So you’re interested in Waldorf education and you’re doing your due diligence, looking into it, trying to figure out if it’s right for your child. And you come across the Waldorf critics—the website of People for Legal and Non-sectarian Schools (PLANS)—or the Waldorf critics Yahoo group. And you read and read and wonder what to make of it all. Here are some FAQs, as I imagine them.
Q. Who are the Waldorf critics?
A. They’re individuals. Spend a bit of time on their sites, and you’ll see that some are calm and clear, others are rabid and manic, some are funny, some bitter, some wistful, some scornful. Many, but not all, are former students or parents at Waldorf schools. Methinks many protest too much, and could as easily be great friends of Waldorf education as critics. Some used to be, and may be again; others aren’t, but given their sincerity, may yet be. Some have had negative experiences at Waldorf schools. In my opinion, they too often generalize these experiences to cover “all” Waldorf schools or Waldorf education. Some actually have no experience of Waldorf schools whatsoever, and really are more critical of anthroposophy than of Waldorf education.
Q. They’re so critical! Is there any basis to their criticisms?
A. Their criticisms and arguments range from the astute and accurate to the twisted and just plain wrong. Anyone who has worked in or been associated with a Waldorf school for more than a few months will recognize some of the problems and tendencies that critics point out. Often, the difference is not that Waldorf critics see something that Waldorfers don’t, it’s that critics see problem X, let’s say, as pervasive, making Waldorf education rotten to the core, while Waldorfers see problem X as an aberration in an otherwise healthful educational paradigm.
Q. What are their actual criticisms?
A. The PLANS site is pretty clear about these; the Yahoo group and blogs, as ongoing forums, less so. I’ll restate them, as I understand them, in my own terms.
1. Waldorf schools are the missionary arm of anthroposophy, an occult, cult-like religious sect founded by the misguided guru Rudolf Steiner. Waldorf schools lie about or obfuscate this connection in order to appear independent of it.
2. Because of their beliefs, following Steiner, they espouse a racist ideology;
3. They teach discredited “bad” science;
4. They allow students to bully one another (it’s their destiny, or “karma”);
5. They shun technology; and
6. They subscribe to outdated or incorrect theories of child development.
Q. But this doesn’t sound like what I read in Steiner or what I see when I visit a Waldorf school; isn’t this based on experience of small samples and selectively taking quotations out of context?
A. Yes.
If Rudolf Steiner…
1. believed strongly in and spoke and wrote about human freedom;
2. believed in non-sectarian education;
3. in overcoming distinctions of race and in the highest ethics;
4. in re-humanizing a dehumanizing thrall to scientism and technological optimism;
5. in teaching according to human development, even as this changes from time to time and place to place;
6. in re-attaching human beings to what Huston Smith calls “the perennial philosophy;”
7. and if anthroposophy is not a religion;
8. and if Waldorf schools and Waldorf teachers are doing their best to implement an education according to these principles;
then the critics are not so much wrong—although I believe they’re frequently and fundamentally wrong about many things—as they are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars, or looking at a funhouse mirror. They perceive—and then represent—a diminished and distorted view of Waldorf education and anthroposophy.
Q. So their criticisms are groundless?
A. No, of course not. Each contains some truth, or it wouldn’t be worth typing about. Let me be clear.
1. Some Waldorf teachers and anthroposophists turn anthroposophy into a sect and act in a cult-like manner. But they’re a minority and they’re wrong to do so.
2. There is bad science teaching and bad history teaching in some Waldorf schools and by some Waldorf teachers. The critics are fond of referencing the work of those, like Roy Wilkinson, who are pretty extreme and whom I steer my education students away from. They seem to ignore the deep and thoughtful teachers and writers about anthroposophy and Waldorf education—Henri Bortoft, Owen Barfield, Craig Holdrege, Stephen Edelglass, Douglas Sloan, Fred Amrine, Arthur Zajonc, Gertrude Reif Hughes; the list goes on and on, and anyone sincerely interested can add to it easily.
3. Sometimes, curricula in Waldorf schools are based too much on a literal reading of a translation of general remarks made in Europe in the early 20th century. No doubt. But Waldorf schools have come a long way, especially in the United States, in updating curricula and methods.
4. Sometimes Waldorf teachers make bad decisions and sometimes these are based on a misunderstanding of Steiner or of anthroposophy and sometimes these are supported by an insecure or ideological school culture, but, again, in my experience, these are rare and, for most students and parents most of the time, are greatly outweighed by the humanizing, creative, warm, supportive, good education in a Waldorf school.
5. Some anthroposophists, including those in Waldorf schools, have used a selective reading of Steiner or other anthroposophists as the basis for a racist view of the world. I believe there are fewer of these each generation, and, in my experience, examples of anthroposophically-based or Waldorf-institutionalized racism are rare (see “Accusations of Racism,” which I stand by despite the objections of some critics. Were I to write this again, I would probably change the title to “allegations” instead of “accusations,” a more neutral word, but so be it).
6. Waldorf schools could be more open to parents and visitors—although I believe they’re generally more open than critics give them credit for being, and each school is different, anyway.
7. In the age of the Internet, I simply don’t believe schools could get away with “hiding” Steiner or anthroposophy from prospective parents, even if they wanted to. And, in my experience, they don’t.
Q. Say, didn’t you go to a Waldorf high school after 8 years of public school, and haven’t you spent much of your career teaching in Waldorf schools? Doesn’t that make you biased?
A. Yes. Or else I know what I’m talking about. Or both.
Q. I’ve read all this. What now?
A. If you’re looking for a school, visit, spend time there (as you would at any school, right?), and meet your child’s future teachers. Research shows that it’s better to have a good teacher in a bad school than a bad teacher in a good school. So much comes down to teaching. Talk to parents and students. Gather information and make the decision based on your own experience and your own thinking. Don’t let critics dissuade you, and don’t let Waldorfers convince you.
If you’re just surfing the Web, looking for truth, good luck to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment