A few months ago, as part of the Academy for the Love of Learning’s efforts to push the education envelope in Santa Fe [cover story, March 14: “Localize This!: Stop the Experiment”], I visited a little charter school in Sebastopol, Calif. I was led into a sunny third-grade classroom where 30 or so children wrote quietly at wooden desks while a schoolmarmish teacher stood at the chalkboard. Then I was led into a sunny fourth-grade classroom where 30 or so children wrote quietly at wooden desks while a schoolmasterly teacher stood at the chalkboard. In both classrooms, ceramic drinking mugs hung from wooden pegs above the sink.
I rapped on a wall to make sure I wasn’t on the set of Little House on the Prairie.
I wasn’t. I’d just entered the world of Waldorf education.
It was Aaron Stern, president and founder of the Academy, who suggested I look into the emerging national trend of Waldorf-inspired public charter schools, now 14,500 students strong. I knew almost nothing about it: Like most of my public school chums, I held vague associations with an artsy, Dungeons-and-Dragons-type place for the overprivileged.
To prepare for my visit, I read hundred-year-old lectures by the Austrian fellow who founded Waldorf, Rudolf Steiner. Steiner was a philosopher, architect, social reformer and clairvoyant who believed with startling certainty in reincarnation. Combining boundless intellectual energy with his esoteric spiritual understandings, he conjectured theories about nearly every field of human activity, from farming to medicine to art.
In 1919, as Europe groped forward from World War I, he put his theories on education to the test by founding a school for the children of employees at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany. Steiner instructed his teachers to treat the students as if they were seeds, each carrying a unique karmic destiny. Teachers were to nurture the individual temperaments and talents of the children, and attempt to solve the riddle of why each had come into this world at this time.
This fascinating approach to education may be the main reason why there are more than 1,000 Waldorf schools worldwide today, including some 50 publicly funded charters in the US. As modern research has revealed that children have multiple intelligences and are “hard-wired” to learn, Steiner’s “see the child” pedagogy has become increasingly relevant, and the “one-size-fits-all” pedagogy of mainstream schools increasingly obsolete.
Those of us who work in non-Waldorf schools, of course, do everything we can to develop individual talents. But unlike our Waldorf colleagues, we’re working against the historical grain of our institution, which is why public school teachers, students, administrators and parents often find themselves having to do things they don’t feel are right.
Not so at the five Bay Area charter schools I visited in January. They were classic Waldorf: teacher-centered, wooden materials, student-made lesson books, a de-emphasis on reading and computers in the early years, and singing and knitting and story-telling galore. But what distinguishes these schools from any good public school is not so much what they are doing, but the atmosphere in which they are doing it. There is a shared sense of purpose, an overwhelming sense that everyone is on the same pedagogical quest.
I don’t know if Waldorf-inspired charter schools are a good fit for Santa Fe. It can’t hurt to see what we might learn from the private Waldorf school we do have. But the deeper lesson here is that the public Waldorf school movement offers hard evidence that change is possible in public education, that the outdated models dominating our schools are not as impenetrable as we might believe.
Seth Biderman is under contract with the Academy for the Love of Learning to research different learning models and further public conversation about what “school” could someday be in Santa Fe. Seth Biderman is a graduate of SFPS and a former Santa Fe teacher and administrator.
The author wrote: "But the deeper lesson here is that the public Waldorf school movement offers hard evidence that change is possible in public education, that the outdated models dominating our schools are not as impenetrable as we might believe."
The "outdated model" is Waldorf, I'm sorry to inform you. Steiner's anti-intellectualism isn't the only problem with these schools. They are literally the missionary arm of Anthroposophy - Steiner's quasi-religious esoteric philosophy. The schools disguise their intent in wonderful trappings but there is little actual education going on here. Read the comments from parents of Ocean Charter Waldorf school parents: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/23636 who find their charter school is not unlike the problematic private Waldorf school system. Ocean is arguably the highest rated of California charter Waldorf schools being the only one to receive a passing grade from the state.
A HUGE problem with Waldorf education is Steiner's philosophy itself - which is infused into the curriculum (despite the technically true claim that "Anthroposophy is not taught to students" - DIRECTLY. In my son's physiology class at Highland Hall Waldorf school in Northridge, CA, the teacher taught that "the blood of people from Europe is more evolved than the blood of people from Africa and Asia." This was taught as science - and when I objected, several meetings ensued and Highland Hall SUPPORTED the lesson - i.e. they stood behind the teaching of Steiner's RACISM to children. These schools are shamefully misrepresented in the media. Parents, beware!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your comments, Mr. Karaiskos. The movement in California also has its detractors, including one man who has unsuccesfully challenged the schools' existence in the California courts. I agree with your observation that there is much about Steiner's philosophy that is outdated, and am not surprised to learn he even expressed racist ideas. My own feeling, during my visits, was that some Waldorf schools and teachers may in fact cling too tightly to Steiner's teachings, though it seems that many of the public schools--including a new start up Waldorf-inspired charter school that hopes to serve children of color in inner city Oakland--are trying to capture the best of Steiner and leaving more anachronistic elements behind. Still, I stand by my observation that public schools inspired by Waldorf do offer evidence that it is possible to build and sustain an alternative (however imperfect) to the maintstream model of public education, which leaves so many children (especially children of uneducated parents) discouraged, alienated, and unseen.
Seth wrote: "The movement in California also has its detractors, including one man who has unsuccesfully challenged the schools' existence in the California courts."
If you are referring to the PLANS lawsuit (not "one man") that case is in the court of appeals. It isn't over by a long shot.
"My own feeling, during my visits, was that some Waldorf schools and teachers may in fact cling too tightly to Steiner's teachings, though it seems that many of the public schools--including a new start up Waldorf-inspired charter school that hopes to serve children of color in inner city Oakland--are trying to capture the best of Steiner and leaving more anachronistic elements behind."
How can that be? Waldorf teachers, whether in public or private Waldorf schools, are trained in Waldorf Teacher Training (such as the WISC in Southern California). A peek at Waldorf teacher training reading lists reveals the HEAVY presence of Steiner in the required reading - INCLUDING Steiner's racist material. There is a reason for this. Steiner used (and Waldorf uses) physical characteristics to evaluate children. This is know as "the temperaments" in Waldorf (this is medieval stuff - nothing modern here). Every child is divided into one of four temperaments. Waldorf teachers use other physical factors to assess children - children may be either "large-headed" (intellectual) or "small-headed" (dreamy). Some schools STILL try to break children of "lefthandedness". Again, this nonsense is REQUIRED READING for Waldorf teachers - private and public. Waldorf teachers are required to learn about these "physical" characteristics so they can assess children properly. In their special training, Waldorf teachers learn nonsense like "phlegmatics" are "lazy" and "cholerics" show "hot temper" and MUST apply that to their teaching experience. Steiner also wrote "Blond hair and blue eyes bestows intelligence." I'm sure Waldorf teachers DON'T listen to THAT part, right?
I don't necessarily disagree that an alternative to public education is desirable... but far too many people seem to be jumping on the Waldorf alternative bandwagon without knowing what it's about. This isn't only detrimental to their own children's education, but it hurts Waldorf when customers are first fooled by the press, and only LATER discover the truth. Waldorf charter schools are run by the very same people who run Waldorf private schools - and employ the very same problematic teachers too.
Thanks again for the conversation, Mr. Karaiskos. I hope the column makes it clear that I’m presenting the public Waldorf movement only as one example of an alternative to the industrial model of schooling. I’ll be presenting other models in future columns, and hope you and others take time to share your thoughts on them as well. The larger question for me is if there is anything we can learn, as a community, from the way contemporary public schools are interpreting Steiner's approach to children and learning. Some of the Waldorf practices I found compelling in my observations include the way teachers often stay with a group of students for more than one year (some mainstream public schools have begun doing this as well, called looping), the integration of arts education, the interdisciplinary nature of the main lesson blocks in the high school, and the attention to classroom aesthetics. I was less impressed by the curriculum itself, which felt a little stagnant, and at least in the elementary years seemed to involve little self-directed or project-based learning. But as I state in the column, and reiterate here, what was most impressive was the fact that everyone in the school, from the administrators to the teachers, really did believe that each child had a unique reason for being on this planet, and so had to be nurtured--this idea, though it may have grown from an esoteric or even racist philosophy, offers a radical contrast from the viewpoint inherent in the competitive environment of mainstream schools (though rejected by good teachers and administrators), where it is taken for granted that some children must fail.
Thank you for the conversation Seth. Yes, I hope to see other models - perhaps some that are based on some science and not "clairvoyance".
You wrote: "But to continue the conversation at hand, the larger question for me is if there is anything we can learn, as a community, from the way contempary public schools are interpreting Steiner\'s approach to chlidren and learning."
Are you suggesting something other than Waldorf? Because the only contemporary public schools applying Steiner's approach are Waldorf charter schools... and those are populated by Waldorf-trained teachers... that is, teachers who have gone through teacher training and agree with the Waldorf philosophy of the classification of children into four temperaments as well as Steiner's wacky ideas about the races.
Waldorf may have some good ideas, but looping isn't one of them and indeed doesn't work in reality. You should probably take a poll of Waldorf students to see how many had a single teacher for eight years. I think you will find that a very rare occurance. My oldest son had a single teacher, but my other son had 7 teachers in eight years, my daughter 8. Looping may be acceptable IF you have a great teacher (or in our one case, VERY supportive parents). If you don't happen to get a great teacher, a class is stuck with that teacher (Steiner taught that children are karmically connected to their teacher - so Waldorf schools are extremely reluctant to replace poor-performing teachers).
Classroom aesthetics look nice, until you realize that each classroom is painted in accordance with Steiner's indications. EVERY Waldorf first grade is painted the same color (red)... for spiritual, not aesthetic reasons.
It seems great that Waldorf schools spend time integrating the arts into the curriculum, but there again, this is done so that subject matter can be de-intellectualized. "History through art" means a whole lot of art and NO history. Actual history, after all, might interfere with the mythology they're interested in teaching.
In your article, you described children writing at their desks as the teacher wrote on the chalkboard. Do you know what they were writing? I can tell you what each and every child was writing in their book - and I'm not even clairvoyant. They were COPYING EXACTLY what was on the chalkboard... not writing on their own, just copying what the teacher wrote, letter for letter, picture for picture.
"But as I state in the column, and reiterate here, what was most impressive was the fact that everyone in the school, from the administrators to the teachers, really did believe that each child had a unique reason for being on this planet, and so had to be nurtured"
That's really at odds with my experience. Children are anything but "unique" or "individuals" in Waldorf. If they were thought of as such, they wouldn't be pigeonholed into one of four temperaments, for starters. "Nurturing" is not as commonly associated with Waldorf as "bullying" is. Many if not most parent complaints about Waldorf relate to bullying - which is something Waldorf teachers believe is karmic interaction between children and shouldn't be interfered with. Waldorf believes some children must fail... but it's the ones who display intellectual curiosity who must fail. Curious children don't have their questions answered (too intellectual) - and if they do, they are fed nonsense answers. "Why is the sky blue?" - "Because God made it that way." There's NO room for the "individual" who wants to be curious... they soon stop asking their teachers questions and fall into the non-intellectual cookie cutter Waldorf student role.
You may be onto something good, but simply picked a VERY bad example.
I agrre that Waldorf is a fascinating approach. It is, however a dead-end approach, wasting the energy of many creative teachers who could have contributed much more in mainstream schools. The reason is simply that it is based on unreason, the occult insights of it's founder. Using the literally antique system of dividing pupils in the four temperaments is just one example. The "arts" activities are also more like disciplined spiritual practices, suitable for monks. Ask them for example why young kids shouldn't use the black colour. Good like in continuing the search for good schools!
Thanks for joining in, and for the well wishes in our search for differents models of schooling. Your comment about wasting the creative energy of teachers strikes one of the key chords of school reform, in my mind: what model of schooling gives teachers the best environment in which to make full use of their creativity, passion, and knowledge? The Waldorf teachers I met in Northern California seemed overall quite engaged and enthused, and I was impressed that they spent time, for example, working on their own chalkboard art. Pete might claim they've been brainwashed, or at least misled, but the fact is they did not seem as frustrated as many of my colleagues from mainstream schools (likely because they'd sought out Waldorf in the first place). Recently I received an email from a colleague who's been teaching a few years in a Santa Fe charter school, where supposedly teachers enjoy more autonomy and less bureacratic oversight. He's a good teacher. He's also considering quitting because--his exact words--he feels like he's "wasting his talents" in the face of confining structures and a general atmosphere of apathy. I'm not claiming he'd be better off in a Waldorf-inspired school, but I am wondering: Where should he go? To a private school? To a "better" school district? What can Santa Fe (as a community, not as a school district) do to inspire him to continue sharing his talents with his students?
Full disclosure: I'm Seth's brother. As such I understand and admire his article as part of a larger quest to seek out better education systems.
I also have to agree with the comments of Pete. I'm a farmer and one trait that I aspire to, and all good farmers share, is an intense and astute observation of nature. I've been exposed to biodynamic agriculture and not been too impressed. The biodynamic practitioner must accept with blind faith that the intuitive and abstruse proclamations of Steiner represent a portal to some sort of nirvana. You must plant carrots when Jupiter is entering Virgo, (or something like that); rather than planting when your own observations, experience, and yes intuition would lead you to.
Thanks for the comments, hermano. You may want to check out Pete's blog for a more in-depth look at the debate, including some startling quotes from Steiner, but also some rebuttals from people who have more experience with Waldorf. http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/.
Your point is well-taken. There is nothing more demeaning to an educator, in my experience, than being denied the opportunity to teach from your own heart, your own experience, your own knowledge and intuition. (There's nothing more demeaning to a human in any profession, I'd say. Smells a little Marxist, I know....) I do believe that many Waldorf teachers find a way to use Steiner's theories, like the idea that children are born with different temperaments, as more of an inspiration than a manual--the difference, maybe, between following the spirit and the letter of a law.
In mainstream schools, the idea of training teachers as "technicians" is strong, and perhaps getting stronger. Last year I sat through a professional development session in which the trainer informed us that teaching is no longer an art, and presented nine techniques scientifically proven to get good results (read, higher test scores). "Getting to know your students" was not one of the techniques. No one's going to be truly happy or effective in any vocation if he's so blinded by theory (whether Steiner or industrial psychology) he fails to see what's before him. Which raises the question: How do we prepare people to be passionate, knowledgeable teachers who can "see" their students? (Or in your field, how do we prepare farmers to understand their observations and work off intuition?) My hunch is that the answer involves a lot less sitting in college classrooms, and probably a lot less reading of texts, than we've been trained to think.
I appreciated the article. "By their fruits you shall know them": Waldorf has provided a great education for my children.
Incidentally, my brother took his kids out of a Waldorf public school because he listened to critiques about the theory. After two years in mainstream public education, he came running back to the Waldorf public school. He discovered that the practice worked much better for his children...and is growing to appreciate the theory behind it.
There are critics of everything. Why the critics of Waldorf are so passionate, I don't know...it reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, however.
In my experience, it's not so much anti-intellectualism as an outdated middle school model, or rather the lack of a middle school model (the idea of 8 years of primary education is hopelessly dated). My school is working hard to change this right now: We all know that by 11-12 years (at latest) children need much more independent work and academic challenge.
The early years seem to work well, and you are right that it gets much better in high school again. And even when I compare the middle school years with my friends' children in public schools, there's no way I'd swap systems.
Thanks for the link to Pete's blog, Seth. Wow. His main point seems to be: "Waldorf is the missionary arm of Anthroposophy." If so, it's obviously failing miserably, as virtually no Waldorf students go on to become anthroposophists! He seems to think all Waldorf grads are deeply anti-technology, which is just about opposite to what I've seen among my son's crowd.
I'm afraid Pete's in a bit of a time-warp back to the age when Steiner lived and wrote, when many esoteric traditions were a big deal in Europe (kinda like a few decades later when we hippies were sure our fresh integrative insights would change the world!). Perhaps at that time, spreading the anthroposophical idea was important to people around him, but I see no, zilch, evidence that modern Waldorf teachers care about the spiritual beleifs of their students or even colleagues.
As his blog illustrates, Pete's the one on a mission to tap into any positive mention of Waldorf in the press, even a little local paper, and share his conspiracy theory about indoctrinating our kids. Ah, the wonder of technology, indeed! I'm glad to see that in all the places he pipes up, people with less traumatic experiences show up to try to ground the discussion.
(and SFR/Seth: I totally get it if you'd rather not fan any flames by posting this, it may be too directed at Pete rather than the post; and if you do post it you can cut this parenthetical--or run the comment without the final paragraph)
My children attend the Waldorf school here in Santa Fe. I can't speak for Pete's experiences in California, but we (not just my children, but we as a family) have benefited greatly from our experiences here with the Santa Fe Waldorf School. Our first child started in Santa Fe's public schools, but after two years of trying to make it work with union-protected teachers and clock-punching principals, we began looking for alternatives. And that's when we found Waldorf. I am not religious or even "spiritual" (and certainly not an Anthroposophist), but I believe that children should be treated as more than budding workers and consumers. Waldorf gives kids a chance to learn according to their natural development, and it is focused primarily on helping the child find fulfillment and make their own way in a world that is often confusing and dangerous.
I won't respond to all of the defamatory claims made here about Waldorf (a good website for that is waldorfanswers.org), but I will say that during 10 years in Waldorf I have not seen the anti-intellectualism mentioned. The work being done by my high school student resembles that being done by college students. I have no doubts my kids will be ready for college. In fact, last year, the students in the graduating class here received on average $90,000 in college scholarships EACH!