Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Part of a Waldorf Teacher Education Reading List

Yes, we read lots of Rudolf Steiner's educational work at Sunbridge Institute in our teacher education programs. But that's not all we read, not by a long shot.


Here's a reading list for a course on the history and philosophy of education in the United States that I have taught at Teachers College and at Sunbridge. Different institutions, same course.


I believe anyone wanting to teach in any school--public, private, Waldorf, Montessori, you name it--in the U.S. should have some foundation in the history and philosophy of education in the U.S. I hope you agree.


Cremin, L. (1977) Traditions of American Education. New York: Basic Books.

Sloan, D. “Introduction [Part II].” [pp. 20-48] In The Great Awakening and American Education.

Edwards, J. (1746/1989) “Selection from ‘A Treatise Concerning Religious Affection.’ ” [pp. 71-88] In The American Intellectual Tradition, vol. 1, 2nd ed. Hollinger, D. and C. Capper, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaestle, C. (1983) “Prologue: The Founding Fathers and Education.” [pp. 3-13] In Pillars of the Republic. New York: Hill and Wang.

Lemisch, L. (1961). Selection from Benjamin Franklin: The Autobiography and Other Writings. [pp. 92-104] New York: Penguin Books.

Jefferson, T. (1973) “Thomas Jefferson’s Bill for the Diffusion of Knowledge.” [pp. 230-239] In Smith, W., ed. Theories of Education in Early America, 1655-1819. New York: Bobbs-Merrill

Katz, M. (1968) “Introduction.” [pp. 1-17]; “The True Idea of Education.” [pp. 124-130]; and “Conclusion. Educational Reform: Myths and Limits.” [pp. 213-218] In The Irony of Early School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kaestle, C. (1983) “Social Change and Education in the American Northeast, 1830-1860.” [pp. 62-74] In Pillars of the Republic. New York: Hill and Wang.

Mann, H. Selections from “Twelfth Annual Report (1848)” [pp. 79-112] In The Republic and the School.

Katz, M. “Alternative Models for American Education.” [pp. 24-57] In Reconstructing American Education.

Emerson, R. “Education.” [pp. 1-34] In Education, An Essay, and Other Selections.

Haefner, G. (1937/1970) “Alcott’s Philosophy of Education” and “Rote Versus Rational Learning.” [pp. 45-47 and 78-98] In A Critical Estimate of the Educational Theories and Practices of A. Bronson Alcott. New York: Greenwood Press.

Alcott, A. B. (1877) Selection from Table-Talk [pp.127-138]. Philadelphia: Albert Saifer.

Anderson, J. (1988) “Ex-Slaves and the Rise of Universal Education, 1860-1880.” [pp. 4-32] In The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Gould, S. (1981) Selections from “Introduction” and  “American Polygeny and Craniometry Before Darwin: Blacks and Indians as Separate, Inferior Species.” In The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Douglass, F. (1845/1986) Selection from Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. [pp. 77-87] New York: Penguin.

Washington, B. (1903) “Industrial Education for the Negro.” [pp. 59-62] In Lazerson, M. (1987) American Education in the Twentieth Century. New York: Teachers College Press.

DuBois, W. (1903) “The Talented Tenth.” [pp. 62-66] In Lazerson, M. (1987) American Education in the Twentieth Century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Myrdal, G. (1944) “The Negro School.” [pp. 879-907] In An American Dilemma.

Gates, Jr., H. (1992) “The Master’s Pieces: On Canon Formation and the African-American Tradition.” [pp. 17-42] In Loose Canons: Notes on the Culture Wars. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cott, N. (1977) “Conclusion: On ‘Women’s Sphere’ and Feminism.” [197-208] In The Bonds of Womanhood: “Women’s Sphere” in New England, 1780-1835. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Flexner, E. (1975) “The Intellectual Progress of Women, 1860-1875.” [115-118] In Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the U.S. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sexton, P. (1976) “The American Experience.” [39-52] In Women In Education. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa.

Tyack, D. (1974) “Teachers and the Male Mystique.” [59-65] In The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Beecher, C. (1835) “The Education of Female Teachers.” [pp. 67-75] In The Educated Woman in America, B. Cross, ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982) “Woman’s Place in Man’s Life Cycle.” [pp. 5-23] In In a Different  Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Spring, J. (1972) “The Classroom as Factory and Community.” [pp. 44-61] In Education and the Rise of the Corporate State. Boston: Beacon Press.

Tyack, D. (1974) Selection from “Inside the System: The Character of Urban Schools, 1890-1940.” [177-216] In The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Spencer, H. (1966) “Political Education.” [pp. 113-118] In Herbert Spencer on Education. NY: TC Press.

Sumner, W. (1919/1963) “Who Win By Progress?” [pp. 158-162] In Social Darwinism: Selected Essays of William Graham Sumner. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Dewey, J. (1981) “The Child and the Curriculum.” [467-483] In The Philosophy of John Dewey. J. McDermott. 2 vol. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Piaget, J. (1995) “The Stages of Intellectual Development in Childhood and Adolescence” and selections from “Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child.” [814-819; 695-700; 710-719] In H. Gruber and J. Vonneche, eds., The Essential Piaget.

Addams, J. (1994) “Educational Methods (1902).” [98-119] In On Education, Lagemann, E., ed. New York: Transaction Publishing Co.

Counts, G. (1987) “Dare the School Build a New Social Order? (1932)” [97-99] In American Education in the Twentieth Century, Lazerson, M., ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1980) “The School in the Life of the Child.” [21-38] In The School and Society. Carbondale: S. Illinois University Press. Not included in readings.)

Watson, J. (1913) “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It.” [396-402] In L. Benjamin, ed., A History of Psychology. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Crain, W. (1984) “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.” [147-169] In Theories of Development.

Burman, E. (1990) “The Production of Piagetian Psychology.” [151-161] In Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. NY: Routledge.)

Cuban, L. (1986) “Film and Radio: The Promise of Bringing the World into the Classroom.” [9-26] and “Epilogue.” [104-109] In Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Papert, S. (1980) “Introduction: Computers for Children.” [3-18] In Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: HarperCollins.

Davy, J. (1984) “Mindstorms in the Lamplight.” [11-20] In The Computer in Education: A Critical Perspective, D. Sloan, ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Miller, E. (2001) “Seven Disconnections in Our Thinking About Educational Technology.” [1-6] In Sloan, D. and S. Sagarin, eds., Computers, the Internet and Education: Seeking the Human Essentials. NY: Teachers College Press; forthcoming

Talbott, S. (1997) "Why is the Moon Getting Farther Away?" Netfuture 70, 1-5. http://www.ora.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/1998/Apr3098.

Spring, J. (1990) "The Conservative Reaction and the Politics of Education” [352-382] In The American School, 1642-1990, 2nd ed. New York: Longman Publishing Company.

Selection from “A Nation At Risk” (1983). [5-36]

“Goals 2000: National Educational Goals” (1996). http://inet.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000

(1999) Karp, S. “Equity Suits Clog the Courts” [4-9] and Morales, J. et. al.,“The Courts and Equity: A State-by-State Overview.” [61-67] In Funding For Justice.

Illich, I. (1970) “Why We Must Disestablish School.” [1-24] In Deschooling Society. NY: Harper & Row.

Gatto, J. (1992) "The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher." [1-21] In Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. Philadelphia: New Society Pub.

Weil, S. (2001) “Reflections on the Right Use of School Studies With a View to the Love of God.” [57-66] In Waiting for God. New York: Harper Perennial.

Miller, R. (1990) “Imported Holistic Movements.”[121-139] In What Are Schools For? Holistic Education in the United States. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.

Sloan, D. (1992) “Imagination, Education, and Our Postmodern Possibilities.” Revision, 15, 2, Fall.

Lusseyran, J. (1958) “The Blind In Society.” [pp. 9-20] Proceedings, No. 27, Fall 1973. New York: The Myrin Institute.

Monday, May 7, 2012

If you could change one thing about Waldorf schools, what would it be?

If you could change one thing about Waldorf schools, what would it be?

One thing. Be as specific and as detailed as you like.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

The Winch, The Toilet, and the Bus: Concrete Answers to Fuzzy Questions


Sometimes, fuzzy questions have practical and specific answers. You just have to see them. Here are three examples.

1.) A friend of a friend wanted to start an ocean sailing school, and wasn’t sure how many students to plan for. A dozen? Thirty? How would he decide? After a few weeks of contemplation, buttonholing friends to ask opinions, making assumptions and questioning them, he struck the answer that worked. What is the largest readily available winch by which to raise and lower the sails? This determined the largest practical line, which determined the largest practical sheet or sail size, which limited the size of the ship, which determined the number of berths on the ship. Dividing these among instructors and students, he had his answer.

2.) A summer camp at which I used to work wanted to increase capacity, building new cabins, adding staff, planning for more seats in the dining hall, and so on. But how many to add? Again, after considering several different scenarios, each of which had its advantages and disadvantages, the answer became clear: The leech field for the septic system could handle only so many toilets, and that number of toilets restricted the number and size of cabins that the camp could add, which determined the increase in the number of campers. To add any more than this would entail a large expense to reconstruct the septic system, a cost and project the camp was not willing to undertake. Problem solved.

3.) In planning for our high school eight years ago, we knew we were limited by geography—we couldn’t build a sustainable school of 200; there aren’t enough students within commuting distance of our school to make this feasible. Crunching numbers, we saw another limit around 60. Between roughly 60 and 200, we saw what a friend called a “deadly middle ground,” in which we would have to add teachers, facilities, and resources that wouldn’t pay for themselves. So, was 60 our number? We thought so for a while, but then realized that there was a more specific and more practical answer. Given our location and our reliance on and commitment to community resources, we drove our students to a theater for rehearsals, a library for research, a blacksmith or pottery studio for art classes, and so on. Each bus holds 14 passengers, and can be driven by someone with a regular license, no commercial driver’s license necessary. We had our answer, specific and practical: A school of 56. Four vans, four classes of fourteen students each.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Waldorf Schools and Perfection

The following comment was submitted anonymously to the last post (“Theory-Induced Blindness”), but, since it doesn’t address the content of the post, I’ve decided to place it here and reply below.

“Steve, I think that the 'perfection' vibe that Waldorf gives off is more about how parents need to adhere to the 'rules' they give to parents about how to raise their children (no television, plastic toys, eat organic food, no media and on and on) This only creates an 'us' versus 'them' mentality. 
The other piece is trying to lead an Anthroposophical based lifestyle ~ which seems to be confusing to those who have the belief and those who care nothing about it. 
Basically it seems to me that Waldorf has an on going identity crisis.

Many years ago I attended a weekend seminar for young school administrators. I was the only attendee from a Waldorf school. One of the keynote speakers, a well-known psychologist, heard I was from a Waldorf school and commented, tongue-in-cheek, “Well, they [Waldorf schools] must be approaching perfection about now.” Clearly, even in the 1980s, Waldorf schools had a reputation for (pretending to) perfection.

I believe, like dogmatism, this derives primarily from insecurity, and have written about it before (“Rigidity and Dogma in WaldorfSchools—Some Theories”).

I’m not sure what the writer means by “identity crisis”—Erik Erikson, who coined the term, saw it as a challenge to the achievement of a healthy ego in adolescence. As a metaphor for the insecure and unfinished state of Waldorf education, it may be accurate. In that “Waldorf” is profoundly decentralized, however, it’s hard for me to think or write about it in such generalities. 

Ditto with an "anthroposophical lifestyle." I do believe, however, that excesses by some should not lead to the too-easy dismissal of thoughtful positions on television (even the American Pediatric Association agrees that TV is harmful to small kids!), media, toys, and food.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Waldorf Education and Theory-Induced Blindness


In the early 1600s, the Church believed it knew all it needed to know about celestial motion. The earth sat at the center of the cosmos, and everything revolved around it. That was the theory. Because of belief in this theory, virtually all who looked at the heavens were blind to alternatives, blind to data that didn’t quite fit, blind even to questions about the theory. In his brilliant book, Thinking, Fast & Slow, Daniel Kahneman calls such an attitude “theory-induced blindness.”

Many of those who work in Waldorf schools, unfortunately, suffer from “theory-induced blindness.” Because they “believe in” anthroposophy and Waldorf education, they are virtually immune not only to the areas in which their theory falls short, but even to Rudolf Steiner’s injunctions against such theorizing! Waldorf education, correctly practiced, is a theory only in the anti-theoretical way that Goethe famously stated: “The phenomenon is the theory.”

It comes down to this, by analogy: Say you are a Freudian psychoanalyst. You have a patient whom you know well, but who does not fit your theory of psychoanalysis. Is your allegiance to the theory, damn the patient? Or do you take your cues from the human being in front of you? Is your allegiance to Waldorf education? Or to children and their education?

Much harm has been done by so-called Waldorf educators in the (sometimes unspoken) name of Waldorf education.

Unfortunately, too, many Waldorf critics suffer from exactly the same theory-induced blindness. They, in fact, accept the same theory that Waldorf-lovers accept, they just don’t like it. They criticize it.

Waldorf education raises interesting and valid questions about the very areas that Waldorf critics rail: about science (vs. “scientism,” a belief in science), about values and religion, about the developmental effects of early learning, and on and on. But, as long as we approach what we call Waldorf education with theory-induced blindness, we will fail to understand it, whether we endorse it or criticize it, and our dialogue will be simple polemics and rhetoric.

I could say to many of my colleagues, paraphrasing a rabbi whose name is lost to me, “The Waldorf education you believe in, I don’t believe in.” And I could say the same to many of the Waldorf critics.

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Education as Liberation and Constraint


Education constrains us. Education guards us. In the transmission of culture and the production of citizens, education works to fence things as they are.

Education liberates us. Education frees us. In the power of literacy and numeracy, in exposure to the ideas of others, education pushes us out of the nest.

Education always occurs between these two poles, simultaneously guarding and liberating. I believe it was the historian Bernard Bailyn who first pointed this out.

In the past few days, I’ve had occasion to enlarge this conception beyond the education of an individual, a Horace Mann, a Frederick Douglass, a you, or a me.

Take an independent (private) elementary school that decides to add a high school. The elementary school has spent years, even decades, growing to a sustainable size. It has a lot to protect, and now it is considering taking a large risk in growing to include grades 9-12. It has to, deliberately, shift its school culture and the appropriate activities of its board of trustees from guarding to liberating. This is asking a lot.

Waldorf schools are relatively unique in the U.S., at least, in that they see themselves, often, as comprehensive schools that include pre-K through high school grades. In their growth from risky beginnings to stable elementary schools, they shift, at an institutional level, from the entrepreneurial, creative work of liberating to the stability and risk-minimizing work of guarding what they have developed, what they have. This is good and healthy—trustees are responsible for safeguarding the institution they hold in trust. But if this institution now tries to grow again—to add a high school—the institution may well find itself at war with itself, a civil war of guards against liberators. Will the high school receive full support, or conditional support? Enough to survive it’s own risky growth? Good luck to it.

Or, think more broadly of an organization like the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA), which assumes responsibility for guarding the trademarks “Waldorf” and “Steiner” as they apply to education. In guarding what has developed over the past decades in the couple of hundred independent Waldorf schools, is it possible that AWSNA will decline to assume the risk inherent in promoting all the growth it might? I would say it’s not only possible, it’s almost inevitable. In the 1990s, AWSNA deliberately decided not to include charter or public Waldorf schools as members, and, ever since then, has had an uncertain relationship to this new approach to the Waldorf method.

Enlarging a conversation about guarding and liberating to an institutional or associational level necessarily generalizes but the general drift and potential conflicts among constituents, remain, I believe.

And, when times are tight, we are apt to guard more and risk less, even if tough times call for greater risk.

We recognize that the work of liberation is risky.

We should recognize that constraint is risky, too.

We can do ourselves in by overreaching. And we can do ourselves in by failing to grow. By maintaining a healthy and necessary tension between the poles of liberation or growth, and constraint or stasis, we actually minimize risk.