Waldorf curriculum?

[freeindeed]

I have definitely decided to do Waldorf with my youngest. I was set on purchasing Oak Meadow K when I felt dd(almost 4) was ready, which would still be quite a while from now, but I like to plan ahead. Today I discovered this Waldorf curriculum: http://www.live-education.com/ Wow, I love the looks of it, too! I've talked to several OM users, but I don't know of anyone using Live Education. Does anyone here use it? What do you think? Also, it would be great if you've used both Live Education and Oak Meadow and could compare the two for me. Thanks!

[dragons in the flower bed]

I bet you'll get more answers at this forum: Homespun Waldorf.

[TheAutumnOak]

I have used both Oak Meadow and Live Education...Oak Meadow has a crafty feel to it, but it is not Waldorf in the true sense of the word...Live Education is a pure Waldorf curriculum...Now at the K level, there isn't any "work" to be done in a Waldorf school...The Live Education curriculum at the K level covers the things that would be done in a Waldorf K, which is mainly setting the home environment...In the Oak Meadow curriculum, letters and numbers are introduced at the K level...

 

It really depends on what you want...If you truely want a Waldorf curriculum, then Live Education is the one...If you like some elements of Waldorf, but you are not an Anthroposophist and don't mind some early academics, fairy tales not being used, and other differences, then go with Oak Meadow...Oak Meadow is thought of in many circles as a Waldorf curriculum, but I have studied Waldorf intensely for over 5 years and even took Foundation Studies courses to become a Waldorf teacher, and it is my firm belief that Oak Meadow, while being a great curriculum, is not a Waldorf one...

 

The question is - are you an Anthroposophist or do you agree with their views?...The answer to that can make the decision for you...

[Zuzu822]

I have used both Oak Meadow and Live Education...Oak Meadow has a crafty feel to it, but it is not Waldorf in the true sense of the word...Live Education is a pure Waldorf curriculum...Now at the K level, there isn't any "work" to be done in a Waldorf school...The Live Education curriculum at the K level covers the things that would be done in a Waldorf K, which is mainly setting the home environment...In the Oak Meadow curriculum, letters and numbers are introduced at the K level...

It really depends on what you want...If you truely want a Waldorf curriculum, then Live Education is the one...If you like some elements of Waldorf, but you are not an Anthroposophist and don't mind some early academics, fairy tales not being used, and other differences, then go with Oak Meadow...Oak Meadow is thought of in many circles as a Waldorf curriculum, but I have studied Waldorf intensely for over 5 years and even took Foundation Studies courses to become a Waldorf teacher, and it is my firm belief that Oak Meadow, while being a great curriculum, is not a Waldorf one...

The question is - are you an Anthroposophist or do you agree with their views?...The answer to that can make the decision for you...

 

:iagree: Also, there is some debate about the business practices and customer service of Live Ed.

 

I've owned and tried Live Ed! K, and IMO, if you're definitely interested in "true" Waldorf, I'd get the Wynstones books, Christopherus Kindergarten with your 3-6 Year Old, and maybe All Year Round or the Kindergrten Snack Book. The content is the same for a more reasonable price, and without dealing with Live Education.

 

There is a thread at Homespun Waldorf reviewing Live Ed! that you'd probably find helpful. :)

[Hunter]

These free African Pdfs are better than much of what you can purchase. http://www.entwicklungshilfe3.de/?id=786

 

I'm certainly not an expert, but not a total newbie to Waldorf either. The African pdfs are Christian but certainly still fully Waldorf (in my opinion) and designed to be useable in low income schools.

 

You can get some free stuff here.

 

Free Chalkdrawing instructions.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Hunter

[FairyMom]

I have definitely decided to do Waldorf with my youngest. I was set on purchasing Oak Meadow K when I felt dd(almost 4) was ready, which would still be quite a while from now, but I like to plan ahead. Today I discovered this Waldorf curriculum: http://www.live-education.com/ Wow, I love the looks of it, too! I've talked to several OM users, but I don't know of anyone using Live Education. Does anyone here use it? What do you think? Also, it would be great if you've used both Live Education and Oak Meadow and could compare the two for me. Thanks!

 

I agree completely with another poster's suggestion of going to Homespun Waldorf's forum. Fabulous answers and resources without judgment.

[Hunter]

For cooking for festivals, check out http://catholiccuisine.blogspot.com/

[TheAutumnOak]

:iagree: Also, there is some debate about the business practices and customer service of Live Ed.

 

I've owned and tried Live Ed! K, and IMO, if you're definitely interested in "true" Waldorf, I'd get the Wynstones books, Christopherus Kindergarten with your 3-6 Year Old, and maybe All Year Round or the Kindergrten Snack Book. The content is the same for a more reasonable price, and without dealing with Live Education.

 

There is a thread at Homespun Waldorf reviewing Live Ed! that you'd probably find helpful. :)

 

:iagree:I never had a problem with my consultant at Live Ed (I had David Darcy and I actually love him) and have even had Rainbow over my house once, but you can definitely go with the books named above...

[Hunter]

The Live-ed stuff look wonderful, just expensive. But you know...often we spend MORE when we try and piece things together, than if we just get what we really want. I wouldn't go with OM unless you are specifically wanting to avoid something particular in full-blown Waldorf.

[Zuzu822]

:iagree:I never had a problem with my consultant at Live Ed (I had David Darcy and I actually love him) and have even had Rainbow over my house once, but you can definitely go with the books named above...

 

My Live Ed experience as a new customer was positive as well. David was also my consultant. The feedback I got from other folks was regarding returning customers, and of course many people object to their resale policy.

 

The Live-ed stuff look wonderful, just expensive. But you know...often we spend MORE when we try and piece things together, than if we just get what we really want. I wouldn't go with OM unless you are specifically wanting to avoid something particular in full-blown Waldorf.

 

I agree with this. The reason I recommend skipping Live Ed kindy, however, is because you pay $400 for identical information, stories, recipes, and crafts that are found in the books I listed (and ANY Waldorf early childhood book) for under $100! I was pretty annoyed! I was expecting more unique content from the seasonal books in the package, but perhaps my fault for not studying samples and comparing more closely.

 

Obviously, we are not strictly Waldorf users anymore as I'm very uncomfortable with Anthroposophy, but we still incorporate some aspects into our home life.

[freeindeed]

I bet you'll get more answers at this forum: Homespun Waldorf.

 

Thanks. I joined today.:)

 

I appreciate the information and advice you all have given. It definitely helps me prepare to make a decision.

[freeindeed]

My Live Ed experience as a new customer was positive as well. David was also my consultant. The feedback I got from other folks was regarding returning customers, and of course many people object to their resale policy.

 

 

 

I agree with this. The reason I recommend skipping Live Ed kindy, however, is because you pay $400 for identical information, stories, recipes, and crafts that are found in the books I listed (and ANY Waldorf early childhood book) for under $100! I was pretty annoyed! I was expecting more unique content from the seasonal books in the package, but perhaps my fault for not studying samples and comparing more closely.

 

Obviously, we are not strictly Waldorf users anymore as I'm very uncomfortable with Anthroposophy, but we still incorporate some aspects into our home life.

 

I just did some research on Anthroposophy. I am still trying to wrap my brain around exactly what it is. It sounds "new-agish" to me, which I am not comfortable with. Could anyone here give me an easy-to-understand summary of Anthroposophy? Also, if I choose to use Live Education, would I be able to remove the Anthroposophy elements or is it completely intertwined? And, one more question: can Waldorf curriculum be used if one is not comfortable with Anthroposophy? Thanks.

[Hunter]

I saw your introduction post. It's a lot less chatty over there. I think...some Waldorf people frown on chattiness :-0 There is a cultural aspect I'm starting to pick up on, that I don't know enough about to fully understand, but know I am doing something "wrong" at times. Sigh!

 

I have repeatedly been in situations where I want to learn things, that put me in very close contact with another culture that has ways of doing things that are in contrast with the ways I have been previously expected to act. It's hard. On me. On them.

 

I'm feeling lots of BTDT moments over there.

[unity]

I own Oak Meadow, Christopherus, and Live Education, and OM and LE are like night and day. OM is scheduled out for you by the week, and LE is like a bunch of how-to books. I do not own Christopherus and LE for kindy, but I've seen them for other grades. Having bought I think 3 full levels of LE used, I have to say I'm not impressed. It doesn't hold your hand at all and it would not work for me. I liked Christopherus a lot more than LE because it at least sometimes gives a schedule.

 

Ultimately, though, I really couldn't cope with the Waldorf science and block scheduling. OM is much more conventional and more like a nature- and art-based curriculum than an anthroposophic Waldorf approach. I agree that it really depends on how important the specific Waldorf recommendations are to you. Waldorf has many very specific characteristics and topics of study at each level, which OM essentially ignores.

 

For kindergarten, if you decide to go with OM, you might want to look for one of the older versions. I think it was around 1999 that they replaced many of the fairy tales with Beatrix Potter, so the new OM K is full of her stories. The older curriculum is full of fairy tales. I was able to get a copy of the older version and was much happier with it.

[Zuzu822]

I just did some research on Anthroposophy. I am still trying to wrap my brain around exactly what it is. It sounds "new-agish" to me, which I am not comfortable with. Could anyone here give me an easy-to-understand summary of Anthroposophy? Also, if I choose to use Live Education, would I be able to remove the Anthroposophy elements or is it completely intertwined? And, one more question: can Waldorf curriculum be used if one is not comfortable with Anthroposophy? Thanks.

 

I think you could use Live Ed without the Anthropopshy, and in that case it becomes an art/story based curriculum. You can most definitely build a lovely kindergarten around lots of fairy tales, seasonal songs, poems, crafts, and recipes.

 

Using elements of Waldorf without the underlying philosophy is something another friend and I (we're both Catholic) are struggling with now. :grouphug:

 

Not to muddy your waters further, but you might like to check out Enki. It's Waldorf-ish, but there's no Anthropopshy and also incorporates sensory-integration and some Mnressori elements. There is someone at Homespun Waldorf who is VERY well-versed in Enki and could help you out there. I'll PM you over there. :-)

[Hunter]

Little Garden Flower is written by a Christian, maybe Morman woman I think?

http://shop.beaconmama.com/main.sc

 

I think EarthSchooling is fairly mainstream

http://thebearthinstitute.memberlodge.com/Default.aspx?pageId=625979

 

When just one person writes several years worth of "complete" curriculum in a short period of time, sometimes I personally don't find it to be as "complete" and polished, as I'm hoping for :-0

 

This link, to a bunch of links, includes an extensive list of Waldorf curricula. http://closeacademy.blogspot.com/p/waldorf-links.html

 

I'm still not so sure what I think about Grimms Fairy Tales. I found the comments in the African pdfs that teaching Christian children, who are King's kids, about nobility through fairy tales to be interesting.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Hunter

[freeindeed]

I think you could use Live Ed without the Anthropopshy, and in that case it becomes an art/story based curriculum. You can most definitely build a lovely kindergarten around lots of fairy tales, seasonal songs, poems, crafts, and recipes.

 

Using elements of Waldorf without the underlying philosophy is something another friend and I (we're both Catholic) are struggling with now. :grouphug:

 

Not to muddy your waters further, but you might like to check out Enki. It's Waldorf-ish, but there's no Anthropopshy and also incorporates sensory-integration and some Mnressori elements. There is someone at Homespun Waldorf who is VERY well-versed in Enki and could help you out there. I'll PM you over there. :-)

 

Thank you. I am also taking a look at Christopherus now, too. I'll add Enki to my research list as well.

[Hunter]

Thank you. I am also taking a look at Christopherus now, too. I'll add Enki to my research list as well.

 

Christopherus uses squirrels instead of gnomes for the 4 math processes. I'd love to get a look at that.

[TheAutumnOak]

No, I don't believe you can use Live Ed or any pure Waldorf curriculum without the Anthroposophy...You may not actively pursue it, but the curriculum is based entirely on it...Anthroposophy is the reason why EVERYTHING is done the way it is, no matter how much sense it may make in another context...For example, early reading is discouraged not because of studies that show it to be harmful, but because of the anthroposophical view of what early learning will do to your body as you age...

It is very hard for me to define Anthroposphy...It is said to be "the wisdom of the human being", but that is a very vague term...

[umsami]

For Kindy, I think Live Ed is too expensive. I like Christopherus or Little Acorn Learning for that age. :)

[freeindeed]

For Kindy, I think Live Ed is too expensive. I like Christopherus or Little Acorn Learning for that age. :)

 

Yeah, I did have some sticker shock when I looked at the price of Live Ed. I looked at Christopherus a little while ago, and I really like it. I'll add Little Acorn Learning to my research list, too. I'm looking at Enki right now (in another tab.) I really like that it has a specific page about special needs learners.:)

ETA: Yikes! Sticker shock for Enki, too, although I really like the looks of it.

Edited February 27, 2012 by freeindeed

[Zuzu822]

No, I don't believe you can use Live Ed or any pure Waldorf curriculum without the Anthroposophy...You may not actively pursue it, but the curriculum is based entirely on it...Anthroposophy is the reason why EVERYTHING is done the way it is, no matter how much sense it may make in another context...For example, early reading is discouraged not because of studies that show it to be harmful, but because of the anthroposophical view of what early learning will do to your body as you age...

It is very hard for me to define Anthroposphy...It is said to be "the wisdom of the human being", but that is a very vague term...

 

:iagree: This is the discussion my friend and I have been having over and over. If you remove Anthroposphy, the why of Waldorf crumbles. There are certainly other reasons to do things similarly to Waldorf-- in terms of academics or life-- but Steiner has reasons for everything, from using the Pentatonic scale to delayed reading instruction to the colors used on the classroom walls.

 

You put it so well! I'm getting tired and my line of thinking isn't taking the path I'd like. :tongue_smilie:

[TheAutumnOak]

:iagree: This is the discussion my friend and I have been having over and over. If you remove Anthroposphy, the why of Waldorf crumbles. There are certainly other reasons to do things similarly to Waldorf-- in terms of academics or life-- but Steiner has reasons for everything, from using the Pentatonic scale to delayed reading instruction to the colors used on the classroom walls.

 

You put it so well! I'm getting tired and my line of thinking isn't taking the path I'd like. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[freeindeed]

:iagree: This is the discussion my friend and I have been having over and over. If you remove Anthroposphy, the why of Waldorf crumbles. There are certainly other reasons to do things similarly to Waldorf-- in terms of academics or life-- but Steiner has reasons for everything, from using the Pentatonic scale to delayed reading instruction to the colors used on the classroom walls.

 

You put it so well! I'm getting tired and my line of thinking isn't taking the path I'd like. :tongue_smilie:

 

Thank you both. That helps me understand more.

[ElizaG]

I was going to suggest Enki as well. We have the K package, and it has a lot of excellent resources to choose from. The main things that turn some people off are that

 

1) there are no lesson plans,

 

2) it's $$$ and they don't want you to re-sell it, and

 

3) it has a spiritual agenda, in that the stories are chosen to promote the idea that all faiths are equally valid. The manuals also suggest that the parent practice Buddhist meditation (the author is a Buddhist), though this is optional.

 

We're Catholic, and while I don't share the religious perspective of Enki, I'm willing to work with it because there are some parts that are very helpful to our family, and there isn't anything remotely similar that comes from our own faith. But I won't touch the Anthroposophical curricula (even Oak Meadow) with a 10 foot pole. BTDT in my younger days. I wasn't as involved with the ideas as TheAutumnOak, but I read a lot of Steiner's work and spent some time considering becoming a Waldorf teacher.

 

At that time, I also practiced astrology seriously. This is what attracted me to Waldorf in the first place. Someone in an astrology discussion group mentioned that Steiner's stages of education are based on the planets, and in my early 20's, I saw this as a selling point. Now... urgh, no thanks. :tongue_smilie:

[Guest]

A Little Garden Flower is written by a lovely Mormon/Christian woman. No doctrine is included. She has an awesome yahoo group, as well, where she answers questions. Melisa is dedicated to helping everyone find their way.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/homeschoolingwaldorf/

 

I have to put in a plug for my favorite Waldorf supplies place, Paper, Scissors, and Stone. I love that I can order individual Lyra colored pencils and StockMar products.

 

http://waldorfsupplies.com/#cat

 

I remember doing loads of Waldorf research a while back. I love the idea of stories, art, nature, delayed academics, restrict screens, etc... the naturalness of it. I never looked into Steiner, himself. I did see a photo once, and it creeped me out. My favorite was and is Oak Meadow. I get all the things I love without all the wacky (in my opinion) that I do not. OM is also a great company all around. I also liked that I could start and finish with OM since they go PreK through 12th. It leans more towards being a creative curriculum than Waldorf now. That might not be what you want. There are other creative curriculums out there. Five in a Row, for instance or any unit type studies. They have some excellent articles under Community and Resources that explain why and how they are different.

 

http://oakmeadow.com/resources/homeschooling-articles.php

 

I think it is possible to borrow what you like from Waldorf and leave the rest. You don't have to buy into the why or even learn the why. We do the limited screens, natural toys, delayed academics until 6 at the earliest, and loads of creative things because my dh and I have seen how it benefits our kids. I don't care why Steiner said it. Same thing for classical. We teach certain things because we see the benefits it gives our kids, not because SWB and her mom or The Ancients said so. Take what works, ignore the rest.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Guest

[ChandlerMom]

:iagree: This is the discussion my friend and I have been having over and over. If you remove Anthroposphy, the why of Waldorf crumbles. There are certainly other reasons to do things similarly to Waldorf-- in terms of academics or life-- but Steiner has reasons for everything, from using the Pentatonic scale to delayed reading instruction to the colors used on the classroom walls.

 

You put it so well! I'm getting tired and my line of thinking isn't taking the path I'd like. :tongue_smilie:

 

See, this is why I LIKE Oak Meadow and would not like "pure" Waldorf. I just don't agree that things crumble because the WHY of some guy's inspiration 100 years ago doesn't ring true for me. Much like one of his near contemporaries, Frued. Frued got a lot of stuff RIGHT despite being fundamentally wrong about the why most of the time. Even though later psychologists refined and adapted his original work, his greatest contribution was getting people to think differently about the mind rather than the details. To *me* Steiner is much the same, and it's no coincidence that he, Freud, Piaget were contemporaries -- they were cooking in the same psycho-analytical soup of the time. ;)

 

If you want to embrace pure Waldorf, you probably have to embrace (at some level) anthroposphy. But I think there are plenty of "Waldorf inspired" programs that modernize the best aspects of Waldorf education but don't require you subscribe to that philosophy. That works well with me, since I apply Waldorf principles as I see fit. I am not bound by it.

Edited February 27, 2012 by ChandlerMom

[Guest]

I agree with ChandlerMom who said what I was trying to say so much clearer than I did.

[ElizaG]

I never looked into Steiner, himself. I did see a photo once, and it creeped me out. My favorite was and is Oak Meadow. I get all the things I love without all the wacky (in my opinion) that I do not.

Maybe it's because I have some small bit of knowledge of Anthroposophy, or maybe it's just that I'm really sensitive to this stuff, but there are things in the Oak Meadow samples that weird me out. It seems to be priming them for Steiner's occult ideas. For instance, from K:

 

After introducing “2†we can go on to explore ways in which it is seen in nature—day and night, sun and moon, up and down, left and right, mother and father, boys and girls. Each of these pairs leads into the idea of opposites, which can be explored in depth. Explain that neither is “better†than the other, but that both are needed to make up a world. (...) Stories containing the essence of “two†usually express a battle of good and evil. Following is just such a story.

 

:001_huh::001_huh::001_huh:

 

This feeds right into the Anthroposophic doctrine of Lucifer and Ahriman, which I'm not even going to get into here, because it wigs me out too much.

 

There are similarly strange bits in the lessons about different numbers, shapes, and colors. Everything has a hidden meaning. Maybe some people who don't believe in anthroposophy could just ignore it, but I'm not comfortable immersing myself and my children in that. (Understatement of the year.)

[Hunter]

Maybe it's because I have some small bit of knowledge of Anthroposophy, or maybe it's just that I'm really sensitive to this stuff, but there are things in the Oak Meadow samples that weird me out. It seems to be priming them for Steiner's occult ideas. For instance, from K:

 

After introducing “2†we can go on to explore ways in which it is seen in nature—day and night, sun and moon, up and down, left and right, mother and father, boys and girls. Each of these pairs leads into the idea of opposites, which can be explored in depth. Explain that neither is “better†than the other, but that both are needed to make up a world. (...) Stories containing the essence of “two†usually express a battle of good and evil. Following is just such a story.

 

:001_huh::001_huh::001_huh:

 

This feeds right into the Anthroposophic doctrine of Lucifer and Ahriman, which I'm not even going to get into here, because it wigs me out too much.

 

There are similarly strange bits in the lessons about different numbers, shapes, and colors. Everything has a hidden meaning. Maybe some people who don't believe in anthroposophy could just ignore it, but I'm not comfortable immersing myself and my children in that. (Understatement of the year.)

 

The two stuff is also taught is several other faiths, that I personally know of, and maybe many more.

[ChandlerMom]

I agree with ChandlerMom who said what I was trying to say so much clearer than I did.

 

Ha! And here I was admiring how much more succinctly you stated what I was trying to say! :lol:

[Guest]

Eleanor, maybe I am a little tired but I fail to see how you made that leap. How does showing a story of good vs evil (and good ALWAYS wins) feed into the other thing you were saying? It seems to me to be the clearest expression of opposites, if not the most important, for a child to understand especially that good will always overcome evil in the end. Also, they are not being primed for anything because Steiner's stuff never is taught or introduced in any way through the grades. I have used or looked at closely (bought and returned) every grade from PreK-8th for every subject and never seen anything.

 

What I get from the above is that in the examples of opposites given one is neither 'better' than the other. They are right, we need both of each set of opposites to make up a world.

 

I am not 'starting something'. I am truely confused. Would you mind explaining more?

Edited February 27, 2012 by Guest

[ChandlerMom]

The two stuff is also taught is several other faiths, that I personally know of, and maybe many more.

 

:iagree:

 

If you read thru OM looking through the lens if hunting for anthroposophy, you'll find it. But I think if you look at it without the expectation of baggage, you won't. Mind you, I find the whole teeth thing as a measure odd, and it's still in OM. :D

 

Dichotomies are a mainstay of most faiths and stories -- good/evil, yin/yang binary numbers (lol) -- that's all OM's saying. If they mention triads, would that mean they're promoting the trinity?

[Guest]

I have to say I found the teeth thing to be true with my boys! I thought it was odd but sure enough, every one of them (with one exception) took off reading as soon as that first tooth was loose. The exception is the child who taught himself at 3.

 

Read this article from OM. It explains how they are different from pure Waldorf. Go back a page and there is one comparing them to Montessori.

 

http://oakmeadow.com/resources/articles/oak-meadow-waldorf.php

 

I mean, you could read OM's early guides and say they are nothing but a bunch of barefoot, tree hugging, free love hippies, too.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Guest

[In the Rain]

We used 1st grade OM and Little Garden Flower in kindergarten. I liked both of them. Melisa, from ALGF, has a great yahoo group and some online videos.

 

I second the vote for Paper, Scissors Stone too! I've ordered from them many times, and always been satisfied.

[Deee]

We are Steiner homeschoolers. I have used Christopherus since second grade (when we started homeschooling after taking our son out of a Steiner school). I used Live Ed in grade 4, along with some Christopherus, and I also have an old copy of Oak Meadow. We are not anthroposophists - we are purely secular, although I was raised Catholic. You can use a Waldorf/Steiner curriculum and all the techniques without anthroposophy. This is easier with Christopherus than Live Ed which is far more esoteric. I had a few problems with science (zoology) in grade 4 and I wouldn't touch Grimm's Tales for a first grader, but other than that, I've modified very little. Because my husband and I are both scientists, I am particularly sensitive to any pseudoscience. This hasn't been a problem with the very pragmatic Christopherus Curriculum. Live Ed is very beautiful, but not as complete as Christopherus, it does have some fairly bizarre scientific statements (IMO), its maths isn't as rigorous, but its grade 5 geometry is fantastic. A year of it did wonders for extending our drawing skills, too.

 

Melissa Neilson's A Little Garden Flower isn't open-and-go - you have to do a lot of lesson prep. This is common in Steiner curricula - Steiner himself frowned on teachers using work written by others. It is a lovely, gently curriculum, with Christian elements.

 

Oak Meadow is not Waldorf. It may have been inspired by Waldorf and it is an excellent, well rounded curriculum, but its not Waldorf.

 

Your best bet would be to get Donna Simmons' (Christopherus), Kindergarden with your 3-6 year old and Rahima Baldwin Dancy's book, You are your child's first teacher. For additional material, have a look at Bob and Nancy's Bookstore. Petra Bergers books on Work and Play in Early Childhood are excellent, as is her toymaking book. All of these, including Christopherus, should be available second hand.

Danielle

[Zuzu822]

See, this is why I LIKE Oak Meadow and would not like "pure" Waldorf. I just don't agree that things crumble because the WHY of some guy's inspiration 100 years ago doesn't ring true for me. Much like one of his near contemporaries, Frued. Frued got a lot of stuff RIGHT despite being fundamentally wrong about the why most of the time. Even though later psychologists refined and adapted his original work, his greatest contribution was getting people to think differently about the mind rather than the details. To *me* Steiner is much the same, and it's no coincidence that he, Freud, Piaget were contemporaries -- they were cooking in the same psycho-analytical soup of the time. ;)

 

Hmmm...I didn't mean exactly that. I meant that if you remove the Anthroposophy, the "whys" of Waldorf are simply removed. Perhaps, "crumbles" was the wrong word. There are elements of a Waldrof education and lifestyle that are certainly valid, helpdul, and IMO are VERY age-approriate. I just don't think you need Steiner's reasoning to do them. I think we agree for the most part.

 

If you want to embrace pure Waldorf, you probably have to embrace (at some level) anthroposphy. But I think there are plenty of "Waldorf inspired" programs that modernize the best aspects of Waldorf education but don't require you subscribe to that philosophy. That works well with me, since I apply Waldorf principles as I see fit. I am not bound by it.

 

Exactly! You could look at our lifestyle and say we are very Waldorf-inspired: no screens, natural toys, tons of outside time, limited early academics (that's actually a big struggle of mine; I've gone back and worth with NO academics and following my oldest's lead- he wants to read), lots of music and singing through the day, limited to no outside activities, strong rhythm, purposeful handwork, etc. but because I don't believe the WHY of Steiner, they are just things that work for us. Most of these things we do can also be found in other places: the Gesell institute, Charlotte Mason, Montessori, common sense :lol:.

 

Does that make it clearer? Or maybe worse? :tongue_smilie:

[Hunter]

Thanks for the reviews Deee. I'm especially interested in any reviews of math.

[Zuzu822]

 

There are similarly strange bits in the lessons about different numbers, shapes, and colors. Everything has a hidden meaning. Maybe some people who don't believe in anthroposophy could just ignore it, but I'm not comfortable immersing myself and my children in that. (Understatement of the year.)

 

:iagree:

 

If you read thru OM looking through the lens if hunting for anthroposophy, you'll find it. But I think if you look at it without the expectation of baggage, you won't. Mind you, I find the whole teeth thing as a measure odd, and it's still in OM. :D

 

I agree with both of these, if that's possible. ;) I read some Waldorf debates on another forum with some folks asserting that even using Stockmar crayons is promoting Anthroposophy and the occult and should be avoided by Christians. That it is "priming" a child to feel "at home" with New Age practices. I do not agree with this in terms of art supplies, but the reasoning for the colors and grains of the week for example, are not in line with our belief system.

 

From what I've seen of OM, though, I do believe it is primarily neutral in terms of Waldorf, especially as the grades progress. I've looked at several times, and can see using parts of it in the future.

 

 

I mean, you could read OM's early guides and say they are nothing but a bunch of barefoot, tree hugging, free love hippies, too.

 

:lol:

[Deee]

Hi Hunter,

Christopherus has the best maths curriculum, I think. Live Eds explanations for grade 4 were pretty good, and the story which went with the fractions work was great (dividing up farmland into halves, then quarters, eighths etc, to look at fractions as parts of a whole, adding, subtracting, multiplying etc. No practice problems, though. Christopherus gives a lot more, although by grade 5 it relies heavily on the Key to..... books for practice, and much of the teaching beyond fractions. Its strength is really in the early years. I don't have my grade 2 and 3 maths stuff anymore. I'll see what I can find in my son's main lesson books. Christopherus is also the most practical of all the curricula. It contains excellent info about planning and teaching and is written by a trained Steiner teacher who has taught in schools and at home. It is well written, and the tone is no-nonsense, with plenty of dry wit and honesty.

 

We're now up to grade 6. My son needs more review than the Key to.... books provide, so we've shifted to Making Math Meaningful (Jamie York). The teachers manual is not open-and-go: I'm going to have to TEACH this stuff properly, which is a good thing at this level (I've become lazy thanks to Key to). York obviously likes maths and is keen to teach his students various maths tricks like casting out nines (I've never heard of this), which I think is a nice way to engage this age group. The worksheets were designed as homework. They look like just the sort of continual review my son needs, with quite a few new concepts as well. I'm going to find it very hard to stick to the pedagogical view that new material should be presented in main lesson blocks and not come up in dribs and drabs in daily practice lessons. In fact, I don't think I can stick with this rule this year!

 

Another passionate mathematician is Eric Fairman, an Australian Steiner teacher. He published his teachers notes for years 1-8 in an Australian Steiner school, as well as publishing a maths manual for years 1-8. His love of maths really shines through, but the curriculum moves quickly. Again, there are no practice problems, only teaching material. If you were weak in maths, it would be hard to teach from this curriculum.

 

Its hard for me to evaluate how workable these curricula are for people who are new to Steiner. I've read quite a bit (although some of Steiner's stuff makes me glaze over) and seen this stuff in action in the classroom, so I think its easier for me to visualise how all this works in practice.

 

Probably worth mentioning that what you call Waldorf, we Aussies call Steiner, so I'm generally referring to the method, not the man.

 

And I think I should confess that we love Life of Fred here, too.

D

[Hunter]

D, thank you for taking the time to write this all out. I am just so fascinated by Waldorf math right now. I'd just love to read them all, but that wouldn't be a wise financial investment. Sigh!

 

This e-book is screaming at me to download it. Instant gratification and no waiting for shipping. I MUST resist. http://WaldorfWithoutWalls.com/books/ebooks

Edited February 27, 2012 by Hunter

[Nicholas_mom]

Not to muddy your waters further, but you might like to check out Enki. It's Waldorf-ish, but there's no Anthropopshy and also incorporates sensory-integration and some Mnressori elements

 

I have done for 4 yrs - since my son was 4 yrs old! I can't believe I am doing 3rd Grade with him.

 

Anyway, if you want to check out Enki - there is a yahoo group Enki Experience http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnkiExperience/

 

Atleast once or twice a month there is a Pre-purchase conf call where you can ask directly any question about ENKI and how it will fit into your family and any other questions.

 

ENKI stops at Grade 3 with a choice to go on with Beth Sutton for Grade 4 thru a Yahoo group but I am on the fence to continue because I don't know if I want to hunt down all my own resources.:tongue_smilie:

 

ENKI has way more depth to the stories. OMG there are worht every penny. You can just buy the ENKI Guides and find your resources if you want to. :)

[Pen]

I just did some research on Anthroposophy. I am still trying to wrap my brain around exactly what it is. It sounds "new-agish" to me, which I am not comfortable with. Could anyone here give me an easy-to-understand summary of Anthroposophy? Also, if I choose to use Live Education, would I be able to remove the Anthroposophy elements or is it completely intertwined? And, one more question: can Waldorf curriculum be used if one is not comfortable with Anthroposophy? Thanks.

 

I sent you a PM. If you don't get it, let me know and I'll try again.

[Terabith]

In your situation, I would probably go with Christopherus. It's more all put together, plus she has the "how to" of form drawing. I do like the looks of Enki's movement and skills/ circle time dvds and activities, though.

[Pen]

I used Live Ed in grade 4, I had a few problems with science (zoology) in grade 4 ...

 

 

 

I didn't see Live-Ed material at a high enough grade to have any sense of the science there. My over all personal impression is that the science in Waldorf is poor. However, the art in the first grade materials of Live-Ed was wonderful. Since for me the "treasure" aspect of Waldorf is the art, I found that most in Live-Ed materials of the ones I have seen, but Deee has seen more various ones than I have. Certainly as between Live-Ed and Oak Meadow--OP's original questions, I think the art in Live-Ed is better, particularly from what I saw in the first grade materials where it had a basic book on how to do the art, and in the second grade where it started to get into watercolor at a slightly more advanced level. Drawing was not much covered at the levels I saw.

 

I think most of the academic areas (math, science, language arts) are better addressed by many curricula people mention on these boards than by Waldorf, but it would depend on a particular child and that child's needs. That said, for Kindergarten, I thought Waldorf was fantastic, warm and nurturing. But it would not, IMO, have hurt if the children had been allowed to also learn their letters, the days of the week and so on... the view at least at the school we were at would be that this much intellectual activity would permanently scar their development as spiritual beings. I don't see that.

[ElizaG]

Eleanor, maybe I am a little tired but I fail to see how you made that leap. How does showing a story of good vs evil (and good ALWAYS wins) feed into the other thing you were saying? It seems to me to be the clearest expression of opposites, if not the most important, for a child to understand especially that good will always overcome evil in the end.

I'm not talking about the story itself, but rather, what comes before it in the lesson. And, more specifically, what's left out.

 

What I get from the above is that in the examples of opposites given one is neither 'better' than the other. They are right, we need both of each set of opposites to make up a world.

And what stands out to me is that they only give examples where most people would go along with the above. Light and dark, day and night, male and female, sun and moon. This is how "two-ness" is introduced to the child.

 

Then they introduce good and evil. And they don't do anything to clarify or present this as an exception to their observations about "two-ness;" they just continue right along into it. There's a bit of a puzzle or disconnect there, at least for those whose ideas of morality are based in Christian teachings.

 

To oversimplify quite a bit, Anthroposophy teaches that good consists of finding a balance between two opposite kinds of evil. ("Spiritual Science teaches us that the task of Evil is to promote the ascent of man." -- from a lecture from 29th August, 1906.) There are some connections here with various Eastern religions, but also some differences. Steiner took ideas from all over the place.

 

Also, they are not being primed for anything because Steiner's stuff never is taught or introduced in any way through the grades.

Not explicitly and directly, at any rate. But I would maintain that the seeds are being sown. And the writers of Oak Meadow make it very clear -- e.g., in the samples from the Preschool manual -- that they are using archetypes to present their understanding of reality. Which may not be the same as a non-anthroposophic understanding of reality.

 

I do agree that Oak Meadow is much lighter on this stuff than some of the other methods. But at best, from an outside perspective, these aspects of the lessons are unnecessary and stand to be confusing to the child.

[freeindeed]

I sent you a PM. If you don't get it, let me know and I'll try again.

 

Thank you. I got it & it helped.:)

 

ETA: I just researched A Little Flower Garden here: http://www.waldorfjourney.typepad.com/ I really, really like it, too. And the prices are so reasonable!

Edited February 27, 2012 by freeindeed

[woolybear]

I'm really finding this thread interesting. I have owned, but never fully used, OM, Christopherus, and Live Ed. I think what you choose should be based on several things:

 

Philosophy/approach

Scheduling

Appearance

 

The last one is a biggie for me. I'm very visual and Live Ed meets my needs in that regard. OM is a bit more direct schedule wise. Christopherus I found (for my needs) to be the least user friendly because it didn't meet either need. I found it confusing.:confused: I never found something which met both the scheduled approach and visually satisfying. Perhaps that would've worked for me. As it is, I used OM the longest.....a couple of months. I found it quite teacher intensive, but that was due to my ds not being able to work independently at all at the time and to it bbeing such a different way of thinking for me, that it was hard to wrap my brain around. In the end...I would reccomend trying to find some LE Kindy or first grade used.These could be used as references and could cover several years. Then I would pick up OM or use one of the other resources mentioned here. I am very much not a Christopherus fan.

[freeindeed]

I'm really finding this thread interesting. I have owned, but never fully used, OM, Christopherus, and Live Ed. I think what you choose should be based on several things:

 

Philosophy/approach

Scheduling

Appearance

 

The last one is a biggie for me. I'm very visual and Live Ed meets my needs in that regard. OM is a bit more direct schedule wise. Christopherus I found (for my needs) to be the least user friendly because it didn't meet either need. I found it confusing.:confused: I never found something which met both the scheduled approach and visually satisfying. Perhaps that would've worked for me. As it is, I used OM the longest.....a couple of months. I found it quite teacher intensive, but that was due to my ds not being able to work independently at all at the time and to it bbeing such a different way of thinking for me, that it was hard to wrap my brain around. In the end...I would reccomend trying to find some LE Kindy or first grade used.These could be used as references and could cover several years. Then I would pick up OM or use one of the other resources mentioned here. I am very much not a Christopherus fan.

 

Could you tell me what you found confusing about Christopherus? I'm trying to narrow down my choices. Thanks!

[Pen]

To oversimplify quite a bit, Anthroposophy teaches that good consists of finding a balance between two opposite kinds of evil. ("Spiritual Science teaches us that the task of Evil is to promote the ascent of man." -- from a lecture from 29th August, 1906.) There are some connections here with various Eastern religions, but also some differences. Steiner took ideas from all over the place.

 

 

Quote:

Also, they are not being primed for anything because Steiner's stuff never is taught or introduced in any way through the grades.

 

 

__________________

 

Not explicitly and directly, at any rate. But I would maintain that the seeds are being sown. And the writers of Oak Meadow make it very clear -- e.g., in the samples from the Preschool manual -- that they are using archetypes to present their understanding of reality. Which may not be the same as a non-anthroposophic understanding of reality.

 

I do agree that Oak Meadow is much lighter on this stuff than some of the other methods. But at best, from an outside perspective, these aspects of the lessons are unnecessary and stand to be confusing to the child.

 

 

I agree with you.

"Anthroposophy" per se is not taught. The children do not take anthroposophy class nor go to religious services. But every aspect of the way things are done is done because that is what the anthroposophical view says to do. Academics are delayed because of anthroposophical outlook. Colors for the rooms are chosen because of anthroposophy. Shapes made in clay molding are for anthroposophical reasons. The order that the curriculum is presented fits an anthroposophical world view.

 

I would liken it to the movie Karate Kid where the older man played by Pat Morita teaches the boy to do karate without initially making it clear that that is what he is doing. But "Paint the Fence" is done in a way that it teaches one type of karate move. "Wax on. Wax off." That is another set of motions that will prepare the boy for karate. The boy in Karate Kid did want to learn karate, so that end goal was a good one for him. Whether OP is looking for education for her(?) child(ren) that will fit with developing the child(ren) for anthroposophical spiritual aims would be up to her. I think alerting OP to that aspect is important. I do think it is possible to take some of the treasures of Waldorf, such as the art and beauty and nature aspects, and leave what doesn't work for one's own family in a hs context. But it takes some work. It might take some vigilance on the parent's part. It might even take some deep study of anthoposophy to really know what that is before deciding what one wants to take or leave.