc. It seems difficult to
understand that one can question or disagree with a person or ideology or
religion without despising the person or ideology or religion. Indeed, there
is no good reason to simplify matters; in fact, such an approach only closes
doors and minds and widens the communication gap. IMO.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2173
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By lisa.ercolano comcast.net
Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:34:38 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Walden wrote:
)
) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
)
) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) AGAINST
) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) for
) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) they
) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) -Walden
)
I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
(especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
c
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:58:00 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Walden wrote:
) )
) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) )
) )
) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) AGAINST
) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) for
) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) they
) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) -Walden
) )
)
) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
Even Steiner was against taking the "easy" path. Who here is critical
of Waldorf but has no connection to it?
) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
So you would have no trouble naming at least one I suppose?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:55:22 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
A little sequel to an old story. Been cleaning out my computer and deleting
old email, and realized that when I quoted Linda C from Mothering back in
March, there were actually two posts. Turns out BOTH these posts were
mysteriously later deleted from the topica archive. So just to finally set
this record straight, I'm pasting the other one in here again. (It's found
in the archive at the PLANS web site, but it's missing from topica.)
An amusing piece of this is that according to the defendingsteiner blog,
Linda believes that I slipped up or "bumbled" by quoting her over here, and
was giving myself away as a "spy" on Mothering. In her mind, it was her own
clever sleuthing that brought the whole devious plot to light. Of course, it
might also have had something to do with the fact that I started copying the
posts to her (G) ( I had been quoting and discussing goings-on at Mothering
on this list for weeks.)
Yes Linda - I would make a poor spy. In her scenario, I apparently believe
that I can quote another Internet site, and even send cc's to the people I'm
quoting, and NO ONE WILL FIGURE OUT that I have been reading it.
I flipped through the boards over there today (which again, recently have
been sometimes closed and sometimes open; there are so many rancor-filled
discussions going on at any given time, and so much "moderating," forced
edits, forced apologies, wrist slapping, etc., obviously it is a regular
thing to be trotting out the KEEP OUT sign to discourage troublemakers, at
least briefly). Anyway I noticed in the Questions and Answers forum (where
you are allowed to actually ask questions and receive answers from the lofty
moderators regarding how the board actually works), someone has been asking
could they please add it to the User Agreement that it is forbidden to quote
the Mothering boards elsewhere. LOL. Obviously, there are a lot of people
who have a real problem understanding what the Internet is, what a public
forum is, etc. This person had posted her child's birth story, and was upset
when, through her mother, she heard that some neighbors down the block had
heard the whole story - I guess, you know, when her water broke, what time
the pitocin was started etcetc! Hello! Don't be posting details of your
intimate life on the Internet if you don't want the neighbors to know LOL!!
Someone congratulated her on the birth of her child, they had heard about it
on Mothering, and she felt violated.
It's like hooking up a webcam in your bedroom, then complaining the
neighbors are perverts.
Cynthia Mosher replies that it will not be a good idea to add that to the
user agreement. ROFL - In other words, don't think they wouldn't, if they
hadn't gotten legal advice telling them, you can't tell people not to quote
a public message board, ever hear of free speech?
Astoundingly this discussion has continued with other people apparently just
now figuring out that a public meeting place with more than 50,000
registered members and nearly an equal number of casual, unregistered
readers on a daily basis, is not the best place to have a private
conversation.
Diana
Anyway - my previously censored post is copied below.
From: Diana Winters [mailto:diana.winters verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:46 AM
To: 'waldorf-critics topica.com'
Subject: More Rumors Dispelled!
Linda has thought of more "rumors" that were purportedly "dispelled" at the
conference she attended:
)Rumor: Waldorf doesn't want children to read before they're 14.
Wrong again. Steiner stated that a delay is spiritually advantageous, but to
my knowledge he didn't say children should not read before 14, and I don't
think there are any Waldorf schools where they actually aim to prevent all
reading before age 14. Waldorf schools work with the tension between their
spiritual program, laid down by the founder, which includes delaying and
de-emphasizing literacy, and a basic orientation against intellectual work
of all kinds, the suspicion that it is soul shriveling etc.; versus the
realities of running a school, which of course includes the fact that
parents almost universally expect their kids to learn to read in school.
Waldorf parents are not all that different from most parents in that
respect, even those in favor of a delay; *even* anthroposophist parents are
somewhere in between concerned and frantic when 10 year olds are not
starting to read.
Thus spake the rumor mill.
)I saw Waldorf Reader textbooks being sold for the second, third and fourth
grade. They're written by a former )Waldorf class teacher still very active
in the Waldorf movement.
No kidding. This "dispells" nothing, as no one has ever claimed second,
third and fourth grade classrooms don't have books. There is, however,
frequently an argument that the instruction offered is inadequate. And there
is moreover the argument that omitting books in first grade or kindergarten
classrooms is a poor business for a school.
I don't know what these textbooks Linda saw for sale were. I'd be
interested, as always, in learning what they are and looking at them, and
perhaps I will try to remain optimistic about this possibility. It always
involves taking a deep breath and getting ready to play Twenty Questions
With Waldorfers, or "Wait till I get back from my trip to Svalbard" or
whatever.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:08:13 +0000
From: lisa.ercolano comcast.net
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Charlie,
Please note that most of us critics tried our best to reform Waldorf from the inside while we were there. It didn't work! As childhood is brief and our children's education is important, we were not willing to sacrific those children's education while we struggled away, trying to fix things. So we left. But we continue to try to mend what we think it broken, on behalf of the kids who are still there. That makes sense, dontcha think?
Lisa
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
)
)
) Walden wrote:
) )
) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) )
) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) AGAINST
) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) for
) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) they
) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) -Walden
) )
)
) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
) c
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:13:49 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Walden wrote:
)) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
)) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
)) AGAINST us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf
)) critics,
)) for example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer
)) children,
)) they still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient
)) label.
Lemuria replied:
) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
Gotta bite here. I've known far too many "critics" who've spent far too much
time trying to improve Waldorf from the inside to let that comment go
unchecked.
While many families simply pull roots and leave, I suggest that most
families attempt to improve things before that time. Vested interest - it is
usualy a HUGE part of our children's life. How many parents have offered to
help with their children's Waldorf schools - from improving the "science"
class to helping with the woefully inadequate Waldorf FAQ? "Improvement"
often means simply holding a meeting to discuss various issues - from class
dynamics to teacher issues to the unhappiness of children to confusing
around the *impulse* of Waldorf, etc.
Why is there a deafening silence at a "community" meeting when a parents
asks about Steiner and racism in Anthroposophy or the meaning of the morning
"verse" or the reality of Eurythmy or karma and bullying or. . . and ... or.
. .? Why are parents discouraged from meeting to discuss unhealthy classroom
situations when teachers refuse to deal with confusion and hurt feelings?
What happened to Eugene Schwartz? What really happened to Charlie? Dan
Dugan? Diana, Lisa, Pete . . or folks at the Survivors Email list and all
those who lost what they considered to be their "community" while the dream
became a nightmare . . . ?
"No connection?" Are you serious?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:06:43 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Re: Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
I wrote about the Mothering forums:
"someone has been asking could they please add it to the User Agreement that
it is forbidden to quote the Mothering boards elsewhere" and noted that the
discussion was continuing.
Well, not anymore it isn't - it has now completely disappeared. What may
have been said that displeased a moderator is left to our imaginations, but
it's common for posts that question or criticize any of their policies to go
up in a puff of smoke *POOF*. (Mind you I thought the person's complaint was
silly, but why it would be so upsetting to other people that all record of
the conversation would need to be wiped out, I can't guess.)
A post about Waldorf just disappeared from the forum too. Someone had a bad
experience at a Waldorf school, it was kind of vague just what had happened,
but this person wrote one or two angry posts a few days ago, there were a
couple of replies asking her for more details, and now it's completely gone.
(Presumably it went to the now-invisible Waldorf thread, where it can be
handily dealt with by the reliable team from "Americans for Waldorf
Education," who will reply that reports of negative experiences in Waldorf
schools are rare, and that most such reports come, mysteriously, from San
Francisco.)
Hey Dan - I'd give links, but there's no use giving links to messages that
disappear 2 hours after they're posted, or entire conversations that there's
no record of ever happening.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:15:25 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
)Why are parents discouraged from meeting to discuss unhealthy classroom
)situations when teachers refuse to deal with confusion and hurt feelings?
How are parents going to "reform from within" in schools like Pete's, where
they're literally forbidden to talk to one another about the school?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:46:28 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
This is quite disturbing. I remember trying to read that list some years ago
and noticing oddities, as well. I doubt this type of "moderating" only
happens with Waldorf issues but it really does not paint an accurate picture
of any real discussion. If someone stumbles on a heavily moderated/censored
list whilst looking for information, that person will be left with an
inaccurate account of what transpired during the "discussion." The list
archives would not reflect the actual discussion.
History becomes distorted and reality is not "real." I wonder if anyone has
addressed these concerns in an article or book dealing specifically with
Internet Discussion Lists?
-Walden
Diana wrote:
) I wrote about the Mothering forums:
) "someone has been asking could they please add it to the User Agreement
) that
) it is forbidden to quote the Mothering boards elsewhere" and noted that
) the
) discussion was continuing.
) Well, not anymore it isn't - it has now completely disappeared. What may
) have been said that displeased a moderator is left to our imaginations,
) but
) it's common for posts that question or criticize any of their policies to
) go
) up in a puff of smoke *POOF*. (Mind you I thought the person's complaint
) was
) silly, but why it would be so upsetting to other people that all record of
) the conversation would need to be wiped out, I can't guess.)
) A post about Waldorf just disappeared from the forum too. Someone had a
) bad
) experience at a Waldorf school, it was kind of vague just what had
) happened,
) but this person wrote one or two angry posts a few days ago, there were a
) couple of replies asking her for more details, and now it's completely
) gone.
) (Presumably it went to the now-invisible Waldorf thread, where it can be
) handily dealt with by the reliable team from "Americans for Waldorf
) Education," who will reply that reports of negative experiences in Waldorf
) schools are rare, and that most such reports come, mysteriously, from San
) Francisco.)
)
)
)
) Hey Dan - I'd give links, but there's no use giving links to messages that
) disappear 2 hours after they're posted, or entire conversations that
) there's
) no record of ever happening.
)
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
)
) [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.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 00:52:54 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Walden wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) ) AGAINST
) ) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) ) for
) ) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) ) they
) ) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) ) -Walden
) ) )
) )
) ) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) ) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) ) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) ) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) ) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
)
) Even Steiner was against taking the "easy" path. Who here is critical
) of Waldorf but has no connection to it?
)
) ) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) ) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
)
) So you would have no trouble naming at least one I suppose?
)
) Pete
You said it...not I.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 01:00:43 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
)
) )Why are parents discouraged from meeting to discuss unhealthy classroom
) )situations when teachers refuse to deal with confusion and hurt
) )feelings?
)
) How are parents going to "reform from within" in schools like Pete's,
) where
) they're literally forbidden to talk to one another about the school?
)
) Diana
)
I don't expect people who are already out to reform from within.
What I take exception to is people who have left who continue to snipe
from the sidelines.
If there are those of you who really want to help those children who
are still in the system (as per Lisa's post), that is not a bad gesture,
of course; but, to be frank, I seldom sense that kind of benevolence in
this forum.
And...it would be wise to make sure that those people want to be helped.
I don't have to tell anybody here about how helpful unwelcomed help can
be.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 01:44:56 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Walden wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) ) ) AGAINST
) ) ) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) ) ) for
) ) ) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) ) ) they
) ) ) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) ) ) -Walden
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) ) ) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) ) ) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) ) ) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) ) ) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) )
) ) Even Steiner was against taking the "easy" path. Who here is critical
) ) of Waldorf but has no connection to it?
) )
) ) ) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) ) ) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
) )
) ) So you would have no trouble naming at least one I suppose?
) )
) ) Pete
)
) You said it...not I.
) c
No, YOU said it - and I challenged you to name one. Can you? Is there
anyone here who, as you claim, despises Waldorf or its practitioners?
Can you point to anyone here and make the claim that they despise
Waldorf? Why don't you, for once, stop blowing smoke up everyone's ass
and stand behind what you say? You made the claim that there "seems to
be some" - so who are they? Name ONE. It shouldn't be so hard to do if
your claim is anything but BS.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:44:46 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria wrote:
) I don't expect people who are already out to reform from within.
) What I take exception to is people who have left who continue to snipe
) from the sidelines.
) If there are those of you who really want to help those children who
) are still in the system (as per Lisa's post), that is not a bad gesture,
) of course; but, to be frank, I seldom sense that kind of benevolence in
) this forum.
Do you think people who have left Scientology should not comment on their
experiences? Or how about people who were
abused while connected with various churches - should they remain silent? Do
you take exception to such people sniping from the sidelines?
) And...it would be wise to make sure that those people want to be helped.
Interesting. Who speaks for a young child or a well-intentioned family with
concerns about pop machines and too-many-tests in conventional schools while
being lured into Waldorf with natural this and natural that and no mention
of the Christ Impulse or the reality of Anthroposophy and the "mission?"
New parent: "What's this about Anthro...posophy?"
Waldorf School Rep: "Oh it simply means Wisdom of Man and the teachers
discuss it amongst themselves although it has nothing to do with what the
children do here at the school . . . ."
Here's Rudy: "I have said that those who stand with full intensity within
the Anthroposophical Movement will return at the end of the century, and
others will then unite with them, for by this means the salvation of the
earth and earthly civilisation from destruction must eventually be settled.
This is the mission of the Anthroposophical Movement, which weighs on the
one hand so heavily upon one's heart, while on the other hand it moves the
heart, uplifts it with enthusiasm. This mission we must understand and see."
Karmic Relationships, Esoteric Studies III, Rudolf Steiner, Dornach, August
3rd, 1924, GA 237
Yes, it is always wise to help people understand what they are getting
involved with - especially when those leading a movement-with-a-mission
neglect to share such important help. I still remind my kids to wear a bike
helmut. And many people still share ideas, experiences, opinions and beliefs
about Waldorf/Anthroposophy. Some people find it helpful.
) I don't have to tell anybody here about how helpful unwelcomed help can
) be.
Thus, the concept of freedom - join an email discussion list . . . or not.
Just trying to help (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2174
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
Early reading: is it "too abstract," are children "pressued" if they
read early
By diana.winters verizon.net
Connected to PLANS?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Connected to PLANS?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Connected to PLANS?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Connected to PLANS?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Connected to PLANS?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
FW: Google Alert - Rudolf Steiner
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:44:57 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Another missing post - FW: More Rumors Dispelled!
Walden wrote:
)This is quite disturbing. I remember trying to read that list some years
)ago and noticing oddities, as well.
Sometimes it's very funny, when you read these strangled threads later they
make no sense, they're mostly static, like a black box recovered from a
plane crash. "What? Mmmmmph ^^^ Sorry. Edited: ******* "Mrffphddd."
I don't like the whole idea of later "editing" your post on a message board.
I think if you say something you regret, or the moderator tells you is
unacceptable, the best course is to apologize - or perhaps clarify or more
fully explain yourself - not eliminate all record of what happened. For one
thing, it sows paranoia. People reading the modified record imagine worse
than what actually happened.
But maybe we are just dinosaurs who can't get with the new digital
realities, Walden - can't get used to the idea of texts that *change* rather
than texts that are published once and stay the way they were published? I
dunno.
)History becomes distorted and reality is not "real." I wonder if anyone
)has addressed these concerns in an article or book dealing specifically
)with Internet Discussion Lists?
I don't know the answer to that, but I'm very interested in that and other
civil liberties issues around Internet publications. I admire Lawrence
Lessig's efforts at Stanford in this regard. (deals with Internet copyright
issues, among other things - literary estates etc.)
Regarding the posts of mine that were deleted from this archive (by people
who apparently don't plan to identify themselves, or take responsibility for
their actions, preferring to work behind the scenes - like "spies"?), Linda
Clemens on the defendingsteiner blog wrote a couple of sarcasm-drenched
posts directed at me, saying I was teaching people how to "spy" on web sites
like Mothering.
She is apparently referring to a post I wrote here advising people to go to
bugmenot.com to try to get around the mandatory registrations that are
increasingly required on many sites on the Internet. (You know, you try to
read an article at some newspaper in Kansas City or Auckland, New Zealand
and it wants to know your zip code, and wants you to choose a login name and
password, why exactly?????)
Believe it or not, I really meant it, I didn't make a mistake or "slip up"
in advising people to refuse to "register" all over the Internet. (I did
later try the bugmenot trick at Mothering, and it didn't work.) I really
think that it is alarming the amount of data web sites are collecting on
their users, including casual readers, and find it particularly of concern
when supposedly "radical" organizations like Mothering apparently have no
consciousness of this and not only are not questioning themselves on this
but make it difficult, or intimidating, for anyone else to question them,
either.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:20:03 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
I asked:
)How are parents going to "reform from within" in schools like Pete's,
)where they're literally forbidden to talk to one another about the school?
Lemuria replied,
)I don't expect people who are already out to reform from within.
Nobody asked that, you've been clear that reforming from within is a nobler
and more admirable cause (while reforming from without is "sniping from the
sidelines").
So again, if you have any thoughts on how people still "within" a system
could reform it when they're forbidden to SPEAK TO EACH OTHER about it, it
would be interesting to hear how this might be done.
)What I take exception to is people who have left who continue to snipe
)from the sidelines.
Take exception all you like because this is a clearly empty argument. Thank
goodness for people who "snipe from the sidelines" on all kinds of important
causes.
)If there are those of you who really want to help those children who
)are still in the system (as per Lisa's post), that is not a bad gesture,
)of course; but, to be frank, I seldom sense that kind of benevolence in
)this forum.
You don't know anything, Charlie, about what anyone here does to "help
children."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 18:56:03 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) I asked:
)
) )How are parents going to "reform from within" in schools like Pete's,
) )where they're literally forbidden to talk to one another about the
) )school?
)
) Lemuria replied,
)
) )I don't expect people who are already out to reform from within.
)
) Nobody asked that, you've been clear that reforming from within is a
) nobler
) and more admirable cause (while reforming from without is "sniping from
) the
) sidelines").
)
) So again, if you have any thoughts on how people still "within" a system
) could reform it when they're forbidden to SPEAK TO EACH OTHER about it,
) it
) would be interesting to hear how this might be done.
)
) )What I take exception to is people who have left who continue to snipe
) )from the sidelines.
)
) Take exception all you like because this is a clearly empty argument.
) Thank
) goodness for people who "snipe from the sidelines" on all kinds of
) important
) causes.
)
) )If there are those of you who really want to help those children who
) )are still in the system (as per Lisa's post), that is not a bad gesture,
) )
) )of course; but, to be frank, I seldom sense that kind of benevolence in
) )this forum.
)
) You don't know anything, Charlie, about what anyone here does to "help
) children."
)
) Diana
)
)
)
I'm sometimes tempted to accuse Lemuria of sniping from the sidelines -
without anything to support his snide suggestions. I personally have
been working relentlessly to reform Highland Hall and to bring their
problems and corrupt administrators to the attention of the Highland
Hall community, AWSNA and the general public. Some of my efforts have
paid off, others have not. I'd love to know what Lemuria is doing to
reform Waldorf, if anything. After all, he has often expressed that
some things need to be changed. How does HE intend to coerce those
changes?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:07:56 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Early reading: is it "too abstract," are children "pressued" if they
read early (LONG)
I started to write this, regarding the myth Waldorf promotes that reading is
"too intellectual" for young children, a couple of weeks ago, and forgot it
when Kelly disappeared. (She asked me about a dozen questions, then
announced she was bored with us and leaving anyway.) I'm not sure how
helpful this is to anyone now, but I'm cleaning out my email and I think
I'll post it anyway FWIW.
I have lost the preceding posts but I believe Kelly was saying some standard
stuff about how children live in their bodies and understand only physical
cause and effect, like dropping a cup on the floor and it breaks, and I said
something about how they can come to understand "cause and effect" regarding
written symbols too.
Kelly then replied:
)No, it is not the same. A pushed cup falls and the child can see an
immediate reaction to his action.
)Reading is an abstraction. the letter b stands for the "buh" sound.
I think what you mean is that the connection between the letter and the
sound is arbitrary. The relation of spoken words to the objects they
represent is also arbitrary. The relation between printed symbols and
spoken language is not *more* abstract than the relation between spoken
words and the objects they refer to. To small children, everything is new,
the whole universe is new. The cup falling and breaking is a marvel, spoken
language is a marvel. I agree that to connect the written symbol to the
sound is a step past spoken language that the child must take mentally and
they are not ready to do this from birth - this takes a few years. But as a
mental activity, the step that is required is no more "abstract," nor any
more difficult when the child is ready to take it, and neither the process
nor the content is any more "intellectual" than anything else a young child
is learning.
Why do we call the dog "dog"? Why do we call the color red "red," etc.?
These are "abstract" and "intellectual" too if you're going to stop and
think about it - but the child doesn't. The child has to learn these things,
too, but the mental work involved is simply learning the relation of spoken
sounds to their meanings, and there is usually no visible, physical
connection. Children are taking in absolutely massive amounts of information
all the time, way more than most adults could handle. (My son is constantly
reminding me that I can't remember things he told me yesterday.) Children's
brains are very receptive and developing very rapidly. They don't put up all
the mental defenses adults do, to avoid information overload.
And a good reading teacher knows how to make the connections between the
sounds and the written letters very concrete, for children who do not
immediately see what these connections are or what they are for. I'm sorry
but you're mistaken about the basic thing going on here - when you tell a
child that 'b' says 'buh' there is nothing at all abstract or complicated
about this information. In fact, there are some children for whom learning
this very, very early will be much easier than learning it later.
Kelly:
)It does not make the sound itself, it does not resemble something that
makes that sound. We must )teach a child that when they see this shape, they
must make this sound for it to have any meaning )or value.
So what? How did you teach the child the dog's name? By calling the dog by
that name. Does the dog's name resemble the dog somehow? Probably not unless
his/her name is "Ruff" or "Bow-Wow" or something, but not if the dog is
named Pablo or Duke or Daisy.
How did you teach (or rather the child learn) that the color red is red?
Probably you just called things that were red, red. You teach the sounds of
the letters exactly the same way. Children take in such information very
matter-of-factly and don't fret that the information is "abstract." This is
an adult overlay, and it's ideological.
It kinda cracks me up that Waldorf has managed to convince so many people
that the sounds of the alphabet, or books like 'Green Eggs and Ham' and 'Hop
on Pop,' are "intellectual."
(I gave the stop sign as an example - many children learn its symbolic value
very early - whenever one of these signs appears, Mom stops the car).
Kelly:
)the child may know that a stop sign shape makes the driver stop the car at
an early age, let's say )3 or 4. Cause and effect. See sign, stop car. They
are not yet reading the words on the sign.
The point was that the understanding that a symbol can stand for something
else comes pretty early to many children. *What* the symbols are is not
information we are born with, any more than is the child's spoken language,
and it doesn't matter whether we are talking about pictures or letters as
symbols. The meanings that are ascribed to them by the people around us have
to be learned. But the propensity to create symbols and to understand
symbols is human, and so is the attempt to decode the symbols around us in
the environment - to actively seek out information about what the symbols
mean, if we don't know. This is not something foreign that one introduces to
a child. (Never mind Steiner's rhetoric that reading is deadening and
soul-shriveling and sclerosis-inducing etc; utter nonsense.)
Understanding that one thing can stand for or signify something else is the
basic mental step that is taken in (at least starting) to learn to read. It
is not possible immediately at birth, certainly, but it is part of a child's
development in the very early years. Other developmental and physical
factors must also be present for actual reading, and all of the other things
the child is learning about the world feed into reading as well (I believe
that Waldorf is right that playing gross motor games as a young child,
imaginative play, etc., are all life experiences that are necessary to make
a good reader). But cognitively, reading isn't really a mysterious process,
and it certainly isn't a damaging process at any age. The adults may *act*
in damaging ways, if they pressure, harass, punish a child, etc. - but
"reading" per se never hurt anyone, at any age. (Certainly not more than
eurythmy (G))
)It is not an instant thing, reading. Most 6 year olds in public school are
still in the decoding stage of )reading. They sound out, know some sight
words, but are not yet at the moment of comprehension. )They can read aloud,
but may not be able to grasp the meaning of what they read.
Usually, two things must come together - Sometimes they are decoding sounds
and not connecting them to meaning; other times they are ascribing meaning,
i.e. looking at the pictures and making up a story that corresponds only
loosely to what the printed words say (in other words, they understand that
the words are symbols, but can't decode them all correctly). When these two
things come together, that's really reading; early stages are sort of
proto-reading.
I am certainly not trying to argue that reading is instant or simple, and it
is a cognitive step beyond spoken language that to *some* children is not
obvious. There is a lot to learn, especially in English, which is a complex
language phonetically, and a child definitely has to have reached a certain
developmental maturity to start taking in such a lot of information, and for
many it needs a great deal of reinforcement before it comes easily or
effortlessly.
But there is most certainly no mysterious process or level of development
that comes in at age 7, or with "change of teeth," that is any more
"intellectual" or "abstract" than any of the other multiple, amazing
learning processes a child is going through in the early years. It is not a
huge intellectual leap to learn to read.
I also think people think "pressure" and "starting early" are synonymous,
but there is no reason that pressure needs to be involved regardless of the
age you start at. In many ways you can have a *less* pressured start if you
start very early and very leisurely, and the information is very matter of
fact. Starting very early in fact allows you take your time.
If you wait till after first grade and the child turns out to be struggling,
*then* the kid is certainly going to be under pressure. (Unless you decide
it isn't important and put him in a Waldorf school, where nobody bothers him
about it.)
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:19:04 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: Connected to PLANS?
Well, it's been almost a month since I answered Deborah's charges on her
WC-Watch site:
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/index.html
And my comments were never posted on her board - another indicator of
Deborah's perhaps less than honest approach to Waldorf criticism. I may
as well post my reply to her comments here:
"Another non-PLANS member
"Pete is a fervent representative of the PLANS group."
This, of course, is an outright LIE. Said by Pete on the
Comments on "Deny, Deny, Deny"
Back in August 2005, Linda wrote two blogs about the odd discrepancy
between the description on the PLANS web-site and the actual membership
of PLANS.
Lies on the PLANS Web-site and Recap on PLANS membership
Linda wrote:
"People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is a world-wide
network of former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators
and trustees who come from a variety of backgrounds." Really? Who are
they? Where are they? Very few I met there over the years would admit to
being part of PLANS. In fact, I was scolded and lectured on several
occasions for presuming anyone to be so. Besides those individuals
(seven) who are identified as members of the board of directors of
PLANS, I found just *one* other person willing to admit to actually
being a member of this supposed "worldwide network".
So, now we have it on record. Pete is another person who is absolutely
not to be considered as a member of PLANS, much less any sort of
representative thereof.
Which leaves me wondering. Why are these folks so vehemently opposed to
being publicly connected with this organization? "
Pete comments:
People are not vehemently opposed to being publicly connected with
PLANS. However, when someone connects ME to PLANS, this is incorrect.
When they know it is incorrect, and they do it anyway, it is a LIE on
their part. I am vehemently opposed to people lying about me and so
when the same people do this, again and again, I patiently correct them,
again and again. Some people would suggest it seems that I am
"vehemently" opposed to being connected with PLANS, simply because I
have to continually correct the same people who are lying about my
connection to PLANS. I am in support of the PLANS lawsuit and its
purpose. I am not "a vervent representative of the PLANS group" and as
I stated, people who say this about me are lying. The only reason I
would object to being connected to PLANS is that it ISN'T TRUE.
Additionallly, there is a smear campaign being waged against PLANS by
several Anthroposophists - and their efforts are maximized when they can
connect EVERYONE critical of Waldorf with PLANS. It's funny to hear
them say that PLANS is only a few disgruntled San Francisco parents
making a big noise, and then connect every critic of Waldorf,
world-wide, with PLANS.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:39:09 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Connected to PLANS?
Pete comments:
)People are not vehemently opposed to being publicly connected with
)PLANS. However, when someone connects ME to PLANS, this is incorrect.
(snip)
)It's funny to hear them say that PLANS is only a few disgruntled San
)Francisco parents making a big noise, and then connect every critic of
)Waldorf, world-wide, with PLANS.
Yes, they want this both ways, don't they? PLANS is a tiny but vocal group
blah blah, there are actually only seven members, Linda will claim - then
again, anyone, anywhere, who reports a negative experience at a Waldorf
school anywhere will be immediately pinned up against the wall and demanded,
Are you with PLANS? Admit it - you represent PLANS. So is PLANS tiny and
uninfluential, or does it actually have hundreds and hundreds of little
sleeper cells, worldwide?
I understand why both of these theories are appealing, the latter especially
to the conspiratorial mindset; the problem is, they are contradictory. You
can't believe both.
Could it be simpler than this - could it be that PLANS has a particular
focus - the unconstitutionality of public Waldorf in the US due to
separation of church and state - and a particular project - the lawsuit
against two California school districts - whose efforts many people support
while also having their own, or other, criticisms or concerns about Waldorf
and/or anthroposophy? These issues differ widely depending on locale
(outside the US, the California lawsuit is not very interesting to many
people) and depends on the experiences one has had in Waldorf or
anthroposophy, as student, teacher, or parent, or other involvement.
Finally, lots of people are concerned about Waldorf and anthroposophy, and
sometimes post here, who have never had a child in one of these schools, but
encountered this movement through Camphill, biodynamics, anthroposophical
medicicine, eurythmy, social three-folding, or personal study of
anthroposophy as a spiritual path. People who have encountered anthroposophy
in this wide variety of ways aren't all members of PLANS, some have no real
idea what PLANS is, yet many of these people are in regular or occasional
contact with PLANS or other critics who frequent this mailing list.
Pssst Linda, Sune, Deborah, Serena, et al.: this isn't rocket science.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:48:43 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Connected to PLANS?
Pete comments:
)Some people would suggest it seems that I am "vehemently" opposed to being
)connected with PLANS, simply because I have to continually correct the same
)people who are lying about my connection to PLANS.
I have noticed this is one of Deborah's personal favored tactics. If you
insist, over the course of several posts, that she back up a claim she has
made, or keep repeating a question while she is pretending not to hear you,
she will point to your repeated requests as suspicious behavior on your
part. It looks "vehement" and this can't be good . . . This was her
rhetorical strategy with me regarding "lies on a PLANS grant application." I
guess this was her way of shaking the sleaze off her own shoulders.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:23:17 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
I asked for Charlie to explain:
)if you have any thoughts on how people still "within" a system could reform
)it when they're forbidden to SPEAK TO EACH OTHER about it, it would be
)interesting to hear how this might be done.
And Pete said:
)I personally have been working relentlessly to reform Highland Hall and to
)bring their problems and corrupt administrators to the attention of the
)Highland Hall community, AWSNA and the general public.
To do this, you ignore the "communications protocol" that tells you you are
not entitled to discuss your concerns with other families, let alone on the
Internet. This suggests you can only "reform from within" using fairly
aggressive methods, actively refusing to toe the line. Doing this tends to
mean you don't remain "within" very long - you either get kicked out, or
realize you need to leave. (Or, I guess in your case, Pete, it's a little
more complicated than this . . .)
)I'm sometimes tempted to accuse Lemuria of sniping from the sidelines -
)without anything to support his snide suggestions.
Lemuria snipes from the sidelines against those of us sniping from the
sidelines about Waldorf :)
Hey Lemuria - maybe you should try to reform Waldorf critics from within -
that is, join us?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:24:14 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Connected to PLANS?
Pete:
)Well, it's been almost a month since I answered Deborah's charges
)And my comments were never posted on her board - another indicator of
)Deborah's perhaps less than honest approach to Waldorf criticism.
Note also that the rebuttals to their "PLANS lied on a grant application" -
their complete misunderstanding about "opt out rights" that supposedly
provided an explanation for why PLANS would invent a "compulsory school"
tales of which would defraud a foundation of thousands of dollars in grant
money - they have never come near with a ten-foot pole. It would appear they
have no plans to acknowledge let alone respond to the facts that I brought
to light that make everything they wrote on the subject nonsensical.
This is part of a tried-and-true defenders' strategy: if your arguments have
all been rebutted, just wander off, and pretend you're not listening
anymore.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 21:55:40 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Connected to PLANS?
Diana Winters wrote:
) Finally, lots of people are concerned about Waldorf and anthroposophy,
) and
) sometimes post here, who have never had a child in one of these schools,
) but
) encountered this movement through Camphill, biodynamics,
) anthroposophical
) medicicine, eurythmy, social three-folding, or personal study of
) anthroposophy as a spiritual path. People who have encountered
) anthroposophy
) in this wide variety of ways aren't all members of PLANS, some have no
) real
) idea what PLANS is, yet many of these people are in regular or
) occasional
) contact with PLANS or other critics who frequent this mailing list.
Yes, of course, but those people are considered to be "sniping from the
sidelines".
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 22:14:40 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) I asked for Charlie to explain:
)
) )if you have any thoughts on how people still "within" a system could
) )reform
) )it when they're forbidden to SPEAK TO EACH OTHER about it, it would be
) )interesting to hear how this might be done.
)
) And Pete said:
)
) )I personally have been working relentlessly to reform Highland Hall and
) )to
) )bring their problems and corrupt administrators to the attention of the
) )Highland Hall community, AWSNA and the general public.
)
)
) To do this, you ignore the "communications protocol" that tells you you
) are
) not entitled to discuss your concerns with other families, let alone on
) the
) Internet.
Actually, I am not ignoring the "communications protocol". The
communications protocol is for when parents have concerns about *their
children's teacher* and deliniates the procedure they must follow to
express those concerns (go directly to the teacher, don't talk to other
parents). People who have strictly followed this protocol have been
kicked out too, so it doesn't really mean anything to follow it - if you
have a complaint, we'll show you the door.
In my case, I am voicing complaints about the administrators and about
teachers other than my own kid's teachers - the protocol does not
specifically cover these situations if one reads it carefully. In the
case where they expelled one of my children, I was indeed pointing out
abuses by one of my children's teachers and when the administrators
continued to ignore my complaints (after following the protocol) I made
my complaints to the community, AWSNA and the general public.
) This suggests you can only "reform from within" using fairly
) aggressive methods, actively refusing to toe the line. Doing this tends
) to
) mean you don't remain "within" very long - you either get kicked out, or
) realize you need to leave. (Or, I guess in your case, Pete, it's a
) little
) more complicated than this . . .)
Yes, bad apples aren't allowed to spoil the whole barrel. I always have
to bring this statistic from a Highland Hall board member - Highland
Hall loses 25% of its students every year. It is very, very hard to
make any headway with the current administration at Highland Hall.
Thank goodness their tactics are being exposed publicly and are proving
to be more embarassing and harmful to them than any benefit they might
gain from using them.
)
) )I'm sometimes tempted to accuse Lemuria of sniping from the sidelines -
) )without anything to support his snide suggestions.
)
) Lemuria snipes from the sidelines against those of us sniping from the
) sidelines about Waldorf :)
)
) Hey Lemuria - maybe you should try to reform Waldorf critics from within
) -
) that is, join us?
)
Too funny!!!
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:51:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Pete:
)Actually, I am not ignoring the "communications protocol". The
)communications protocol is for when parents have concerns about *their
)children's teacher* and deliniates the procedure they must follow to
)express those concerns (go directly to the teacher, don't talk to other
)parents).
Well, of course there's a piece of this that isn't unreasonable. I'd agree
it is better not to gossip, or spread rumors. If you have a complaint about
something your child's teacher did, it would be better to talk to the
teacher first, rather than call up a bunch of other parents complaining,
before you've heard his or her side of the story.
But aside from the fact that it's silly to have a policy against gossip
(it's simply human nature and they'll never stop it), realistically
sometimes you want to find out other parents' experiences or perspectives
*before* creating some kind of issue with a teacher, too. if you're unsure
about something that is going on, perhaps something your child reported, you
want to find out if others have experienced the same thing, if other kids
tell a different story than your kid, etc. Or you want to find out how
others have handled a similar situation. There's nothing wrong with any of
that.
Parents are often *friends* and a school just can't have a policy expecting
friends not to talk to each other about problems, get advice from each other
etc.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 00:11:23 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Pete:
) )Actually, I am not ignoring the "communications protocol". The
) )communications protocol is for when parents have concerns about *their
) )children's teacher* and deliniates the procedure they must follow to
) )express those concerns (go directly to the teacher, don't talk to other
) )parents).
)
) Well, of course there's a piece of this that isn't unreasonable. I'd
) agree
) it is better not to gossip, or spread rumors. If you have a complaint
) about
) something your child's teacher did, it would be better to talk to the
) teacher first, rather than call up a bunch of other parents complaining,
) before you've heard his or her side of the story.
)
) But aside from the fact that it's silly to have a policy against gossip
) (it's simply human nature and they'll never stop it), realistically
) sometimes you want to find out other parents' experiences or
) perspectives
) *before* creating some kind of issue with a teacher, too. if you're
) unsure
) about something that is going on, perhaps something your child reported,
) you
) want to find out if others have experienced the same thing, if other
) kids
) tell a different story than your kid, etc. Or you want to find out how
) others have handled a similar situation. There's nothing wrong with any
) of
) that.
)
) Parents are often *friends* and a school just can't have a policy
) expecting
) friends not to talk to each other about problems, get advice from each
) other
) etc.
Yes, exactly. How does one know when something is a teacher problem or
a student problem. One student acting up is a student problem, but if
all the kids are acting up for a particular teacher, the problem may
very well be a teacher problem. Abuse or mistreatment is certainly not
going to show up in parent-teacher communications.
Whenever I have discussed situations my kids have brought home with
their teachers, I get a completely different and innocuous story from
the teacher. When I have discussed the same situations with other
parents, a completely different story emerges. This happens time and
time again and as a parent, I've come to expect a dishonest
representation of things from certain Waldorf teachers (kinda like we
see right here on this list on occasion).
I suspect that because Waldorf schools are founded on dishonesty,
working within a system of duping parents, and they have had to organize
their governance in a way that protects their policy of duping parents,
dishonesty is common. Even teachers on a one-on-one discussion about a
particular child with the parent of that child have no trouble directly
lying to that parent. And if the parent challenges them - they're out
the door.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 00:36:22 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Walden wrote:
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) ) ) ) AGAINST
) ) ) ) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) ) ) ) for
) ) ) ) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) ) ) ) they
) ) ) ) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) ) ) ) -Walden
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) ) ) ) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) ) ) ) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) ) ) ) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) ) ) ) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) ) )
) ) ) Even Steiner was against taking the "easy" path. Who here is critical
) ) ) of Waldorf but has no connection to it?
) ) )
) ) ) ) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) ) ) ) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
) ) )
) ) ) So you would have no trouble naming at least one I suppose?
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
) )
) ) You said it...not I.
) ) c
)
) No, YOU said it - and I challenged you to name one. Can you? Is there
) anyone here who, as you claim, despises Waldorf or its practitioners?
) Can you point to anyone here and make the claim that they despise
) Waldorf? Why don't you, for once, stop blowing smoke up everyone's ass
Classy, Pete.
) and stand behind what you say? You made the claim that there "seems to
) be some" - so who are they? Name ONE. It shouldn't be so hard to do if
)
) your claim is anything but BS.
)
) Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 00:39:51 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Hey Lemuria - maybe you should try to reform Waldorf critics from within
) -
) that is, join us?
)
) Diana
)
I'm here, aren't I?
And it sure as hell isn't because I've nothing else to do.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:09:12 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Cool! So you *are* trying to reform Waldorf critics from within?
Well, then, what sort of reforms do you propose for us? Seriously!
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuria [mailto:cffrey mindspring.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:40 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Hey Lemuria - maybe you should try to reform Waldorf critics from within
) -
) that is, join us?
)
) Diana
)
I'm here, aren't I?
And it sure as hell isn't because I've nothing else to do.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:12:42 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
We have now been at three schools post-Waldorf, one public school and two
Quaker schools, and it's simply inconceivable, at any of these schools, that
it would ever occur to the administration to put out policies about how
families at the school should relate to one another.
It is very simply the red flag of a cult, for a school to attempt to violate
a boundary in that way, to imagine they have any right telling you who you
can talk to about what. It's a sign they are WAY too involved (intrusively
involved) in families' private lives.
Diana
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:18:42 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: FW: Google Alert - Rudolf Steiner
Well, speaking of all the different ways people come across anthroposophy .
. . sometimes these google alerts sure bring up some interesting things! If
anyone has a subscription to the Wall Street Journal and can give us more
info. on "real estate's latest movement," I'd sure like to hear more (but
don't subscribe, so can't read it without paying . . . not sure it's worth
that).
Diana
_____
From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:10 PM
To: diana.winters verizon.net
Subject: Google Alert - Rudolf Steiner
Google Alert for: Rudolf Steiner
Keeping
(http://www2.townonline.com/somerville/entertainment/view.bg?articleid=52964
5) TABs: Things to do this week
Somerville Journal - Somerville,MA,USA
... in unexpected places, Ingrid Schatz and Alissa Cardone's latest work for
their company, Kinodance, uses writings of philosopher Rudolf Steiner to
generate ...
Real
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115206415225398065.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Estate's Latest Movement
Wall Street Journal (subscription) - New York,NY, USA
... hosted by Prupim, a unit of Britain's Prudential PLC, and supported by
the United Nations and the San Francisco-based Rudolf Steiner Foundation,
focused in ...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:36:02 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Pete wrote:
)I've come to expect a dishonest representation of things from certain
)Waldorf teachers (kinda like we see right here on this list on occasion).
I think there's another reason they are often giving you incomplete or
incorrect information about what is going on in the classroom. With young
children especially, the biggest mistake a parent can make, they feel, is to
TALK to the child about a problem they are having, or something upsetting
that is going on in the classroom. Parents are always guilty of talking to
their children "intellectually." One good way to prevent parents talking to
the child about something is simply to make sure the parents don't know
about it.
Eventually probably this habit of carefully filtering and monitoring what
gets back to the parents becomes, well, a habit, or a feature of the school
culture.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:03:44 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Walden wrote:
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) ) ) ) ) AGAINST
) ) ) ) ) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) ) ) ) ) for
) ) ) ) ) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) ) ) ) ) they
) ) ) ) ) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) ) ) ) ) -Walden
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) ) ) ) ) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) ) ) ) ) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) ) ) ) ) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) ) ) ) ) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Even Steiner was against taking the "easy" path. Who here is critical
) ) ) ) of Waldorf but has no connection to it?
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) ) ) ) ) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) So you would have no trouble naming at least one I suppose?
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete
) ) )
) ) ) You said it...not I.
) ) ) c
) )
) ) No, YOU said it - and I challenged you to name one. Can you? Is there
) ) anyone here who, as you claim, despises Waldorf or its practitioners?
) ) Can you point to anyone here and make the claim that they despise
) ) Waldorf? Why don't you, for once, stop blowing smoke up everyone's ass
)
) Classy, Pete.
)
) ) and stand behind what you say? You made the claim that there "seems to
) ) be some" - so who are they? Name ONE. It shouldn't be so hard to do if
) )
) )
) ) your claim is anything but BS.
) )
) ) Pete
And also a classic Lemuria response. You can't name anyone so you
continue to blow smoke. Not surprising in the least.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:18:01 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Pete wrote:
)
) )I've come to expect a dishonest representation of things from certain
) )Waldorf teachers (kinda like we see right here on this list on
) )occasion).
)
) I think there's another reason they are often giving you incomplete or
) incorrect information about what is going on in the classroom. With
) young
) children especially, the biggest mistake a parent can make, they feel,
) is to
) TALK to the child about a problem they are having, or something
) upsetting
) that is going on in the classroom. Parents are always guilty of talking
) to
) their children "intellectually." One good way to prevent parents talking
) to
) the child about something is simply to make sure the parents don't know
) about it.
Well that could very well be part of their (misguided) intentions. It's
not for them to decide, however. I have a right to know whatever
happens to my child while my child is in their care - especially if my
child brings something home to me and needs help dealing with it. Most
often, when I get the run-around, it's because something much more
serious has happened and I've only gotten the tip of the iceberg.
) Eventually probably this habit of carefully filtering and monitoring
) what
) gets back to the parents becomes, well, a habit, or a feature of the
) school
) culture.
The only way to get information that is trustworthy is by talking to
other parents. The (certain) teachers have chosen to diminish their own
credibility by continually lying to parents. Same with the
administrators. The only ones, apparently, that are not lying are the
parents and the children.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:39:23 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana wrote:
Parents are always guilty of talking
)) to their children "intellectually." One good way to prevent parents
)) talking
)) to the child about something is simply to make sure the parents don't
)) know
)) about it.
Pete replied:
) Well that could very well be part of their (misguided) intentions. It's
) not for them to decide, however. I have a right to know whatever
) happens to my child while my child is in their care - especially if my
) child brings something home to me and needs help dealing with it. Most
) often, when I get the run-around, it's because something much more
) serious has happened and I've only gotten the tip of the iceberg.
I think this is a large part of the miscommunication between many Waldorf
teachers and non-Anthro-inspired parents. Two points:
1) Yes - we often hear that Waldorf teachers think parents should not speak
to their children "intellectually" and that a parent is harming a child's
development because the child to "too much in her head." Lemuria recently
wrote about not treating children as small adults - I wonder if that thought
is linked with not speaking to them intellectually? While I doubt anyone
sees a child as a "small adult," I think most would not consciously attempt
to avoid certain questions or discussions because they might be perceived as
being "intellectual." Yet, this conscious effort to guard the child from
"thinking" *does* happen in Waldorf schools during the first two main chunks
of the soul's journey a la Steiner - at least until age 14. Parents need to
understand this stuff and it needs to come FROM Waldorf Schools.
2) Pete's concern about the right of a parent to know whatever happens to
his child really needs to be seen in an Anthroposophical light. Some might
say you DO NOT have a right to know what happens. You might not understand -
the karma involved or the relationship or both. Again - how many parents
actually understand the dynamic of the Waldorf teacher/child relationship?
That relationship is MUCH deeper than most parents could imagine and THAT is
why
there is unfortunate and often disasterous conflict between parents and
teachers at Waldorf schools. Simple miscommunication and IMO - Waldorf
schools need to be very clear about what happens in the classroom and
explain to parents the spiritual/karmic significance of the relationship
between a child and her/his teacher in that class.
Steiner says to the first Waldorf teachers:
"You will have to take over children for their education and instruction -
children who will have received already (as you must remember) the
education, or mis-education given them by their parents."
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2175
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:47:03 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) Walden wrote:
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) ) ) ) ) ) AGAINST
) ) ) ) ) ) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) for
) ) ) ) ) ) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) they
) ) ) ) ) ) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) -Walden
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) ) ) ) ) ) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) ) ) ) ) ) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) ) ) ) ) ) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) ) ) ) ) ) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Even Steiner was against taking the "easy" path. Who here is critical
) ) ) ) ) of Waldorf but has no connection to it?
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) ) ) ) ) ) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) So you would have no trouble naming at least one I suppose?
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Pete
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) You said it...not I.
) ) ) ) c
) ) )
) ) ) No, YOU said it - and I challenged you to name one. Can you? Is there
) ) ) anyone here who, as you claim, despises Waldorf or its practitioners?
) ) ) Can you point to anyone here and make the claim that they despise
) ) ) Waldorf? Why don't you, for once, stop blowing smoke up everyone's ass
) )
) ) Classy, Pete.
) )
) ) ) and stand behind what you say? You made the claim that there "seems to
) ) ) be some" - so who are they? Name ONE. It shouldn't be so hard to do if
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) your claim is anything but BS.
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
)
)
) And also a classic Lemuria response. You can't name anyone so you
) continue to blow smoke. Not surprising in the least.
)
) Pete
Not can't....won't.
There's no point.
It would only be counterproductive.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:26:29 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) Walden wrote:
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AGAINST
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) for
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) they
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -Walden
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) ) ) ) ) ) ) list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) ) ) ) ) ) ) (especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) ) ) ) ) ) ) that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) Even Steiner was against taking the "easy" path. Who here is critical
) ) ) ) ) ) of Waldorf but has no connection to it?
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) ) ) ) ) ) ) despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) So you would have no trouble naming at least one I suppose?
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) Pete
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) You said it...not I.
) ) ) ) ) c
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) No, YOU said it - and I challenged you to name one. Can you? Is there
) ) ) ) anyone here who, as you claim, despises Waldorf or its practitioners?
) ) ) ) Can you point to anyone here and make the claim that they despise
) ) ) ) Waldorf? Why don't you, for once, stop blowing smoke up everyone's ass
) ) )
) ) ) Classy, Pete.
) ) )
) ) ) ) and stand behind what you say? You made the claim that there "seems to
) ) ) ) be some" - so who are they? Name ONE. It shouldn't be so hard to do if
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) your claim is anything but BS.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete
) )
) )
) ) And also a classic Lemuria response. You can't name anyone so you
) ) continue to blow smoke. Not surprising in the least.
) )
) ) Pete
)
) Not can't....won't.
) There's no point.
) It would only be counterproductive.
) c
Nope. CAN'T. And it is very productive to establish that you are making
statements you cannot support. That's the point. You and others
continually make the claim that *people* here are out to destroy Waldorf
or to hurt Anthroposophy - yet you cannot name a single person who fits
this perception you have. Either support the claim or withdraw it...
pretty simple really. This isn't a Waldorf classroom where everything
the teacher spouts out is automatically believed to be the truth. You
made the claim, now back it up - or let everyone see that it is false.
How simple-minded it must be to think that people critical of Waldorf
are simply "out to get" Waldorf. I suspect it makes Waldorf righteous
in Waldorf people's minds. The simple truth, that Waldorf is corrupt
and in need of reform, is lost on Waldorf people who, as they have been
trained to do, automatically discredit the messenger, discredit the free
voices that see things differently and clearly.
You, Lemuria, have made a statement that you cannot support with
evidence - that there are people here who would like to destroy Waldorf.
This is typical of the gossipy Waldorf-babble that is common on Waldorf
campuses when a parent speaks out against the establishment. It is
exactly what Waldorf education is based on - unsupportable nonsense
presented as fact. THAT'S the point, Lemuria, and for you to understand
how this works within yourself WOULD be productive.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 12:52:59 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria weasels out:
)Not can't....won't.
)There's no point.
)It would only be counterproductive.
It was productive to *make* this accusation, but it would be
counterproductive to back it up?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:17:28 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Walden:
)1) Yes - we often hear that Waldorf teachers think parents should not speak
)to their children "intellectually" and that a parent is harming a child's
)development because the child to "too much in her head." Lemuria recently
)wrote about not treating children as small adults - I wonder if that
)thought is linked with not speaking to them intellectually? While I doubt
)anyone sees a child as a "small adult," I think most would not )consciously
?attempt to avoid certain questions or discussions because they )might be
perceived as being "intellectual."
It might help to make this really concrete, for parents with small children
presently in Waldorf, or considering Waldorf and wondering just what it is
critics claim goes on.
It goes something like this. Child probably kindergarten age is claiming
that another child is hitting him/her in school or on the playground.
Parent:
Really? I'm sorry, honey, did it hurt? Tell me what happened.
Child:
So-and-so hit me, I cried, etc.
Parent:
Well, we will talk to them then. You need to ask him/her not to hit you. You
need to tell them it hurts, and you don't like them to hit you. It isn't
right to hit people is it? Perhaps we will talk to Mrs. X tomorrow . . .
Etc etc (most of us can picture this, I'm quite sure, and most of us have
experienced something like this. Parenting 101)
It might come to a surprise to parents to learn that to many Waldorf
teachers, this is ALL WRONG and that the teacher may be maneuvering things
to prevent your FINDING OUT that this is happening specifically so that you
will not have this conversation with your child.
The above parent/child interaction is "intellectual" and "abstract" and will
make your child "self-conscious." The teacher's method, in simple terms, is
to ignore the whole situation. Several things play in here: for one thing,
the conflict your child is having is karmic, and who wouldn't hesitate to
interfere in someone else's karma? And second, a notion of "child
development" is at work (derived from anthroposoph) in which the child,
under about age 7, is not fully "incarnated" in their body, not fully "here"
on earth, not conscious of themselves as an individual with different needs
or experiences from other people, and any interactions that foster their
understanding or experience of themselves as a person in this way are
undesirable.
There is a failure to understand children's cognitive development as well,
and I've heard Waldorf teachers say literally that children of kindergarten
age don't even *remember* later that someone hit them, unless an adult has
discussed it with them. I think sometimes they really are confused that a
bad situation has developed, because they really believed the child wouldn't
tell their parent.
Many Waldorf teachers seem not to get that parents are REALLY UPSET when
they learn their child is getting hurt and they haven't been told.
Pertaining to Charlie's "Don't treat children as small adults," another
example would be not introducing a new child to the rest of the class.
Charlie has endorsed this practice (or lack of practice) too. They're
supposedly made "self-conscious" by simple introductions, "Mary meet Johnny"
style, so a new child is left to sink or swim.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:48:21 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria weasels out:
)
) )Not can't....won't.
) )There's no point.
) )It would only be counterproductive.
)
) It was productive to *make* this accusation, but it would be
) counterproductive to back it up?
)
) Diana
)
)
For the sake of those joining in:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720334127&sort=d&start=31733
Walden wrote:
Yes, I find it curious that many Anthro-inspired people tend to create a
black & white/either-or view of the world. "You're either WITH us or
AGAINST
us . . . ." No matter how many times they hear that Waldorf critics,
for
example, actually think Waldorf has something *good* to offer children,
they
still put all critics into a convenient box with a convenient label.
-Walden
And Lemuria responded:
I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
(especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
And yet he cannot, apparently, identify a single person among the
Waldorf critics who despises Waldorf. I'd be amazed if he could find a
Waldorf critic who has "no connection" to Waldorf. Lemuria, once our
children have been "educated" in Waldorf, we are forever connected to
Waldorf - even if it is for the purpose of understanding the damage that
has been done to our kids and attempting to undo it.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:29:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria )
) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
)list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
)(especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
)that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
)despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
)c
Coming from you after all those posts criticising Waldorf from the outside
after you were booted out, this cannot be characterised as anything but
hypocrisy.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2176
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
symposium on the spiritual effects of computers
By dan dandugan.com
It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
By cffrey mindspring.com
Steiner Schools in England, Research Report
By me ijheath.gotadsl.co.uk
Re: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Steiner Schools in England, Research Report
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Steiner Schools in England, Research Report
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:41:58 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
) Walden:
)
) )1) Yes - we often hear that Waldorf teachers think parents should not
) )speak
)
) )to their children "intellectually" and that a parent is harming a
) )child's
) )development because the child to "too much in her head." Lemuria
) )recently
) )wrote about not treating children as small adults - I wonder if that
) )thought is linked with not speaking to them intellectually? While I
) )doubt
) )anyone sees a child as a "small adult," I think most would not
) ))consciously
) ?attempt to avoid certain questions or discussions because they )might
) be
) perceived as being "intellectual."
)
) It might help to make this really concrete, for parents with small
) children
) presently in Waldorf, or considering Waldorf and wondering just what it
) is
) critics claim goes on.
)
) It goes something like this. Child probably kindergarten age is claiming
) that another child is hitting him/her in school or on the playground.
)
) Parent:
) Really? I'm sorry, honey, did it hurt? Tell me what happened.
)
) Child:
) So-and-so hit me, I cried, etc.
)
) Parent:
) Well, we will talk to them then. You need to ask him/her not to hit you.
) You
) need to tell them it hurts, and you don't like them to hit you. It isn't
) right to hit people is it? Perhaps we will talk to Mrs. X tomorrow . . .
)
) Etc etc (most of us can picture this, I'm quite sure, and most of us
) have
) experienced something like this. Parenting 101)
)
) It might come to a surprise to parents to learn that to many Waldorf
) teachers, this is ALL WRONG and that the teacher may be maneuvering
) things
) to prevent your FINDING OUT that this is happening specifically so that
) you
) will not have this conversation with your child.
)
) The above parent/child interaction is "intellectual" and "abstract" and
) will
) make your child "self-conscious." The teacher's method, in simple terms,
) is
) to ignore the whole situation. Several things play in here: for one
) thing,
) the conflict your child is having is karmic, and who wouldn't hesitate
) to
) interfere in someone else's karma? And second, a notion of "child
) development" is at work (derived from anthroposoph) in which the child,
) under about age 7, is not fully "incarnated" in their body, not fully
) "here"
) on earth, not conscious of themselves as an individual with different
) needs
) or experiences from other people, and any interactions that foster their
) understanding or experience of themselves as a person in this way are
) undesirable.
)
) There is a failure to understand children's cognitive development as
) well,
) and I've heard Waldorf teachers say literally that children of
) kindergarten
) age don't even *remember* later that someone hit them, unless an adult
) has
) discussed it with them. I think sometimes they really are confused that
) a
) bad situation has developed, because they really believed the child
) wouldn't
) tell their parent.
The above sounds strange to me.
I've never heard of anything like this.
I guess it could be somebody's interpretation of Waldorf methods, but
it's not mine.
)
) Many Waldorf teachers seem not to get that parents are REALLY UPSET when
) they learn their child is getting hurt and they haven't been told.
)
) Pertaining to Charlie's "Don't treat children as small adults," another
) example would be not introducing a new child to the rest of the class.
) Charlie has endorsed this practice (or lack of practice) too. They're
) supposedly made "self-conscious" by simple introductions, "Mary meet
) Johnny"
) style, so a new child is left to sink or swim.
This is an unfortunate oversimplification of what I think (and,
probably, what I posted).
I no more endorse the practice of not introducing children to others
than I do introducing them every time.
Your "sink or swim" comment puts a malevolent twist on my words,and the
simple practice of trying the former (not introducing) before trying the
latter.
This twisting of words, and taking things out of context is an
unfortunate part of the culture of this list.
These are techniques that people use when they are trying to discredit
someone or something, not when they are trying to help.
c
)
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:09:13 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: symposium on the spiritual effects of computers
The Bay Area Center for Waldorf Teacher Training is organizing a
symposium about the spiritual effects of using computers. There is a
web site:
http://www.binarybeing.org
It's organized by Dorit Winter, who I believe is the founder of the
Center. There's a link to her 1997 article "Karma and the Internet":
http://www.binarybeing.org/docs/Karma_Internet.doc
The web site asks:
"How can we avoid sacrificing the very capacities in our inner life
for which we, as anthroposophists, are striving? How can we find ways
of off-setting the deleterious effect on our meditative life arising
from computer work?"
Ernst Schubreth, one of the organizers, writes in a press release:
"The phenomenology of changes caused [by computer use] in our own
consciousness, in our creativity, and in social life may lead to an
understanding of what the 'incarnation of Ahriman' really means. The
cognition of Ahriman can create in our souls the moral intuitions
that lead to Michaelic impulses into the world."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:05:36 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
It seems our friend Tarjei has finally realised what a little puppy he
has been about Anthroposophy - and something critics have been saying
all along to him and others, that a critical review, and not a wholesale
blind acceptance, of Steiner's work is essential in grasping what
Anthroposophy has (and doesn't have) to offer. Welcome to the big
leagues Tarjei. Nice of you to join us.
Pete
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/27716
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:07:41 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Lemuria )
) ) I think this has something to do with the dearth of critics on this
) )list who are trying to improve Waldorf education from the inside.
) ) When one is criticizing a system with which he has no connection
) )(especially when he has left with ill feelings), it is easy to assume
) )that he is against it, and trying to undermine it.
) ) And I don't think anybody would say that there are many critics who
) )despise Waldorf or its practitioners; but there seem to be some.
) )c
)
)
) Coming from you after all those posts criticising Waldorf from the
) outside
) after you were booted out, this cannot be characterised as anything but
) hypocrisy.
)
) See you, Peter
)
I am still very much involved in Waldorf, and was not booted out of it.
I was with a deeply troubled school that is experiencing an exodus of
teachers (some fired, some leaving because they can't take it anymore,
some actively looking for new jobs, and some more who are just stuck
there because there is nowhere else to go without uprooting their
families)and students.
The idea that being fired from one school is tantamount to being kicked
out of Waldorf is as absurd as forming one's opinions of Waldorf based
on experiences in one school.
Hypocrisy?
What a foolish thing to say.
c
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:12:25 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) Welcome to the big
) leagues Tarjei. Nice of you to join us.
)
) Pete
)
Oh my God.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Maybe someday I'll do something that you agree with enough and get
invited into your "big leagues".
Either way, you'll always have a special place in my heart as my
favorite "Waldorf Critic".
c
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:15:47 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Lemuria wrote:
) The idea that being fired from one school is tantamount to being kicked
) out of Waldorf is as absurd as forming one's opinions of Waldorf based
) on experiences in one school.
That's why we are here, Lemuria, to validate the experiences of people
who have experienced what we each have experienced. These very negative
experiences of Waldorf are a WORLD WIDE phenomenon, not isolated
incidents. Very few schools (if any) are free from the underlying
problems that affect and torment Waldorf education WORLD WIDE. The
attitude you hold, that each and every problem is an isolated incident
is preposterous, and certainly part of the problem with Waldorf as a
whole.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:22:42 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) Welcome to the big
) ) leagues Tarjei. Nice of you to join us.
) )
) ) Pete
) )
) Oh my God.
) I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
) Maybe someday I'll do something that you agree with enough and get
) invited into your "big leagues".
) Either way, you'll always have a special place in my heart as my
) favorite "Waldorf Critic".
) c
You were, once, in the big leagues, when you were being fired from your
former school. You expressed yourself in a way that made sense and
showed clarity of thought. You weren't afraid to put your foot in the
stream and make the water flow around you. Now you've gone back to the
minor leagues, however, repeating the party line. Need to comply, fall
in line and check your thoughts in your Brave New Waldorf World. You
don't get to the big leagues by mimicking the minor leaguers. You have
a voice, Charlie - why not swing for the fences even when you get the
sign to bunt?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:44:39 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) Welcome to the big
) ) ) leagues Tarjei. Nice of you to join us.
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
) ) )
) ) Oh my God.
) ) I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
) ) Maybe someday I'll do something that you agree with enough and get
) ) invited into your "big leagues".
) ) Either way, you'll always have a special place in my heart as my
) ) favorite "Waldorf Critic".
) ) c
)
)
) You were, once, in the big leagues, when you were being fired from your
) former school. You expressed yourself in a way that made sense and
) showed clarity of thought. You weren't afraid to put your foot in the
) stream and make the water flow around you. Now you've gone back to the
) minor leagues, however, repeating the party line. Need to comply, fall
) in line and check your thoughts in your Brave New Waldorf World. You
) don't get to the big leagues by mimicking the minor leaguers. You have
) a voice, Charlie - why not swing for the fences even when you get the
) sign to bunt?
)
) Pete
Pete...if anything, I'm even more free to express my opinions now that I
am away from that oppressive environment.
Don't confuse this small forum with a small group of people discussing a
narrow range of topics with what I am doing with my life,
I continue, though, to stir up excrement, AND try to help people in
positive, constructive ways.
I think you would find, if the same topics that you think I was making
sense on were being discussed, that my current opinions would be
consistent with my former (I think, anyway...things DO change, thank
goodness).
I think that what happens to me on this forum is that I agree with a
couple of things that are being said here (especially in terms of being
open and honest with parents), and a few people say, "Oh, goody! A
Waldorf teacher who is one of us!" Then, when something else comes up
that I disagree with, it's "That Charlie is a hypocrite and/or has
chickened out and is following the party line. We had such jigh hopes
for him."
I have no regrets about the fact that I will seldom please the people on
this list.
.
c
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:59:03 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) ) Welcome to the big
) ) ) ) leagues Tarjei. Nice of you to join us.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete
) ) ) )
) ) ) Oh my God.
) ) ) I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
) ) ) Maybe someday I'll do something that you agree with enough and get
) ) ) invited into your "big leagues".
) ) ) Either way, you'll always have a special place in my heart as my
) ) ) favorite "Waldorf Critic".
) ) ) c
) )
) )
) ) You were, once, in the big leagues, when you were being fired from your
) ) former school. You expressed yourself in a way that made sense and
) ) showed clarity of thought. You weren't afraid to put your foot in the
) ) stream and make the water flow around you. Now you've gone back to the
) ) minor leagues, however, repeating the party line. Need to comply, fall
) ) in line and check your thoughts in your Brave New Waldorf World. You
) ) don't get to the big leagues by mimicking the minor leaguers. You have
) ) a voice, Charlie - why not swing for the fences even when you get the
) ) sign to bunt?
) )
) ) Pete
)
) Pete...if anything, I'm even more free to express my opinions now that I
)
) am away from that oppressive environment.
) Don't confuse this small forum with a small group of people discussing a
)
) narrow range of topics with what I am doing with my life,
) I continue, though, to stir up excrement, AND try to help people in
) positive, constructive ways.
I don't confuse or suggest that your life is tied to your involvement on
this list - but you posted "Maybe someday I'll do something that you
agree with enough and get invited into your "big leagues" - so maybe you
aren't doing as much stirring up excrement as you are wading in it. I
get the feeling you want to be one of the good guys in the Waldorf
movement. So do I (no really). Maybe my calling is to get you to rise
to your calling.
) I think you would find, if the same topics that you think I was making
) sense on were being discussed, that my current opinions would be
) consistent with my former (I think, anyway...things DO change, thank
) goodness).
) I think that what happens to me on this forum is that I agree with a
) couple of things that are being said here (especially in terms of being
) open and honest with parents), and a few people say, "Oh, goody! A
) Waldorf teacher who is one of us!"
No, not "one of us" but "one who gets it". Some things that critics
have been critical of, you seem to get, others you don't. Many people
seem to get the "honesty" with parents issue, but fall back on their
Anthroposophical training on other problematic issues like the
temperaments and racism and science and that Anthroposophy is taught in
the schools and that an Anthroposophical indoctrination actually occurs
at Waldorf schools, and that by high school, students are expected to
know of and read Steiner.
) Then, when something else comes up
) that I disagree with, it's "That Charlie is a hypocrite and/or has
) chickened out and is following the party line. We had such jigh hopes
) for him."
It's not that you disagree that's the problem Charlie, it's that you
disagree without supporting your reason for disagreement. You don't
debate why you disagree and you don't substantiate your claims about how
things taught in Waldorf (for example) affect students. You parrot the
party line about Steiner's ideas that this or that may be good or bad
for children.
) I have no regrets about the fact that I will seldom please the people on
)
) this list.
I'm sure we don't want you to "please" us. Nobody here is trying to
groom you for the future Waldorf teacher model. Please yourself,
Charlie, and be honest with yourself about where your ideas about
teaching have come from. Are the coming from your head, heart and
hands, or are the coming from Steiner's? And really, it doesn't matter
in the long run - what matters is recognizing that you are teaching
something that is different and making sure parents AND students realize
this clearly before they sign up for Waldorf. You seem to have a bit of
a handle on this, so run with that.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:15:51 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
I described a typical scenario in which a Waldorf parent doesn't understand
that normal sympathy and normal communication with a child is considered
"damaging," "intellectual" etc. and the teacher may not tell the parent
about classroom incidents to prevent the parent talking about it with the
child.
Lemuria replies:
)The above sounds strange to me.
Get real, Charlie. It's reported from Waldorf schools the world over.
You've not only been a Waldorf teacher for years, you've also read this list
for years.
)I've never heard of anything like this.
Like what? You've never heard it said that today's parents talk to their
children too "intellectually" (or "treat them like little adults"); that
speaking with a child directly or discussing something that has happened to
them factually and sympathetically will make them "self-conscious"; or that
teachers hesitate to intervene in conflicts between students which may be
karmic?
Or what Walden said: that the teacher presumes her/his relationship with the
students to be karmic, and in some cases to have a greater authority and
spiritual significance than the parent/child bond - giving them the right to
sort of feed information to parents on a "need to know" basis?
Of course you've heard all this: you've heard the Steiner quote on this
list, many times, in which he tells teachers - early in the first lecture in
the core textbook in Waldorf teacher training, Study of Man - that parents
will have been "miseducating" and mistraining their children and that part
of their job as a Waldorf teacher is to try to undo the damage the parents
have done.
About introducing a new child to the class:
)This is an unfortunate oversimplification of what I think (and,
)probably, what I posted).
)I no more endorse the practice of not introducing children to others
)than I do introducing them every time.
LOL. I guess that's supposed to sound open minded, like you steer some kind
of thoughtful middle course. Give us a break. Treating children like normal
human beings *every time* is a simple idea. It's *rude* to bring in new kids
and not introduce them around.
)Your "sink or swim" comment puts a malevolent twist on my words,
They aren't your words, they're my words. "Sink or swim" is what happens to
a child who doesn't know anyone in the new class and isn't given any help
getting to know anyone.
)simple practice of trying the former (not introducing) before trying the
)latter.
"Trying the former" would mean trying *not* introducing them, and see how
things go? Sure, some kids are not shy and will introduce themselves. These
kids are confident and not self-conscious anyway, and won't be harmed either
way. The ones who *are* shy and who are *already* self-conscious
particularly need your help. It's really simple Charlie: you say something
like, "Mary, this is Johnny." It's done the world over.
)This twisting of words, and taking things out of context is an
)unfortunate part of the culture of this list.
)These are techniques that people use when they are trying to discredit
)someone or something, not when they are trying to help.
I didn't do that, however. I didn't quote your words, I gave my
interpretation of your words.
As to "trying to help," who do you think I'm trying to help? You? To look
good or feel comfy here? No - to help parents who are wondering why the
Waldorf teacher behaves so oddly, why he/she isn't trying to help the kids
work out a conflict, why the child comes home saying "Sara hit me and the
teacher didn't say anything," or why they aren't hearing about half the
things going on in the classroom that they need to hear about. Why they are
finding out weeks or months later about some tangled embroiled situation
that they should have been told about much earlier.
*Those* people often find these explanations helpful. The Waldorf teacher is
often not forthcoming with explanations like this, to parents - but I'm
familiar with them because I've heard the behind-the-scenes discussions
among the faculty saying exactly what I'm explaining to parents here.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:25:03 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: It sounds GREAT when THEY say it
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) ) ) Welcome to the big
) ) ) ) ) leagues Tarjei. Nice of you to join us.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Pete
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Oh my God.
) ) ) ) I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
) ) ) ) Maybe someday I'll do something that you agree with enough and get
) ) ) ) invited into your "big leagues".
) ) ) ) Either way, you'll always have a special place in my heart as my
) ) ) ) favorite "Waldorf Critic".
) ) ) ) c
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) You were, once, in the big leagues, when you were being fired from your
) ) ) former school. You expressed yourself in a way that made sense and
) ) ) showed clarity of thought. You weren't afraid to put your foot in the
) ) ) stream and make the water flow around you. Now you've gone back to the
) ) ) minor leagues, however, repeating the party line. Need to comply, fall
) ) ) in line and check your thoughts in your Brave New Waldorf World. You
) ) ) don't get to the big leagues by mimicking the minor leaguers. You have
) ) ) a voice, Charlie - why not swing for the fences even when you get the
) ) ) sign to bunt?
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
) )
) ) Pete...if anything, I'm even more free to express my opinions now that I
) )
) )
) ) am away from that oppressive environment.
) ) Don't confuse this small forum with a small group of people discussing a
) )
) )
) ) narrow range of topics with what I am doing with my life,
) ) I continue, though, to stir up excrement, AND try to help people in
) ) positive, constructive ways.
)
) I don't confuse or suggest that your life is tied to your involvement on
)
) this list - but you posted "Maybe someday I'll do something that you
) agree with enough and get invited into your "big leagues" - so maybe you
)
) aren't doing as much stirring up excrement as you are wading in it. I
) get the feeling you want to be one of the good guys in the Waldorf
) movement. So do I (no really). Maybe my calling is to get you to rise
) to your calling.
)
)
) ) I think you would find, if the same topics that you think I was making
) ) sense on were being discussed, that my current opinions would be
) ) consistent with my former (I think, anyway...things DO change, thank
) ) goodness).
) ) I think that what happens to me on this forum is that I agree with a
) ) couple of things that are being said here (especially in terms of being
) ) open and honest with parents), and a few people say, "Oh, goody! A
) ) Waldorf teacher who is one of us!"
)
) No, not "one of us" but "one who gets it".
Again...don't confuse "getting it" with "getting it RIGHT".
You imply that if I 'get it', it naturally follows that I will agree
with you and be right.
Believe me, I 'get' the vast majority of what is said here.
I just don't agree.
c
Some things that critics
) have been critical of, you seem to get, others you don't. Many people
) seem to get the "honesty" with parents issue, but fall back on their
) Anthroposophical training on other problematic issues like the
) temperaments and racism and science and that Anthroposophy is taught in
) the schools and that an Anthroposophical indoctrination actually occurs
) at Waldorf schools, and that by high school, students are expected to
) know of and read Steiner.
)
) ) Then, when something else comes up
) ) that I disagree with, it's "That Charlie is a hypocrite and/or has
) ) chickened out and is following the party line. We had such jigh hopes
) ) for him."
)
) It's not that you disagree that's the problem Charlie, it's that you
) disagree without supporting your reason for disagreement. You don't
) debate why you disagree and you don't substantiate your claims about how
)
) things taught in Waldorf (for example) affect students. You parrot the
) party line about Steiner's ideas that this or that may be good or bad
) for children.
)
) ) I have no regrets about the fact that I will seldom please the people on
) )
) )
) ) this list.
)
) I'm sure we don't want you to "please" us. Nobody here is trying to
) groom you for the future Waldorf teacher model. Please yourself,
) Charlie, and be honest with yourself about where your ideas about
) teaching have come from. Are the coming from your head, heart and
) hands, or are the coming from Steiner's? And really, it doesn't matter
) in the long run - what matters is recognizing that you are teaching
) something that is different and making sure parents AND students realize
)
) this clearly before they sign up for Waldorf. You seem to have a bit of
)
) a handle on this, so run with that.
)
) Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:41:36 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf in Nazi Germany
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) I described a typical scenario in which a Waldorf parent doesn't
) understand
) that normal sympathy and normal communication with a child is considered
) "damaging," "intellectual" etc. and the teacher may not tell the parent
) about classroom incidents to prevent the parent talking about it with
) the
) child.
)
) Lemuria replies:
)
)
)
) )The above sounds strange to me.
)
) Get real, Charlie. It's reported from Waldorf schools the world over.
) You've not only been a Waldorf teacher for years, you've also read this
) list
) for years.
The idea of not intellectualizing does not extend to allowing an
unhealthy situation to continue.
)
)
) )I've never heard of anything like this.
)
) Like what? You've never heard it said that today's parents talk to their
) children too "intellectually" (or "treat them like little adults");
Yes.
that
) speaking with a child directly or discussing something that has happened
) to
) them factually and sympathetically will make them "self-conscious";
No.
or that
) teachers hesitate to intervene in conflicts between students which may
) be
) karmic?
Yes. Hesitate...not avoid.
Do you always jump right in when a child struggles?
Or do you let him attempt to work something out?
)
) Or what Walden said: that the teacher presumes her/his relationship with
) the
) students to be karmic,
Yes.
and in some cases to have a greater authority and
) spiritual significance than the parent/child bond - giving them the
) right to
) sort of feed information to parents on a "need to know" basis?
Greater?
Big stuff.
I don't know about that.
I hope not.
That would be too much for a teacher, I think.
)
) Of course you've heard all this: you've heard the Steiner quote on this
) list, many times, in which he tells teachers - early in the first
) lecture in
) the core textbook in Waldorf teacher training, Study of Man - that
) parents
) will have been "miseducating" and mistraining their children and that
) part
) of their job as a Waldorf teacher is to try to undo the damage the
) parents
) have done.
Mistraining is your word, I think.
You must be referring to "Education of the Child"
Is it such a terrible thing for a parent to admit that a trained
professional can do something better than he can? That such a person can
fix the mistakes of an untrained person?
Remember who the first Waldorf students were, too.
They were from the lowest socio-economic strata.
)
)
) About introducing a new child to the class:
)
) )This is an unfortunate oversimplification of what I think (and,
) )probably, what I posted).
)
)
) )I no more endorse the practice of not introducing children to others
) )than I do introducing them every time.
)
) LOL. I guess that's supposed to sound open minded, like you steer some
) kind
) of thoughtful middle course. Give us a break. Treating children like
) normal
) human beings *every time* is a simple idea. It's *rude* to bring in new
) kids
) and not introduce them around.
)
)
) )Your "sink or swim" comment puts a malevolent twist on my words,
)
) They aren't your words, they're my words. "Sink or swim" is what happens
) to
) a child who doesn't know anyone in the new class and isn't given any
) help
) getting to know anyone.
)
)
) )simple practice of trying the former (not introducing) before trying the
) )
) )latter.
)
) "Trying the former" would mean trying *not* introducing them, and see
) how
) things go? Sure, some kids are not shy and will introduce themselves.
) These
) kids are confident and not self-conscious anyway, and won't be harmed
) either
) way. The ones who *are* shy and who are *already* self-conscious
) particularly need your help. It's really simple Charlie: you say
) something
) like, "Mary, this is Johnny." It's done the world over.
Again...I think that advances made on one's own are the sweetest.
Putting children together to meet each other does nothing less than give
them the opportunity to meet on their own terms and have the feeling of
building something on their own.
)
)
) )This twisting of words, and taking things out of context is an
) )unfortunate part of the culture of this list.
) )These are techniques that people use when they are trying to discredit
) )someone or something, not when they are trying to help.
)