What do you think of Waldorf schools?

[Pen]

To the best of my knowledge, Montessori does not have the attitude that it is helping people to be able to be reborn in their next incarnation into a more evolved racial/religious/ethnic group, where that is understood by those in the know to be white, christian, and certain nationalities oriented. Of course, incarnation ideas do not make Waldorf comfortable for mainline Christianity either. I think it is more like when missionaries went to places like Africa to help educate the heathens. They were not necessarily hateful toward the heathens, but were hopeful, very likely, to turn them into good Christians (in this life, in that case). I think Waldorf -- as I experienced it, YMMV, had a lot of that but moved into an idea of shaping souls for the next incarnation, or at least for by the time of incarnation on Jupiter.   A lot of ideas are just plain, strange, not particularly mainline Christian, obviously...but there was more Christian type imagery and so on surrounding kids in Waldorf than I recall from my time at parochial schools. Perhaps it has no effect, but Waldorf certainly thinks that every little thing in decor does have an effect in soul shaping. 

[Terabith]

I've always vacillated about Waldorf schools. We don't have any local, which might be a good thing. On the one hand, I find them outwardly beautiful but appalling philosophically. Like, bat poop insane.

 

On the other hand, I think they might have been perfect for my youngest daughter, who is very verbal and imaginative. At 11, she still believes in dragons and unicorns. She learns best through story and music. Her fine motor skills are decent and were better when she was younger. She's gifted but dyslexic, so the delayed reading would have been good.

 

On the other hand, Steiner makes me itch. Eww. And I would have had to teach her to read at home. But that's okay.

[Pen]

 

 

First, there are Montessori schools in the same places you mention. Does that make Montessori anti-semitic? 

 

 

 

 

I was replying to an assertion that anti-semitism and racism is a thing of the past and no longer to be found in Waldorf schools today.

 

They may be of the past in some areas or at some schools. Racism and anti-semitism are not of the past world-wide nor in all parts of the USA. They were not of the past in the Waldorf school my ds was at.

 

Thinking that they are of the past may even add to the problem now because people are no longer concerned about it.

[daijobu]

Out here, a lot of homeschoolers do what I've taken to calling "Waldorf-inspired" education.  They do the knitting, the relaxed approach to academics in the early years, the fairies, the felting, the greeting the sun every morning.  Then as their kids grow, they end up becoming less Waldorfy, some earlier, some later.  

 

I've only seen one homeschooling mom who was truly orthodox Waldorf, who called me to ask that my kids not bring paper (paper!  with writing on it!) to park days.  (She ended up enrolling in one of the expensive Wadorf schools out here.)  

 

If you do apply to a Waldorf school, under no circumstances should you tell them that your student has been exposed to television or any electronic media AT ALL, or you risk automatic disqualification.  No matter how well curated, how educational the tv shows or websites.  I've heard that nearly all parents lie to their Waldorf schools about their kids media exposure.  (This is second hand information from a local parenting email list, but you may want to check if this is true at your school.)  

[eternalsummer]

Out here, a lot of homeschoolers do what I've taken to calling "Waldorf-inspired" education.  They do the knitting, the relaxed approach to academics in the early years, the fairies, the felting, the greeting the sun every morning.  Then as their kids grow, they end up becoming less Waldorfy, some earlier, some later.  

 

I've only seen one homeschooling mom who was truly orthodox Waldorf, who called me to ask that my kids not bring paper (paper!  with writing on it!) to park days.  (She ended up enrolling in one of the expensive Wadorf schools out here.)  

 

If you do apply to a Waldorf school, under no circumstances should you tell them that your student has been exposed to television or any electronic media AT ALL, or you risk automatic disqualification.  No matter how well curated, how educational the tv shows or websites.  I've heard that nearly all parents lie to their Waldorf schools about their kids media exposure.  (This is second hand information from a local parenting email list, but you may want to check if this is true at your school.)  

 

They must lie, because at our waldorf-methods charter the rule (that you sign an agreement to at the beginning of the year) is no electronics, including recorded music, during the school week. 

 

But DD reports that many of her friends do not observe this rule, and certainly I see a lot of them (and the teachers) using cell phones after school.

 

We don't let DD use electronics during the school week but if she is in the car and someone else wants to listen to the radio, or at home and someone else is listening to music, she is subjected (oh the horrors) to their music.  I won't play it for her but I am not restricting the whole family for one kid's school.

 

We don't own a TV or video game system so luckily there is no chance of cross-exposure there.

 

 

I haven't see much in the way of racism at DD's school; there is a Spanish class and a lot of hispanic influence (I assume because we live in Colorado).

 

They don't use black crayons.

 

they study different ancient cultures each year - for DS in 2nd it was Christian saints, largely, which was fine, and for DD in 5th it was the Greeks and then I think the Persians?  These things are fine with me as they are part of a western cultural heritage and we are western.

 

What bothered me more is the delayed academics, even for kids who are bored, and the weird doublethink - at the same time, from the same people, I got these two statements:

 

1.  DS could not be bored with the academics because his handwriting and watercolor painting was poor.

2.  DS was probably bored, but that was good because in grade 2 they wanted the kids to still be asleep (their terminology) and not awake, and if DS was starting to wake up, he should be kept asleep by making him bored.  I am pretty sure they meant asleep and awake as metaphors for some sort of level of mental development.

 

And this was a public charter, not even a full=fledged real Waldorf.  What I found out was that they did help kids who were behind academically (because they need a certain number of passing scores on the standardized tests to retain their charter) but not kids who were ahead academically.  

 

They had what had to be an above average population in terms of demographics, but a below average school results in terms of reading and math (they are on some sort of provisional status as we speak, actually).  

 

 

 

All of that said, (and much more could be) it is a good school for my DD11.  She learns through story and music and that is how they teach.  It is a relaxed environment for her and was a good transition out of homeschooling, though she is already pushing for more rigor, which they cannot/will not provide.  They are very communal and friendly for her (she is female).

 

They do not like yang energy, though.

[madteaparty]

Thanks everyone again. How very fascinating. I was entirely ignorant of all this, I mean all of it. I merely thought they were craft-heavy, lol.

This seems to be so completely against everything we stand for, that I am laughing at myself for even starting this thread (except that you don't know what you don't know, iykwim). And I didn't think we stood for anything...

[Farrar]

No recorded music either? I thought I knew all the nutty Waldorf things, but that's a new one on me. My goodness... sometimes Waldorfians are like a self-parody.

 

I know a couple of very serious Waldorf families who buy into the whole deal hook line and sinker and I always have to turn off part of my brain whenever they talk about educational ideas. I respect them otherwise. Sigh.

[Pen]

... She's gifted but dyslexic, so the delayed reading would have been good.

...

 

 

 

For my ds it was good in that he had a break from feeling like he could not do what other kids were doing. It was bad in that it put off discovery of dyslexia and proper remediation longer, at which point it may have been harder than if it had been discovered and dealt with sooner.

[eternalsummer]

I dunno, *our* school says no recorded music.

[LMD]

I have a copy of some Waldorf materials. The form drawing instruction is right up there with the bat poop crazy stuff, though I love the idea of it.

[Farrar]

They have lutes, Farrar.

 

:lol:

 

Who needs Hamilton on repeat when you have a lute.

[Terabith]

For my ds it was good in that he had a break from feeling like he could not do what other kids were doing. It was bad in that it put off discovery of dyslexia and proper remediation longer, at which point it may have been harder than if it had been discovered and dealt with sooner.

 

Yeah, but I knew there was an issue by the time she turned four.  I would have taught her to read at home, though I might have waited a bit longer. 

[SeaConquest]

Thanks everyone again. How very fascinating. I was entirely ignorant of all this, I mean all of it. I merely thought they were craft-heavy, lol.

This seems to be so completely against everything we stand for, that I am laughing at myself for even starting this thread (except that you don't know what you don't know, iykwim). And I didn't think we stood for anything...

Don't feel badly. A lot of people get sucked in without knowing. We considered it as well for preschool until I stumbled across similar threads in other mom groups.

[vonbon]

I've seen a lot of stats that say Waldorf educated kids have surpassed the average kid by high school, or whatever (DD's school posts these things all the time), but I'm not sure if I've ever seen one that accounts for demographics.

 

The average kid is not, demographically, anything close to the average Waldorf kid.  I think if you took Waldorf demographics (largely white, middle/upper-middle, educated parents, etc.) and compared the two it would be a different story. 

 

But maybe most of those studies *do* account for the demographic differences, I dunno.

 

Our local Waldorf school (K-8) likes to tout the fact that many students have gone on to graduate from high schools as valedictorians.  Of course, they credit these statistics to the preferable pedagogy of Waldorf.  

 

Was impressed until it dawned on me that, at the tuition rates they charge, most of the parents there are highly-involved in their children's lives, provide stable homes, and are highly-educated themselves.  It is a community with people from all walks of life, but I'd say it's much more heavily-weighted in terms of white, upper-middle class professionals, many with masters degrees or doctorates...

 

Leads me to believe that the higher rate of valedictorians is probably due to superior parental involvement, lifestyle choices, and access to superior materials, extra-curricular activities, etc.  This is a poorer area of the state so the "competition" for valedictorian includes many homes in which there is only one parent, life stressors for children (poverty, drugs, imprisoned parents, etc.), and not necessarily even things like...books...available in the home.  

 

In other words, my guess is that the valedictorians--and not to take anything away from their hard-earned accomplishments--had a better shot at it due to their support systems, "Waldorfian" or not.  

[vonbon]

All that said (previous post), I think the Waldorf approach nails it for the early years (preschool, kinder) in terms of aesthetics and much of the approach (natural materials, beautiful classrooms, verses to transition, rhythm of the day's events, etc.).  It's a preferred approach to the modern Westernized public school propensity to treat younger and younger children as widgets who should sit in desks for full days.  I like that it addresses human development, not just profit-driven results (for example, you won't find standardized testing there, as far as I know).

 

But when DD turned out to be naturally-attracted to academics and ready for reading at an early age...We melded the "good parts" for our family with a bunch of other approaches to make our very own eclectic approach that works for us.  

 

I've incorporated much of the practical side of Waldorf into our homeschool days, but drew a hard line at anthroposophy.  It surprises me how many people who consider themselves very "Waldorf" have never actually read Steiner's works!  Steiner wrote some intriguing things and he was probably quite gifted in some ways, but oy!  Some of it is truly weird, to my way of thinking.  

[daijobu]

In reading the curriculum of a local Waldorf school, there appears to be no math instruction at all in senior year of high school.  That might explain the dearth of admissions to any tippy top name or STEM-oriented colleges.

 

However, another nearby Waldorf School (yes, Waldorf is big out here), seems to do better, offering AP Calculus,   This might explain why they appear to do better in college placement.

[Farrar]

I sometimes think "Waldorf without Waldorf" might do well as a school choice (as in, sell well, and also be fine) for early childhood education - like preK-3rd grade or something. Dolls, fairy games, dance with ribbons, lots of handicrafts, high quality art supplies, finger games, singing, rich environment but delayed formal academic instruction. But also, no contracts against families watching TV, no children punished for reading, lots of black crayons, no children punished for not believing in fairies, encouragement of actual thinking for yourself, math not taught totally through analogy and pictures, being willing to have kids' final art products not look the same or perfect. If anyone's allowed to make ugly art, it's 6 year olds. If anyone's looking for a school marketing plan to foist on an upper middle class community, I think it would be golden.

[Arcadia]

In reading the curriculum of a local Waldorf school, there appears to be no math instruction at all in senior year of high school.

The curriculum chart page you linked has a math by skill level track.

 

"Mathematics: 9th-12th Grade track classes (offered by skill level) include Algebra, Geometry, Algebra 2, Pre-Calculus, Calculus 1–3"

 

ETA: edited for messed up html code

Edited July 6, 2016 by Arcadia

[nature girl]

I sometimes think "Waldorf without Waldorf" might do well as a school choice (as in, sell well, and also be fine) for early childhood education - like preK-3rd grade or something. Dolls, fairy games, dance with ribbons, lots of handicrafts, high quality art supplies, finger games, singing, rich environment but delayed formal academic instruction. But also, no contracts against families watching TV, no children punished for reading, lots of black crayons, no children punished for not believing in fairies, encouragement of actual thinking for yourself, math not taught totally through analogy and pictures, being willing to have kids' final art products not look the same or perfect. If anyone's allowed to make ugly art, it's 6 year olds. If anyone's looking for a school marketing plan to foist on an upper middle class community, I think it would be golden.

 

DD was in a Reggio forest preschool at 3 that was almost exactly like that. She had behavior issues, so I ended up taking her out to start our homeschool journey, but yes it was idyllic, and it started a love of nature (and crafts, and fairies) in her that she'll never lose. Simple wooden toys, no electronics, daily yoga, outside in the woods regardless of weather to plant and cultivate and climb and build with rocks and branches...It really was ideal, I wish there were Reggio schools (or forest schools) around here for older kids, because I think she'd thrive there now. I can't think of a better way to spend childhood.

[Farrar]

Reggio isn't necessarily tied to nature though - at its heart, it's responsive to things the kids want to explore, which doesn't have to be nature related at all. But, yeah, you're right, Anna's Mom, that's totally what forest schools and nature schools are like and they're so spreading.

[nature girl]

Yes, this was a forest Reggio hybrid...In practice, the Reggio aspect didn't really carry through for the 3 year olds (although I saw it in the 4-5 year old classroom.) Getting a group of 3 year olds to find a common interest is tough...They ended up choosing things like a month-long study of birthday parties, lol. But the 4-5 year olds spent a month on knights/dragons, a month on oceans, etc., it really was wonderful how receptive the teachers were to following their lead and creating activities around their interests. Actually thinking about it now, centering so much of our time and learning around nature, and following Anna's lead/interests, is such a huge part of how our schooling works now.

[Dmmetler]

FWIW, Reggio at the University lab school for 2 and 3 yr olds looked a lot like "which do you like better, Elephants or Zebras", and similar constrained choices. I really like a lot of the Reggio philosophy (the lab school has Montessori 3-5 and Reggio 2-3 and 4-5), and if I'd been given the choice (I would have had to place DD on the waiting list before she was conceived, even with teaching there, because Adjuncts had such low priority that we were basically the general public), I think the Reggio classroom would have been ideal.

 

In many respects, a lot of the good things about Waldorf are also present in Reggio Emilia (and often in Montessori, despite being worlds apart when it comes to academics).

[Serenade]

My sons' preschool also didn't allow black crayons -- and it was a cheap, rinky-dink, low-budget kind of pre-school, but with a well-respected and loved old-fashioned teacher/owner.   No Waldorf philosophy at all.  She told my husband that she removed the black crayons because for some reason kids gravitated to them, and would end up with pictures dominated or solely with black.  This was certainly true for my son -- many of his picture were one or two colors and they were often on the dark side.  I'm guessing that such pictures are not generally parent pleasing and that was probably some of the motivation behind the black crayon removal.

[Pen]

But the no black crayons thing absolutely persists in Waldorf circles today. And I think it's absolutely still racist in that it's sending a message that "black is bad" which can be easily read as racist by children and it precludes children from drawing many people of color with the correct hair tones. I get what they're going for and that it's not intentionally racist any more but I think the effects are still racist.

 

 

Okay!  I'm convinced now!

 

I had been thinking of skin tones, and at my ds's school Kers also didn't have access to tan and brown crayons for skin tones (though there were pink and peach). (Stockmar does have them, but they weren't available till later grades.) Now that you directed me to hair tints, I am won over to also finding the lack of black crayon significant.