Talk me out of Waldorf

[Pen]

:rofl:

 

This is just cracking me up. It's the strong teacher focus that appeals to me. It's mixes well with the Principle Approach "the teacher is the textbook" methods. Without workbooks and textbooks, I need SOMETHING other than the student to lead the lesson.

 

 

I have a feeling you are not getting what I meant. Here is from my above post, plus some added:

 

 

I think another issue to consider (though you can work against it being a problem in your own home school) is whether all the doing, all the special crafts and so on, projects, festivals...end up creating, something I saw in the b&m setting--too much for the child. To the point of the children feeling entitled and acting spoiled, brats....and at the same time too much in the sense of the "hurried child" phenomenon (not simplicity, even though this is supposed to be a Waldorf goal, but the opposite of simplicity).

 

Parents and teachers tended to be burnt out--and while the kids seemed to enjoy it, I am not sure that the more, more, more was good for them.

 

It was like all cake, all Christmas presents, all the time--I mean that metaphorically, not literally. I do not find the art especially creepy. But there was a point when yet another cutesy knitted gnome, yet another precious festival, yet another teacher led circle time or teacher led acted out fairly tale was cloying, in its way as much an excess as stuff in the lives of children who cannot walk across their room because it is buried knee-deep in barbies or action figures and video games, just a different type of excess: the big kids sometimes used terms like Waldorky or Walbarfy. The boys ( I do not want to be sexist, but it was boys I saw do this not the girls) sometimes took their darling hand made faceless dollies and swung them into each other like Nerf bats, or bashed them on the ground or otherwise showed frustration with the idea of taking care of the dear "babies" (dolls) the way the teachers instructed. Sometimes maybe just a workbook is enough.

 

I am not saying the teacher should not lead the lesson. What I am saying is that in homeschool, my son and his friends have, ( it seems naturally that they do this, or maybe it is just these kids???--I kind of doubt it is only them, I recall this sort of thing from my own childhood), made up their own play based on what they are reading, be it Little House, or Harry Potter, or Macbeth. It becomes their creative working out of these stories. ISometimes they do art based on it on their own initiative too, or write their own stories inspired by something else also on their own initiative. It may not be stunning or something that would get oohs and ahs on a stage. But they did it themselves.

 

At Waldorf this was all structured by the teacher. The teacher would decide that a certain child (usually a blonde girl) would be the Princess, another (usually a blonde boy) the Prince, another child (usually a dark one) would be, say, the witch. The teacher would tell the children where to stand, what to say, etc. I guess that is two issues--one racial, and the other one that it was the teacher's, not the students' creativity that was being exercised. The racial one could have been otherwise managed, but the one that the teacher's creativity, not the student's was what was being exercised seemed intrinsic. (Some would say the racial issues are also intrinsic to Waldorf, and others say that is not so. Some say Steiner was anti-semitic and racist, others say that he was not as bad in that regard as many in his time and place. It at least seems an area to consider in regard to ones own homeschool and philosophy, and an area to look at any particular curriculum under consideration for how it does in these regards.)

 

In the art (painting, drawing, modeling) I could see that they were learning a method by which to do art, just as in copy work a child might learn a method to do cursive. in many other areas, this did not seem like the case--more that they were doing something that showed off the teacher's creative skills, looked good at assemblies, but did not especially enhance the children's skills. This again is an area where I do not know how the homeschool version would compare to the b&m version, but I think homeschool Waldorf perhaps is still an awful lot about the parent creating a magical fantasyland for the child, and too little about the child doing his or her own. And I think it may leave a lot of Waldorf oriented parents feeling guilty when they do not achieve an ideal which may not actually be in the child's genuine best interests or help them to become contributors to the family or society or even to manage to make their own fun and amusement in a healthy way.

[momma2three]

That's an interesting point. It might also explain why I was really drawn to Waldorf when I had one very calm toddler, who was happy to play quietly while I sat around and knit her things and was so easy going she was happy playing with a handkerchief. Now that I have 3 kids close in age, and the younger two are sort of high needs, all that calm and peacefulness and me doing everything as they come along for the gentle ride, and cooking soups, and whatever seems really overwhelming and like I'd burn out in about five minutes.

[La Texican]

When I read about the Waldorf math books using personification to teach math, pretending they're gnomes it reminded me of the Weekly Reader brand series called Math Monsters that my son read over the summer. (there's another brand of math monsters books, but I'm talking about the obes that say weekly reader on the cover). Addison, Split, Multiplex, and one other charachter, I think it was Mina, lived in a place similar to PBS Word World. They learn about so many math concepts with out directly naming them over the course of the series. One time they all wanted to play with a ball. They wanted to take turns so they counted to 10 for their turn, but some people counted fast and sone people counted slow. They solved it when they saw some water dripping nearby and counted their 10 in time to the water dripping. Time, clocks, and measurement were never mentioned. They were in the non fiction section in the childrens section of the public library under math.

[Aspasia]

Pen, again, thank you so much for your insight.

 

I've been all over the place the last couple months. Today I sat down and made a list of everything that draws me to Waldorf, everything that makes me think I might like CM, WTM/other classical, etc. I'm trying to come up with a plan that incorporates as much of those things as possible, without creating too much work for us. When I wrote everything down, Waldorf did have the longest list, but it was things like seasonal rhythms, verses, transition songs, lesson blocks, nature, etc. My heart lies with WTM LA methods and fairly conventional math. I'm gonna figure this out, dang it!

[Pen]

I can tell you that Waldorf inspired has been therapeutic and healing for my dd5. She has significant special needs (visually impaired, developmental delay, mental insufficiency, suspected ASD) as well as other issues stemming from the fact that she spent the majority of the first two years of her life being ignored in an orphanage. The daily/weekly/monthly rhythm is a lifesaver for her and for me, as well as for the rest of my family. The delayed focus on academics also suits her perfectly. She LOVES Circle Time and can sing/recite her verses beautifully. The toys made from natural materials are soothing to her. She has truly begun to blossom with the Waldorf method. This is a list of the books/curriculum I use with her:

 

http://www.oakmeadow...m/preschool.php

http://www.lulu.com/...t-20347265.html

http://www.novanatur...gs-stories.html

http://www.novanatur...gs-stories.html

http://www.novanatur...gs-stories.html

http://www.novanatur...gs-stories.html

 

Here are links to some of my blog posts that will give you an idea of what our schooling is like, and how Waldorf-inspired looks in our everyday life:

 

http://freeindeed-re...of-mar-4-8.html Just

http://freeindeed-re...11-15-2013.html

http://freeindeed-re...18-22-2013.html

http://freeindeed-re...-baby-girl.html

I hope this helps.

 

 

Some lovely pictures there--and I am glad you have found what seems to work well for baby girl and the rest of family including you!

 

this is kind of off topic and I apologize for butting in, but ... Are the children, especially baby girl, fine with the treats and all? I noticed the gluten-free birthday cake, on one hand, and then Kool Aid, Rolos and such on the other. We don't do well here with the standard commercial stuff like Rolos and Kool Aid--behavior and cognitive seem to decline, allergic type symptoms go up. We just watched the film "Genetic Roulette" and I recommend it highly!!!! To you because of baby girl's problems, but also to OP and others reading this.

[Soror]

As I believe I read someone else say, Waldorf doesn't "own" songs, nature, etc in hs'ing. There is nearly something that I find appealing about every style, some of those things small and some large. Yet again there is a lot of overlap as well. It was a big relief to me when I realized I didn't have to do any one method completely and could pick and choose various aspects as I wished. I do feel more and more drawn to classical as time goes on though and am feeling more and more content where we are at. I also have learned more about myself as a teacher, and my kids as well. Lots of things sound good in theory but the reality of practice is quite different. It has become easier and easier for me to let go of guilt for not doing all these wonderfully sounding things. We don't have to do everything but in the beginning when everything sounds so great you just want to try it all out. I know I felt if we didn't perhaps we might miss something. I think it takes everyone a bit to feel settled and that is often not permanent. One day at a time is all we can do though and do our best by ourselves and our kids.

[freeindeed]

Some lovely pictures there--and I am glad you have found what seems to work well for baby girl and the rest of family including you!

 

this is kind of off topic and I apologize for butting in, but ... Are the children, especially baby girl, fine with the treats and all? I noticed the gluten-free birthday cake, on one hand, and then Kool Aid, Rolos and such on the other. We don't do well here with the standard commercial stuff like Rolos and Kool Aid--behavior and cognitive seem to decline, allergic type symptoms go up. We just watched the film "Genetic Roulette" and I recommend it highly!!!! To you because of baby girl's problems, but also to OP and others reading this.

 

 

Baby Girl is on a gluten free diet due to her needs. My older children have no issues, so they are allowed to have candy, "regular" cookies, and Kool-Aid drinks in moderation. The weekly treats are for my older children. Baby Girl has her own gluten free treats. I personally do not eat processed foods, sugars, or white flour at all, and my hubby and older children only do so in moderation. We typically eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits.

[Deee]

Hi Pen,

the maths we did with Christopherus kept pace with the Australian Curriculum and put DS on track to start algebra in year 7 (we now use MEP). The Australian curriculum moves a bit faster than the US. Several Steiner curricula, in particular Path of Discovery, by Australian Eric Fairman, introduce algebra in grade 6. Christopherus relies heavily on the Key to.. workbooks, which fit well with the Steiner philosophy of no silly illustrations and no patronising or condescending instructions. I find MEP an excellent continuation and I prefer its integrated approach (we have integrated maths in Australia, and integrated science). Oak Meadow is NOT Waldorf: its Waldorf inspired (I'm not splitting hairs here - we're discussing Waldorf and Oak Meadow is not a good representation). I have an old fourth grade syllabus. I found it weaker academically than Christopherus and the maths is very easy.

 

In grade 6 my son could read a couple of pages (8-10 paragraphs) of a grade-appropriate history book (eg The Romans, by Burrell), note the main points, then turn those points into a summary of two or three paragraphs. His grammar and punctuation are very good which I put down to a lot of reading. We don't do this every week, but he can certainly manage well enough. Christopherus language arts is very thorough (no diagramming, though), but appears light-on because of the absence of busy work and constant repetition. Once they learn a skill, kids are expected to practice it through writing, not exercises.

 

The big downside is that Christopherus peters out by grade 6, with only a couple of units and rough guides available for grades 6-8. I miss it! We've become more classical in our approach, which DS12 seems to prefer. I'd like to go back to blocks. I find our history and science lacking in depth and too "choppy". My experience with the local Steiner school (which DS attended until early grade 2) was that the high school education wasn't rigorous enough, but then I don't think the local state school is rigorous enough either, which is another reason we homeschool.

 

I miss the art: its the big thing that I can't replicate at home. We don't draw as much as we used to now DS is older, but I'm pushing him to do a bit more because it seems to help centre him. We don't follow any of Steiner's other teachings. We are secular humanists, so anthroposophy plays no part in our lives.

 

Regarding your comment about the teacher structuring everything, I think this is comment that could be leveled at other education types, not just Steiner. That reflects the failings of the teacher, not the method. Control freaks are everywhere. I certainly didn't see anything of this kind in the more experienced teachers at the Steiner school my son attended. And I think the "more, more, more" is a product of modern culture, rather than a Steiner phenomenon. the Steiner purists I know in Australia are very pared down wrt possessions, toys, celebrations, etc. There is a big push towards simplifying.

 

For the OP:

 

Caveats for Waldorf (or Steiner Education as its called everywhere but the US):

 

Its VERY teacher intensive. Most homeschoolers read stories rather than tell them. Seriously, unless you LOVE it, let the storytelling go a bit....

 

Normal people with a normal education find the art work hard work. This is OK. Don't look at too many blogs if you are art-challenged. Your child will still love your drawings even if you never get dogs legs to look just so.

 

Kids in Steiner schools don't produce a drawing or painting every day. They may work for several weeks on one large picture.

 

Wet-on-wet watercolour painting is an exercise in frustration if you don't shell-out for good quality paints and watercolour paper. If you can't afford these, paint anyway, but don't get hung up on the beautiful Steiner paintings. Don't let perfectionism lead to inaction (ask me how I know this!)

 

Circle time is hard with only one or two children, and usually peters out around 5th grade in homeschools.

 

Take what works: ignore the bits about wall colour, daily grains, black crayons, whatever, if you think its loopy. That's the beauty of homeschooling

Danielle

[Hunter]

I only have a few minutes, so need to wait to respond to some stuff, but...

 

Classical can mean TWTM and LCC, and so many other different things beside. I'm starting to think that "Waldorf" is not all the things we have ever seen done in the name of "Waldorf" and that there is no one definition.

 

I find myself drawn to the cigarette factory methods and the vintage books/methods that Steiner appears to have consulted. I look forward to writing more on that later. :001_smile:

[Pen]

Hi Pen,

the maths we did with Christopherus kept pace with the Australian Curriculum and put DS on track to start algebra in year 7 (we now use MEP). The Australian curriculum moves a bit faster than the US. Several Steiner curricula, in particular Path of Discovery, by Australian Eric Fairman, introduce algebra in grade 6. Christopherus relies heavily on the Key to.. workbooks, which fit well with the Steiner philosophy of no silly illustrations and no patronising or condescending instructions. I find MEP an excellent continuation and I prefer its integrated approach (we have integrated maths in Australia, and integrated science). Oak Meadow is NOT Waldorf: its Waldorf inspired (I'm not splitting hairs here - we're discussing Waldorf and Oak Meadow is not a good representation). I have an old fourth grade syllabus. I found it weaker academically than Christopherus and the maths is very easy.

 

In grade 6 my son could read a couple of pages (8-10 paragraphs) of a grade-appropriate history book (eg The Romans, by Burrell), note the main points, then turn those points into a summary of two or three paragraphs. His grammar and punctuation are very good which I put down to a lot of reading. We don't do this every week, but he can certainly manage well enough. Christopherus language arts is very thorough (no diagramming, though), but appears light-on because of the absence of busy work and constant repetition. Once they learn a skill, kids are expected to practice it through writing, not exercises.

 

The big downside is that Christopherus peters out by grade 6, with only a couple of units and rough guides available for grades 6-8. I miss it! We've become more classical in our approach, which DS12 seems to prefer. I'd like to go back to blocks. I find our history and science lacking in depth and too "choppy". My experience with the local Steiner school (which DS attended until early grade 2) was that the high school education wasn't rigorous enough, but then I don't think the local state school is rigorous enough either, which is another reason we homeschool.

 

I miss the art: its the big thing that I can't replicate at home. We don't draw as much as we used to now DS is older, but I'm pushing him to do a bit more because it seems to help centre him. We don't follow any of Steiner's other teachings. We are secular humanists, so anthroposophy plays no part in our lives.

 

Regarding your comment about the teacher structuring everything, I think this is comment that could be leveled at other education types, not just Steiner. That reflects the failings of the teacher, not the method. Control freaks are everywhere. I certainly didn't see anything of this kind in the more experienced teachers at the Steiner school my son attended. And I think the "more, more, more" is a product of modern culture, rather than a Steiner phenomenon. the Steiner purists I know in Australia are very pared down wrt possessions, toys, celebrations, etc. There is a big push towards simplifying.

 

For the OP:

 

Caveats for Waldorf (or Steiner Education as its called everywhere but the US):

 

Its VERY teacher intensive. Most homeschoolers read stories rather than tell them. Seriously, unless you LOVE it, let the storytelling go a bit....

 

Normal people with a normal education find the art work hard work. This is OK. Don't look at too many blogs if you are art-challenged. Your child will still love your drawings even if you never get dogs legs to look just so.

 

Kids in Steiner schools don't produce a drawing or painting every day. They may work for several weeks on one large picture.

 

Wet-on-wet watercolour painting is an exercise in frustration if you don't shell-out for good quality paints and watercolour paper. If you can't afford these, paint anyway, but don't get hung up on the beautiful Steiner paintings. Don't let perfectionism lead to inaction (ask me how I know this!)

 

Circle time is hard with only one or two children, and usually peters out around 5th grade in homeschools.

 

Take what works: ignore the bits about wall colour, daily grains, black crayons, whatever, if you think its loopy. That's the beauty of homeschooling

Danielle

 

Thanks. Helpful! I got Live-Ed when I moved out of b&m, but it sounds like Christopherus might be a better choice over all, perhaps, from your description--IF trying to do fully a Waldorf/Steiner program. If trying to get mainly the art or crafts parts and do other things for academics, it could be that Live-Ed would be better for the art, or maybe something like Little Flower Garden (can't recall name for sure) for over all set up of home and crafts parts. ????? Christopherus might be especially interesting for OP because I think it is one of the few programs where one can get parts of it rather than a whole, more economically allowing her to pick and choose what to take from Waldorf and what from elsewhere should that be her route.

 

On the painting...I agree about the exercise in frustration if you cannot get good quality paints and paper, and painting anyway if you cannot afford them.

 

But I suggest seeing if you (OP) can afford them by buying only one primary color at a time and a small amount of paper. You have very young children, and the Waldorf method would be to just start with one color, often seasonally chosen, and work with that alone for several months to get the sensory feel of painting, and the feel the one color, how to hold brush, how much paint to dip for what effect, how not to dip the brush past the ferrule, how to wet the paper, how to clean up, and so on. Think of it as a meditative exercise.

 

That the art helped to center the children was something I also experienced, with ds, with nearly all the children I saw doing it. And also for myself.

 

With all that seems different between the experience here in USA vs. Australia experience, I am questioning whether I can write "the Waldorf method" in re the painting... I studied with 3 Waldorf artists though, plus anthroposophical backgrounds of art, at least to some degree over several years. And I'v beenm in contact with one doing international training of teachers in Waldorf/Steiner or whatever name you choose, met with one who visited here from Europe, and three who went to German Waldorf schools....

 

I think what I am saying reflects more than just a local system, but if it turns out that in Australia it is totally differently done, perhaps starting the kindergarteners off with a whole palette of colors, that would be interesting.

[Pen]

I only have a few minutes, so need to wait to respond to some stuff, but...

 

Classical can mean TWTM and LCC, and so many other different things beside. I'm starting to think that "Waldorf" is not all the things we have ever seen done in the name of "Waldorf" and that there is no one definition.

 

I find myself drawn to the cigarette factory methods and the vintage books/methods that Steiner appears to have consulted. I look forward to writing more on that later. :001_smile:

 

I'm looking forward to it!

[momma2three]

I only have a few minutes, so need to wait to respond to some stuff, but...

 

Classical can mean TWTM and LCC, and so many other different things beside. I'm starting to think that "Waldorf" is not all the things we have ever seen done in the name of "Waldorf" and that there is no one definition.

 

I find myself drawn to the cigarette factory methods and the vintage books/methods that Steiner appears to have consulted. I look forward to writing more on that later. :001_smile:

 

 

Actually, Waldorf (unlike most other educational philosophies) is a trademarked word, and any school calling itself a Waldorf school has to be accredited by the Association of Waldorf Schools of America. They only hire teachers who have been trained at one of two Waldorf training programs in the US, or an international training school they approve of. So Waldorf is pretty streamlined, and if something is calling itself Waldorf, it's either very strictly defined, or using the trademark without permission. And I've heard that the AWSA goes after schools using the trademark illegally pretty swiftly.

 

It's definitely not like Montessori where anyone can slap "Montessori" on a school (either because they misunderstand the philosophy, or because they think it makes their school sound fancier) and do whatever they want... which does directly result in many people having a negative opinion of Montessori schools because of an experience with a school using the name but not the methods.

[freeindeed]

The painting is still something I'm trying to master. Right now I "cheat" and use colored pencils.

[Pen]

 

Actually, Waldorf (unlike most other educational philosophies) is a trademarked word, and any school calling itself a Waldorf school has to be accredited by the Association of Waldorf Schools of America. They only hire teachers who have been trained at one of two Waldorf training programs in the US, or an international training school they approve of. So Waldorf is pretty streamlined, and if something is calling itself Waldorf, it's either very strictly defined, or using the trademark without permission. And I've heard that the AWSA goes after schools using the trademark illegally pretty swiftly.

 

It's definitely not like Montessori where anyone can slap "Montessori" on a school (either because they misunderstand the philosophy, or because they think it makes their school sound fancier) and do whatever they want... which does directly result in many people having a negative opinion of Montessori schools because of an experience with a school using the name but not the methods.

 

 

Good point. But a little more complicated than this summary.

 

The Association which is called AWSNA, btw, the N being for North, has its own websites (www.WhyWaldorfWorks.org -- if OP wants the opposite view of being Talked Out Of as this thread is titled) which could be another source of info for OP and a magazine called Renewal. A copy of Renewal that I grabbed off the shelf gives more than 2 easily identifiable as such Waldorf teacher training schools, by the way. There are at least 3 or 4 in just Oregon and California alone, (Rudolf Steiner College, Bay Area Center for Waldorf Teacher Training, Waldorf Teacher Education, Eugene, and possibly Micha-el Institute and Waldorf Institute of Southern California), another couple in New Hampshire alone, and so on. Leaving out some details though, I think your point has merit. Also, a couple of people with whom I studied Waldorf art teach internationally, and one person was herself educated in Germany, the founder of Renewal taught in England before going to the USA, and so forth, so I think "Waldorf" is not totally meaningless and random from place to place. But I also (from my Renewal and Lilipoh magazines) know that in some places, such as China and Russia, as Waldorf gets going there, it is influenced by local laws, requirements and expectations .

[Pen]

The painting is still something I'm trying to master. Right now I "cheat" and use colored pencils.

 

 

Hmmmm. Might you or others such as OP be interested if I tried to guide you through what to do and maybe that would be the start to book I have thought is needed?

[Deee]

YES PLEASE! Art is the thing I grieve over, having taken DS out of a b&m Steiner school.

D

[Deee]

I didn't mean to spark a debate about the Waldorfness of different schools. My point was merely that Oak Meadow and Enki are not good examples of Steiner curricula. Waldorf methods are the same the world over. Even the curriculum is the same, although there is a group of Australian schools (one of which my son attended) that have moved from more European stories to more Australian material.

D

[Pen]

YES PLEASE! Art is the thing I grieve over, having taken DS out of a b&m Steiner school.

D

 

 

 

Okay. I have to think how to do this, and, I think I should contact SWB and see if this is appropriate for somewhere on these forums or needs to go elsewhere entirely.

 

In the meantime, anyone interested, give me a clue to ages of children for whom there is interest (I already gather that yours must be at least in 6th grade and have prior Waldorf art experience?), amount of parent experience, and what materials you have available. Especially for painting, but also would be interesting to know other materials available. Or also what you are able to get, if needed.

 

Also I think this needs a new thread at the very least, not to be part of "talk me out of Waldorf"--and given issue of the name being trademarked, don't know if that is true, but in case it is, how about something like s/o talk me out of W: Art Thread ????

[freeindeed]

Spinoff works for me. I will post my info and my children's info there. Thanks!

[Hunter]

Is there any one group that actually has the right to say which schools can use the title "Waldorf"?

 

In the beginning the factory school did not directly teach anthroposophy, right? Steiner obviously picked and chose materials and methods based on his worldview, but he was not trying to directly bring the religion into the school right?

 

And what even approved Waldorf schools are doing, includes things not included in the original curriculum, and skips things that were included? Originally things were more minimalistic and less artsy? I'm not expert and don't intend to become one, but things that were minor parts of the curriculum have been turned into trademark and priority subjects?

 

Is the free African Curriculum approved?

 

I'm still short on time to respond. :leaving: I don't think this thread is going away any time soon though, so it can wait. :D

 

I'm all for Waldorf threads on single topics.

[Hunter]

 

I think another issue to consider (though you can work against it being a problem in your own home school) is whether all the doing, all the special crafts and so on, projects, festivals...end up creating, something I saw in the b&m setting--too much for the child. To the point of the children feeling entitled and acting spoiled, brats....and at the same time too much in the sense of the "hurried child" phenomenon (not simplicity, even though this is supposed to be a Waldorf goal, but the opposite of simplicity).

 

Parents and teachers tended to be burnt out--and while the kids seemed to enjoy it, I am not sure that the more, more, more was good for them.

 

:iagree:

 

Both Waldorf and Amish/Mennonite methods can surely take the simple out of simple. I think I was able to apply some of what I learned from attempting and failing to join a Mennonite church to my attempt to incorporate some Waldorf methods into my teaching. Simple is individualistic to each situation. I think I now try to be efficient more than Plain or simple.

 

In the art (painting, drawing, modeling) I could see that they were learning a method by which to do art, just as in copy work a child might learn a method to do cursive. in many other areas, this did not seem like the case--more that they were doing something that showed off the teacher's creative skills, looked good at assemblies, but did not especially enhance the children's skills. This again is an area where I do not know how the homeschool version would compare to the b&m version, but I think homeschool Waldorf perhaps is still an awful lot about the parent creating a magical fantasyland for the child, and too little about the child doing his or her own. And I think it may leave a lot of Waldorf oriented parents feeling guilty when they do not achieve an ideal which may not actually be in the child's genuine best interests or help them to become contributors to the family or society or even to manage to make their own fun and amusement in a healthy way.

 

 

 

I have tried to not focus on the style of art work so much as providing a model to use as copy work that teaches the student skills that produce confidence to illustrate. We use Draw Write Now and other non-Waldorf models to learn drawing, and I think that's okay. I don't even use beeswax never mind block crayons anymore.

 

That desire/pressure to create a fairy land is a modern aspect of Waldorf? And not part of the original vision?

[Hunter]

Pen, again, thank you so much for your insight.

 

I've been all over the place the last couple months. Today I sat down and made a list of everything that draws me to Waldorf, everything that makes me think I might like CM, WTM/other classical, etc. I'm trying to come up with a plan that incorporates as much of those things as possible, without creating too much work for us. When I wrote everything down, Waldorf did have the longest list, but it was things like seasonal rhythms, verses, transition songs, lesson blocks, nature, etc. My heart lies with WTM LA methods and fairly conventional math. I'm gonna figure this out, dang it!

 

 

This is a good idea. I might actually make a list of just the things I like from each method, and make sure I remember what they are. I don't need to exclude all, or use all of a method. It's not black and white. And I really like to research where the particular ideas FIRST come from. Sometimes I drop the method/curriculum altogether when I find the true source of where just the thing I liked so much came from.

[Hunter]

Once they learn a skill, kids are expected to practice it through writing, not exercises.

 

 

I really like this part of Waldorf.

 

Circle time is hard with only one or two children, and usually peters out around 5th grade in homeschools.

 

 

Because I spent so many years having family worship time with my boys, the concept of circle time is so embedded in my psyche that, it's just a part of teaching even teenagers. Even when My boys had sleep over as teens, there was morning worship for all children in the house. I have such fond memories of a table full of sleepyeyed, greasy haired teens with bright orange Cheeto dust on their fingers and faces, shushing my embarrassed older son, and telling him, "No, she's cool Dude. Leave her alone!"

[happyWImom]

:lol:

 

Do want us to enable or discourage you? I'm confused what you are looking for. I can do either one, but just need to know which it is. :D

 

I love this! It is so true, and I'm glad you asked the OP. Whenever I am asking a question on here, I usually want my opinion validated. (For future reference :001_smile: )

 

Back to the question, though..... I have gone back & forth with Waldorf/Waldory stuff for years. I don't get into the whole anthroposophy stuff, but I do see the wisdom in much of what they are talking about.

 

I purchased Oak Meadow 1 & 2 years ago, because I didn't feel I was equipped to do Waldorf the "Waldorf" way, but then I felt that OM was too light. Now, I get the method and wish I had stuck with it, because everything does work, and the later grades are pretty rigorous.

 

We do main lesson books instead of notebooking, are very nature oriented, as well as art & music centered. Is that Waldorf? Not necessarily. I think Waldorf & CM are similar in many ways, so we try & incorporate the two.

 

Okay, I'm babbling.

 

My advice would be to check out previous posts on here (there was one that listed lots of great Waldorf links), the Pinterest boards (again, there are tons of them) as well as the many excellent Waldorf blogs. Start simple, don't invest a lot of money to begin with. Research now, before you start a new school year.

 

The one plus is that Waldorf materials have a great resale value.

[Pen]

Is there any one group that actually has the right to say which schools can use the title "Waldorf"?

 

I don

t think so, but also don't want to spend lots of time on it--nor on other hand do anything that might run afoul of something I know not of. There are several "Waldorfs" within around 30 miles of where I live--only 2 are AWSNA listed. I am not aware of lawsuits against the others, but do not know. I know there are controversies now within "Waldorf" circles on whether the public charter schools that do Waldorf inspired education are or are not "Waldorf". Because social aspects of the education are significant, whether any homeschool can really be "Waldorf" is another debate I have willy nilly found myself in.

 

 

In the beginning the factory school did not directly teach anthroposophy, right?

 

 

Nor are modern day Waldorf schools supposed to directly teach anthroposophy.

 

Steiner obviously picked and chose materials and methods based on his worldview, but he was not trying to directly bring the religion into the school right?

 

Complicated question. The "religion" associated with anthroposophy is actually probably something called The Christian Community, and I would not say there was any attempt to bring that into the school per se, neither then nor now. Most people have not even heard of it. And while teachers at "Waldorf" IME were/ are generally part of the anthroposphical movement, far fewer seem to be part of the Christian Community.

 

But the school does seem to have been an opportunity to test out anthroposophical world views, perhaps bring that world view into being, in terms of making the school a test ground for three-fold social order, for anthroposophical ideas, and so on, including for raising children to be what he thought they should be. But then, is that so unusual? Spartans raised their children to be good Spartans, Athenians to be good Athenians. And so on.

 

And in so far as what Steiner seemed to have wanted was people who were balanced as between body, emotion, mind, and spirit, and well developed in all those areas, was/is that bad?

 

Then again, there is the question does it actually work? And I guess for my son, I ended up feeling that it did not.

 

How do you separate these ideas that you have set up as a dichotomy: "picked and chose materials and methods based on his worldview, but he was not trying to directly bring the religion into the school" ??? How do you pick and choose everything to fit a worldview--yet keep the worldview out?

 

Example: The standard wall treatment of Lazure is, as I understand it, to let in spirit beings. So, well, that kind of permeates the whole atmosphere of all the schools I've seen that have that wall treatment. As it happens, that part does not bother me. But I think it, the worldview, is clearly a part of everything there. I think just about everything is done the way it is done for anthroposophical philosophical reasons, which include spiritual reasons. So, the kids are not studying anthroposophy per se (in fact, kids are not welcome at anthroposophical study groups so far as I could tell, it seemed to be a thing for adults to study not kids in any case), and yet... that does not necessarily mean that they are not imbibing it.

 

It is hard to think of an analogy, but suppose there were a Catholic school with no religion class and no required Mass for the students. But all the teachers are Catholic or at least have studied Catholicism in depth and subscribe to its ideas, and all the rooms have a typical Jesus on a cross mounted near the ceiling of one wall and all the subjects/curriculum have been determined to be aligned with Catholicism, and perhaps to further an underlying goal of turning the children into what Catholicism wants children to be--though not necessarily ever to convert them officially to the religion. Is the religion in the school?

 

Now make it more complicated and make it something where there is a philosophical background (anthroposophy) movement that is not actually a "religion,"--my guess is that no one puts "anthroposophy" down on a form where it asks for religion-- where, in fact, a religion did come from that movement (Christian Community) and yet is clearly not necessary to the movement, and where the movement has been able to exist in various cultures with other religions being dominant (there is Waldorf in Israel as I understand it, for example)....and yet where that movement has dimensions that are unabashedly "spiritual" and which many ( I think you as you phrased the question) would consider "religious". ?????.

 

And what even approved Waldorf schools are doing, includes things not included in the original curriculum, and skips things that were included? Originally things were more minimalistic and less artsy?

 

I don't know what was in the original school. German language, no doubt. Other than that, what are you thinking was originally present but now skipped?

 

Steiner was very much into art and festivals and theater and music, and he and his wife together started eurythmy. That art was very important to him is obvious from his writings/lectures--many of which you can access for free on Steiner Archives website if you are interested.

 

My guess is the arts would have been there-- to the extent they could manage it--and had developed it-- from the start. .

 

I'm not sure what year the Steiners introduced eurythmy movement, or when he got involved with his watercolor ideas, but much of that does come from Steiner himself or close associates of his. In studying some on these things, one was reading translations of Steiner's own lectures, by and large, not things imposed in more recent years. Pictures of some of his own art were around also as inspiration, and my understanding is that the color theory and the use of Lazure on the walls which is very typically "Waldorf" were from Steiner himself. The lectures were all dated as I recall, but I don't recall dates as compared to when the first school was started.

 

The original school had no early-childhood part, only the grades as I understand it. So that was pretty clearly different.

 

I'm not expert and don't intend to become one, but things that were minor parts of the curriculum have been turned into trademark and priority subjects?

 

I'm not an expert on that either. But I think the arts area was always a priority subject area.

 

Is the free African Curriculum approved?

 

I'm still short on time to respond. :leaving: I don't think this thread is going away any time soon though, so it can wait. :D

 

I'm all for Waldorf threads on single topics.

 

 

I have to write something here or this will not post.

[Hunter]

Thanks Pen!!! :001_smile:

[happyWImom]

After using the main lesson block method for the first few years with my oldest, I learned that by 3rd grade Waldorf schools and Waldorf-inspired homeschool curricula add daily "math tracks", and/or additional mini-lesson blocks to the schedule, in addition to daily movement (circle), music practice, foreign language, etc.

 

So, basically, by 3rd grade the daily schedule includes quite a few elements: movement (math facts practice, songs, poetry), form drawing/cursive, main lesson, recorder, math track, foreign language, and handwork or art, as well as any enrichment classes.

 

In theory, I LOVED the idea of a main lesson, where we would alternate between Lang arts (literature) and math, with each being the focus for a month or so. In reality though my ds stays more engaged with shorter lessons and more variety in his day (CM called this feasting on the variety of lessons).

 

It really depends on your child and on you. I was starting to lose steam by the 3rd week of math focus.

 

Also, main lesson books are different from the notebooking that I've seen in that the children create their own learning books, so notebooking worksheets are not used. Personally, I love this because I don't like notebooking worksheets where comprehension questions are expected to be answered, or children are asked to fill in blanks or pre-set forms.

 

We still use Main Lesson books for our CM lessons in 3rd grade. My ds can narrate his lesson by drawing a picture or writing about it. He also adds map work to his MLB. When we read a living book for science he draws the animal and labels it, along with some interesting facts. It's definitely uniquely his.

 

I agree that the whole block lesson style is really a personal one, because we haven't done it, but I was just thinking that it would work perfectly for us! Especially with history & science. I want to delve deeper into some things, and then it seems that I'm completely ignoring other subjects. If I planned out lesson blocks, I think we would do science part of the year & history the other. And while I wouldn't want to skip math or LA totally, I can see the wisdom (for us) in focusing more heavily on one for a few weeks (or whatever) and then switching.

 

But again, you need to go with what works for you & your dc.

[happyWImom]

Oh! One more thing about the rigorousness of Waldorf. In the early years, it does seem light (but, if you are reading, reading, reading to them, gentle narrations, focusing on form drawing, art, expression, and having them help with meals, cleaning, etc... I don't think that is bad, or necessarily "light"), starting in grade 3, it really does get more intense. Maybe not with science (and that was one reason we gave up on OM, I felt my dc already knew a lot of the science-I wish I would have stuck with it & supplemented)

 

In grade 3, they are learning all about shelters, farming, etc... If you go with a truly Waldorf style learning, they are building things (even OM has them do building) and cooking. The whole shelter thing can get very detailed. http://waldorfcurriculum.com/Articles/camp_housebuilding.html (lots of great stuff on here for all grades).

 

We are starting OM 4 (I do tweak) and the history stuff is excellent. The LA has been a Godsend for my dd, because everthing else we've used has been total drudgery for her-she loves this, and is getting a lot out of it. The writing is great, because it has them write a daily journal, and you use that along with the grammar you've been teaching. They also give writing assignments that give the child a choice of various assignments to do.

 

I am also having her do the OM 5 Environmental Science, and that is fantastic. We read the lesson together, but then the assigments are very individual & independent, and best of all, they get her to really think. It's not a simple question & answer, fill in the blank type curriculum. We also do another science with both dc, but this has been wonderful for her.

 

I'm not trying to sell OM here, because while I really like a lot of the aspects of it, I could also see us putting together a Waldorf type curriculum on our own. There are so many resources out there. But, if I had never done it before, I personally would & have felt more comfortable going with something like Oak Meadow or even Waldorf Essentials http://waldorfessentials.com/ . Check out her site/blog for wisdom & ideas, and click on "store" if you want to explore what she has. It is excellent.

 

I think if you aren't trying to be a purist, you can easily blend a lot of different curricula together. We do memory work with a Classical Conversations type memory board, and latin, which is classical, but we also use Beautiful Feet (CM) and other Charlotte Mason type studies, plus our bits & pieces of Waldorf. It can work.

 

Here is my Waldorf/Main Lesson Book Pinterest Board: http://pinterest.com/happywimom/misc-waldorf-main-lesson-examples/ and my Oak Meadow Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/happywimom/oak-meadow-4-5-stuff/ . They can give you some ideas. There are also tons of Waldorf boards on Pinterest, so you can get more ideas.

 

Not sure if you wanted all of this, but we have been having a great couple of weeks with school, so I felt the need to share my success! :D

[Shahrazad]

I find some aspects of Waldorf very interesting. I love to look at the blogs and MLBs of older grade waldorf students but without being able to see examples of how it all pans out (after finishing high school), I really do find it hard to imagine that the academic outcome would be a strong one or that a student would measure favorably in academics to a student who came out of even a lousier public school.... I'm sure I could very well be incorrect but despite liking certain aspects (and wanting nothing to do with others), I always gravitate back toward the classical side. I would love to be proven wrong though :). It is also very possible that I just haven't seen enough of the upper grades to judge. I do homeschool eclectically and try to incorporate the things I do like though. Anyway, I've found this post very interesting and am following along as a reader.

[Hunter]

I don't think Waldorf is light. I just think different topics are taught in a different order. The listening comprehension expectations are incredibly high. Multiplication is taught in first grade. The form drawing is NOT easy at all. Knitting in first grade is really hard!

[Shahrazad]

Is there a book you would recommend to get a good outline of what waldorf homeschooling would look like as a 'big picture' over the years? Preferably one with limited inclusion of anthroposophy? I do see some of the work examples of older grades and it in many ways looks as though it covers the same information covered in a classical education but in a different form. In a way, I am keeping many of the Waldorf methods as my backup plan in case it turns out to be more to my child's learning style than what I have planned. He may benefit from the educational philosophy I currently hold or, over time, I could see that he would benefit more from the waldorf style of learning. I guess only time will tell.

[freeindeed]

Oak Meadow is Waldorf inspired. You could read their Heart of Learning book. It gives some good Waldorf insight without a heavy emphasis on anthroposophy.

[Shahrazad]

Coincidentally, that book is in the mail on its way to me already so I will definitely be reading it :). I know that OM is definitely waldorf-inspired but most of the people who were using other waldorf curriculums tend to say that it is quite far from waldorf or waldorf-lite. Personally, the reason it appealed to me was because it looks like it lost a lot of the things I did not want to have to deal with in Waldorf homeschooling while making it very easy to adapt to my own wishes.

[birchbark]

Pure Waldorf is truly a complete package. It is very specific in what, when, and how you teach. However I think most homeschoolers that use Waldorf concepts are not trying to be purists, You can use various parts of its methodology without subscribing to its philosophy. Which is why many hs'ers use the terms "Waldorfy" or "Waldorf-inspired."

 

I have taken (or plan to take) various ideas from Waldorf such as a low-media lifestyle, rhythm, natural materials, nature table, watercolors and knitting, recorder, cooking and baking, storytelling, fairy tales, block scheduling, introducing concepts with stories, MLB-type pages, and meshed them with my academic goals which are more classical or traditional in nature. I'm interested in trying Oak Meadow because I think they do this as well.

 

I really think Waldorf, like Montessori, is mostly geared to younger students. You can implement many of their ideas for the early years and still have plenty of time to ramp up the rigor. The Bluedorns, who promote a rigorous, classical education, have an article on things to do before the age of ten and much of it would work with a Waldorf-style education.

 

Great thread.

:lurk5:

[Hunter]

I really think Waldorf, like Montessori, is mostly geared to younger students.

 

 

I've been fascinated with which parts of Waldorf can be applied and adapted to teens and adults. I think there are far more PREPARED materials for early Waldorf, but I'm not at all sure there isn't an huge untapped potential here for homeschooled teens and remedial adults.

[freeindeed]

Agreeing with Hunter. I believe Waldorf has aspects that are beneficial to all ages.

[momma2three]

I've read in a few places that Steiner believed in a 3 ages of childhood thing, each 7 years long, ending at 21. It actually reminds me heavily of the trivium, just with longer stages. The first stage is supposed to be all magic. The second is a transition stage, and the final is a very logical stage. I've heard that where modern Waldorf falls down is that, because of the way the US educational system works, the 0-7 stage and the 7-14 stage are kept largely the way he imagined, and then 14-21 is crammed into 14-18.

 

I don't know how true that actually is, in part because somehow I doubt factory workers at the turn of the century were waiting until 21 to graduate schools and get jobs.

[Hunter]

I think the factory workers were hoping their children would go to university. Kind of like here. How many moms here are trying to prepare their children for college despite not having gone there themselves?

 

I have never taken a single college course, and neither did my ex, but my boys went to college.

 

The free African Waldorf child development pdf goes up to age 18 at least.

[momma2three]

I assume students started German universities before 21/22? I know now they have to be on that track in middle school, but I don't know what it was like then. I don't think that Steiner intended his graduates to graduate high school at 21 and then attend university. But I admit I don't know much about German universities at the turn of the century.

[Hunter]

I think the factory school only went up to grade 8, but I think there was discussion of a complete education from grades 1 through university, just like we talk about choosing universities that will continue what we started here.

[Pen]

I've been fascinated with which parts of Waldorf can be applied and adapted to teens and adults. I think there are far more PREPARED materials for early Waldorf, but I'm not at all sure there isn't an huge untapped potential here for homeschooled teens and remedial adults.

 

 

Waldorf goes through High School to be a complete program. There are also anthroposophy/Waldorf based programs for therapeutic use in a variety of areas including art, eurythmy, and via special communities schools for (mentally, I believe) disabled adults and children called Camphill. There is specialized training for these beyond the basic level. That is, for example, all Waldorf teachers learn some eurythmy, there is additional training to be a eurythmy teacher, and yet more training to be able to administer therapeutic eurythmy. The High School Waldorf teacher training is also different than the regular up to grade 8, and is not offered at all Waldorf teacher training programs.

[Pen]

I don't think Waldorf is light. I just think different topics are taught in a different order. The listening comprehension expectations are incredibly high. Multiplication is taught in first grade. The form drawing is NOT easy at all. Knitting in first grade is really hard!

 

 

 

I agree that the listening comprehension expectations are fairly high. Also not mentioned by you, memorization of poetry, and theater makes memorizing expectations very high, and is probably a strength, along with, in b&m Waldorf, public performance and speaking.

 

I agree that the form drawing and knitting are not easy for the children. I do not know that the order for these is different than in other schools since I am unaware of them being taught at all in other types of schools. If you leave out the idea of different order, and instead emphasize that Waldorf teaches different topics, then I would agree.

 

I disagree with your statement about multiplication being taught in first grade. Multiplication is introduced in first grade....all 4 operations are introduced. However, there is a huge difference between hearing a story about, say, 4 math gnomes (or 4 math fairies, or 4 math squirrels, ...): an adding gnome, a subtracting gnome, a multiplying gnome, and a dividing gnome, and then making art pictures based on that story -- versus saying that the students have been "taught" , much less learned, multiplication.

 

By that same reasoning, I could say that my son has been taught calculus, since he has been introduced to the fact that it exists, has seen DVD's that go into it, but honestly, to say he has been taught it, would be baloney.

 

Taking my son as an example, who btw has some of his 2e strengths in the math area: he enjoyed the stories very much--but had no idea that they had much of anything to do with math, and left 1st grade of b&m Waldorf barely able to add single digit numbers. To the extent that he did grasp that the story of the multiplying "gnome" had to do with math, he thought multiplying was only about doubling because in the story that was all that ever happened. In his art picture he did not include the X symbol because he did not realize that was supposed to be an important part of the story. I think there ARE children somewhere who would profit from such stories, might learn math from them, possibly OP's children, and do not want to dissuade anyone whom it might help. But I also think there are a lot of children like my son, for whom the stories might be cute, yet not helpful in terms of math, and yet others who might find the stories helpful or not, but not like them. Former classmates of his with whom I have still been in touch can now (age 10-11) sing their skip counting very well, have often done so for assemblies....but, unless their parents have been afterschooling them, seem to be weak on doing math problems as such. I personally do not regard this as merely "light"--I personally regard this, for our times, as unacceptable. But one of the great things about homeschooling is that we do have so many options, and a chance to find what works well for our own children, perhaps with one system entirely, or perhaps picking and choosing from different options.

 

 

 

 

How much strength in academics is desirable will, in my own opinion, depend on the child, with some perhaps fitting the Waldorf model very well in terms of age of readiness and needs. The Waldorf view though was that much academics would not be good for children, causing them to be unbalanced to the intellectual side--thus, if there is a Waldorf program that is strong on academics, it may not be "Waldorf" since academics and "Waldorf" seem somewhat inimical. There was a time when I found the idea of delayed academics and not overly developing brain stuff as compared to other areas very persuasive. I changed my mind following personal experience. If I had had a different child, I might have felt differently. I still think the other areas (hands and heart areas) are important--but I do not think that academics need be ignored, belittled, (nor even so much delayed) to achieve strength also in the hands and heart areas.

 

 

Possibly there are some "Waldorf" programs that are strong in academics, Denise suggested that Christopherus is and that the children are ready for advanced maths on a schedule that seems reasonable. That certainly was not what I encountered however, not only in math, but in academic areas in general, including foreign languages, the Waldorf program was weak by my standards, and it was not caught up at the point that they said it would be so far as I can tell. I had a discussion with a friend whose child was at Waldorf until recently, where he was saying he thought math and science were strong at Waldorf--but math and science are not areas of strength for him, and I think he was confusing the pretty displays and artwork based on math and science with strength in math and science themselves. I ended up asking him what he thought of the languages program at Waldorf because he is bilingual and fairly fluent in 2 more languages. He said that the languages there were poor of course, just some exposure to languages, but not really teaching them well. IMO, it was the same in maths and sciences, and for my particular child, given his needs, also an issue with regard to language arts areas. I think SOTW is leaps and bounds ahead of what I saw of Waldorf history areas.

[Hunter]

I think B&M schools often fail in general. I don't think the ORDER of math and other subjects is the problem. I don't think we can compare a homeschool curriculum to B&M results.

 

I do think that some B&M curricula leave more room for a mess to be made than others. Can Waldorf leave more ROOM to make a mess than a back-to-basics curriculum? I think so. But I don't think Waldorf ITSELF is light when done CORRECTLY.

[happyWImom]

I get what Pen is saying about 1st grade Waldorf, and perhaps Waldorf schools are different from Waldorf homeschooling, because the math does get gradually more difficult. The OM (I realize-Waldorf inspired :001_smile:) grade 4 math has them using geometry patterns in nature, learning 2 & 3 digit multiplication, long division, fractions, etc..... They do these things in the math book, plus encourage math games to further cement the information. Grade 2 Christopherus spends a lot of time on multiplication (I've used their math) and their grade 4 gets in depth with fractions. Live-Education grade 4 math does long division, dividing fractions, etc... Waldor Essentials has this for grades 1-5: Grade 1: Teaching numbers and Roman numerals, Number qualities, the Four Processes

Grade 2: Time, Times tables, four process review and number patterns, Money

Grade 3: Linear measurement, Dry measure and liquid measure, Square numbers, cubed numbers, prime numbers, perimeter and area, place value, carrying and borrowing

Grade 4: Long multiplication, long division, averaging, factoring, basic fractions

Grade 5: fractions, mixed numbers, reciprocals, decimals and the metric system.

 

Again, I don't know anything about Waldorf schools, and how rigorous they are with math, but it seems to me that all of the Waldorf HS curriculums do very well with more than the basics.

[Pen]

I think B&M schools often fail in general. I don't think the ORDER of math and other subjects is the problem. I don't think we can compare a homeschool curriculum to B&M results.

 

I do think that some B&M curricula leave more room for a mess to be made than others. Can Waldorf leave more ROOM to make a mess than a back-to-basics curriculum? I think so. But I don't think Waldorf ITSELF is light when done CORRECTLY.

 

 

 

Thinking more about this...and in ref. to the OP's dilemma...

 

For us, B&M Waldorf for early childhood (pre-K to K) was over all excellent. I think some areas where it could have been better--could have added some beginning academic skills without overintellectualizing the children and without any sacrifice of anything else, could, even more important to me, been better in its way of dealing with gender and cultural/race--but nonetheless excellent. Grade of A.

 

B&M Waldorf for grade 1 was relatively poor. A mix of excellent areas like art, theater, and social time with the other children...along with total failure areas such as in reading education...such that over all I'd give it a C-minus or maybe D-plus. Not a total failure, and if it had been the neighborhood school where my tax money already did the paying, or if I could have managed to keep it for its plusses and do something else for what it lacked, I might have considered it passably okay--and with something to look forward to later like class camping trips and so on-- but surely not something I wanted to shell out what for me was a lot of money, time, energy.

 

Homeschool full Waldorf curriculum that we tried for 2nd: C-plus to B-minus. Lost some of the in school strong points of social, theater, etc. but was also less egregiously inadequate in the academic areas, and I could eliminate the problem issues in the culture/race/gender areas, somewhat better, while going up to even better in the art areas.

 

Homeschoolng using eclectic mix from grade 2 and a half on (including some Waldorf for art, Classical for history, etc., generally the best of what I could find to fit my own child in each area)--back to excellent. Grade of A.