return to WCA Archive Index
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 02 02:07:31 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id BAA19636; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:45:19 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA28771; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:42:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199606020842.BAA28771 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: dishonesty? source for Lucifer mythology
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:42:46 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Neil Faiman, you quoted Dan Saykaly,
>> > The only art that is permitted is the art that furthers
>> > "transcendence" of the physical world to the spiritual worlds - in
>> > the Steinerian sense.
and commented,
>Eigth grade class plays at Pine Hill over the last few years: The Sound of
>Music, The Wizard of Oz, Cyrano de Bergerac, The Secret Garden, Twelfth
>Night, As You Like It, Cheaper by the Dozen...
Sounds like Pine Hill has a more liberal tradition than many. My son's
7th-grade class did "Saint Joan." Joan of Arc is an occultist hero
(individual revelation suppressed by the church). He complained that the
teacher bowdlerized a lot of the life out of the text.
>Music performed in school music performances has included classical,
>traditional, African-American, Simon and Garfunkle, Grateful Dead, ...
That's encouraging. Was this at the high school level? I've never heard
rock, soul, jazz, or blues at a Waldorf school. There's probably more rock
at a Christian academy, at least there's Christian rock bands. No anthropop
pop music that I'm aware of.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 02 02:07:27 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id BAA18924; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:43:47 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA28782; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:42:25 -0700
Message-Id: <199606020842.BAA28782 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Re Helen's letter 4
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:42:55 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Lee, you said
> I suspect that some of this is also a problem in Waldorf curricula,
>judging by the daily schedules of specialized all-class activities
>that a friend sometimes shows me. Surely there's reason to have some
>kids spend much more time reading, others playing music, others making
>art objects...simply because that's where their interests lie. So the
>question comes up: To what extent are individual children in Waldorf
>schools able to pursue their current interests during the school day,
>relatively independently of what the other students are doing? I'm
>curious. Could an "insider" comment on this?
I believe the answer to this is "never."
>and from Dan Dugan:
> > I have heard Waldorf described as very rigid and overcontrolling, while
> > another called it wild and undisciplined. Discipline in Waldorf classes
> > varies wildly depending on the teacher, the range of variation being, I
> > think, greater than in public schools which have more established rules.
>
>Dan, don't you think there _should_ be this variation? It seems to me
>a sign that people are actually teaching people, in accordance with
>their own styles and preferences. That seems to me far better than a
>strong normative approach to "discipline". Cheers, --lee
There's too much variation. I don't think the teachers get enough training
in handling discipline.
There's a practice in Northern California Waldorf schools (Mariposa (now
defunct), Twin Ridges Charter, Applegate) of putting problem students out
of the class into a lower grade for a day. Does anybody know, is this a
local invention or does it come from Steiner or other authority?
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 03 17:56:22 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA08565; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:48:29 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA02657; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:46:14 -0700
Message-Id: <199606030246.TAA02657 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: WS Arts
Date: 2 Jun 96 22:45:56 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
(This doesn't really have much to do with "Re: dishonesty? source for
Lucifer mythology" any more. :-)
Dan,
Since you're curious ...
> Sounds like Pine Hill has a more liberal tradition than many.
Possibly. I suspect that you continue to expect much more uniformity in
Waldorf Schools than is really there. As Dick Oliver has pointed out, the
one thing that should be a constant in Waldorf schools should be the
recreation of the education to meet the needs of children, the times,
and the place.
> My son's
> 7th-grade class did "Saint Joan." Joan of Arc is an occultist hero
> (individual revelation suppressed by the church). He complained that the
> teacher bowdlerized a lot of the life out of the text.
Seems hard to reconcile George Bernard Shaw with occultism -- even if
he was seriously bowdlerized. (A bit like classifying _Androcles and the
Lion_ as typical Christian dogma.)
Our seventh grades have also done Joan of Arc (but in a local version, not
the Shaw) ... along with _Le Medecin Malgre Lui_ (in the French), and _The
Fortune Teller_, a Comedia dell'Arte style farce written by a local teacher
(with plenty of broad slapstick, and performed in masks that had been
made by the students themselves (another example of an art that furthers
the transcendence of the physical world to the spiritual worlds?)).
> >Music performed in school music performances has included classical,
> >traditional, African-American, Simon and Garfunkle, Grateful Dead, ...
>
> That's encouraging. Was this at the high school level? I've never heard
> rock, soul, jazz, or blues at a Waldorf school. There's probably more
rock
> at a Christian academy, at least there's Christian rock bands. No
> anthropop
> pop music that I'm aware of.
Pine Hill is an elementary school (K-8); my daughter is in eighth grade. I
dug out some random items for you. Here are the programs for this year's
and last year's middle school (grades 6-8) spring concerts. (Most, but not
all, of the pieces are arrangements for student performance).
This year
---------
Chorus:
Laughing Song (William Blake / M. Lewis)
Alleluia (William Boyce)
The Sounds of Silence (Simon and Garfunkle)
Recorder ensemble:
March (Mozart)
Bouree (Purcell)
Cello Quartet:
Trumpet minuet (J. B. deBoismortier)
String Quartet
Andantino from The Trout (Schubert)
Allegro, Concerto Grosso, Op. 3, No. 4 (Handel)
Guitar ensemble:
The Man Who Sold the World (David Bowie)
Cello duet with piano:
Allegro, Concerto for Two Celli and Piano (Vivaldi)
Violin trio:
Allegro, Violin Trio (Geminiani)
Saxophone quartet:
Three short pieces (Brahms, Bartok, Bartok)
Little March (Shostakovich)
Les Plaisirs (Teleman)
Passepied (Teleman)
Night Train (jazz standard)
Orchestra:
Prelude from The Holberg Suie (Grieg)
Fugue in G minor (Bach)
Last year
---------
Chorus:
Yesterday (Beatles)
Wai Bamba (Shona wedding song)
Mighty Lak' a Rose (Nevin)
I'm Goiong Home on a Cloud (Afro-American)
Recorder ensemble:
Holla Hi (Bavarian folk song)
When Love is Kind (English folk song)
Fifth grade string ensemble:
La Chasse (Paganini)
March in the Style of Corelli (Matesky)
Rondo Theme (Pleyel)
Cello/piano duo:
Sonata in E minor, Op. 38, No. 1 (Romberg)
Band:
Greensleeves (traditional)
Stargazer overture (Feldstein)
Orchestra:
March of the Priests (Menddelssohn)
Spanish Serenade (Cerulli)
Band & Orchestra:
Overture from Orpheus in the Underwold (Offenbach)
-----------
Since there isn't much time left for learning new music, their teacher
recently gave them a collection of music they've learned over the last
few years. I went through and noted the contents:
Ripple (Grateful Dead)
The Ash Grove
Obla-di Obla-da (Beatles)
John Barleycorn
Take Me Home, Country Road (John Denver)
Wild Mountain Thyme
The Three Ravens
Gloria from Vivaldi's Gloria Mass
Alleluia (William Blake)
Round for Three Voices (Haydn)
Sounds of Silence (Simon and Garfunkle)
Incidentally, Elspeth commented to me that there music teacher seems to
have a real thing for Negro spirituals, teaching them several a year;
she prefers singing with their class teacher, who tends more to folk
music.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 03 17:57:52 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA18114; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 07:40:21 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id HAA18808; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 07:32:27 -0700
Message-Id: <199606031432.HAA18808 lists1.best.com>
From: Kizer Walker
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:32:22 -0400 (EDT)
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
I've just subscribed, and I'm sure a lot of what I would like to see
discussed already has been. I don't want to drag everyone over old ground
-- is there an archive for the list? Thanks.
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 04 17:32:16 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA23163; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 06:44:03 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id GAA24741; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 06:38:50 -0700
Message-Id: <199606041338.GAA24741 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: archives
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 01:33:29 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Kizer Walker asked,
>I've just subscribed, and I'm sure a lot of what I would like to see
>discussed already has been. I don't want to drag everyone over old ground
>-- is there an archive for the list? Thanks.
The archives are available at http://www.waldorfcritics.org
Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Since new people show up all the time, and
we keep learning more, it isn't necessarily bad to raise old questions
again.
-Dan
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 09 23:36:48 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA00832; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 15:19:51 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA20571; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 15:13:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199606092213.PAA20571 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 18:12:04 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Lee,
As we will see below, you have admitted the truth of almost all the core
arguments I've made concerning WE's unacceptable business practices. Instead
of drawing the logical conclusion however, and calling for WE to change its
ways, you seem mainly concerned with defending ANT/WE's right to exist.
In reality, however, no one on this list has argued against the Ant/WE's
right to exist - as a religion or as a school system.
What is being argued, quite reasonably, is that Ant/WEE has no right to
special exemption from the rules of commercial transaction and consumer
protection.
We are arguing that WEEs have no right to solicit students, money, followers
or support while they hide and misrepresent the religious/ sectarian nature
of their group, their schools, their pedagogical model, their goals, their
values and their methods.... and you HAVE admitted that they do these things.
Indeed, as will be shown below, YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THE FOLLOWING:
1) WE is run by a religion and has a specific religious objective.
2) Consumers are being conned by WE.
3) The religious beliefs behind the WE pedagogy are kept hidden from parents.
4) WEEs lie to consumers.
5) WEEs are secretive about the sectarian facts of their schools.
6) WEEs evangelize through recruitment of students for their schools.
7) Eurythmie may very well be an occult ritual (you ask for more examples
of rituals, which I provide below).
8) WEEs are deceptive when they talk of running "arts and music schools".
Sorry for the use of Caps., but it's time to see just how obvious the case
against WE is with regard to deceptive and secretive practices.
=================================================
1 -YOU ADMIT W.E. HAS A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS OBJECTIVE AS AN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
AND THAT IT IS RUN BY A RELIGION/SECT.
I wrote:
> > Ant. is a religion running a school system with a unique curriculum
> > designed to produce the religious awakening Ant.s believe is
> > essential to young people's cosmic evolution.
You wrote:
>This seems to me AN EXCELLENT CAPSULE DESCRIPTION OF ANT. AND WE.
================================================
2 - YOU ADMIT, OFFHANDEDLY, THAT CONSUMERS ARE BEING CONNED ("SOLD A BILL OF
GOODS")
I wrote:
> > This is a matter for consumer protection.
You wrote:
>Yes, it's great to inform the consumer that she may be being soft-sold
>an unexpected bill of goods by Waldorf Ed. My blessing! I was
>horrified to hear (on this list some time ago?) that a prospective
>Waldorf parent in Japan was not allowed to audit a class at the Tokyo
>W.S.
Lee, it is SO nice to have your blessing. Your ironic tone not withstanding,
you have admitted the CON involved in WE ("being soft-sold an unexpected
bill of goods"). You just don't find it very important or urgent, given the
way you continue to excuse WE practices.
Perhaps this deception is a minor issue to you. I, however, have seen WE
students come out of grade 6 after 6 years of WE with grade 2 reading
skills, grade 3 math, no conceptualization skills at all, and no way to
integrate into a regular school. I have known people who have sold their
house in order to keep their children in WE because they believed the boasts
of a "superior education" and did not realize that these promises were
merely expressions of religious faith - however sincerely believed - on the
part of the WEEs. I have seen
people shell out a total of $45,000 they could ill afford for their
children's education, only to find that it did not at all prepare them for
life outside of WE. These things happened to people who deserved better, to
people who were kept unaware of the purely religious and unproven nature of
WE pedagogy, people who were deceived by WEEs and by WE. Their kids' lives
are in turmoil and their bank accounts are empty.
So face the logical consequences of what you admit: W.E. should be condemned
and pursued UNTIL IT TELLS PARENTS CLEARLY IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE PURELY
RELIGIOUS NATURE OF THE LEARNING MODEL BEHIND THE PEDAGOGY AND THE RELIGIOUS
NATURE OF MUCH OF THE PROGRAM. LET THE PARENTS DECIDE TO CHOSE W.E. OR
REJECT W.E. ON THE BASIS OF FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS.
===================================================
3 - YOU ADMIT THE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES CENTRAL TO THE WE PEDAGOGY ARE KEPT
HIDDEN FROM PARENTS TO ENSURE THEY BECOME CLIENTS:
I wrote:
> > LIE 4: The "stages of development" are not explained in terms of
> > reincarnation.
You wrote:
>I think you should push this one." the Teachers do DEEMPHASIZE THIS
>connection, SINCE IT SURELY WOULD NOT PLAY WELL to an audience raised on
>"one-lifetime-then-punishment-or-salvation" religious schema.
THIS IS A DAMNING ADMISSION, LEE. YOU ADMIT MY CHARGE OF WE ABUSE OF
CONSUMERS FOR PROFIT. You have just said the WEEs are secretive and
purposely do not inform parents in order to get their kids and their money.
This is "Game over", "Case Closed", "Guilty as Charged". You should take
this admission to its logical conclusion: since WE is taking money and
students under false pretences, it must be forced to change. WE IS LIKE ANY
OTHER MERCHANT ABUSING THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO FULL AND FAIR INFO. W.E. must
be forced to be absolutely clear - in writing - with parents before they
sign up their children. It must clearly declare the religious and highly
sectarian nature of the education provided.
If WE does this - if WE explains to parents the meaning and nature of the
rituals and the assumptions of the curriculum - then it has every right to
teach what and as it does now.... and it can teach to as many or as few
students as it can recruit.
BTW (1) the W.E. developmental model will "not play well" with a lot of
other people besides 'an audience raised on one-lifetime + judgment'. A lot
of agnostics, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Confusianists, etc. could choose
to shop elsewhere once they learn the exact nature of the dogmatic,
sectarian views that drive the WE pedagogy.
BTW (2) your next point is misleading, meaningless and just plain wrong:
You write:
In my experience most WE parents have perused "Kingdom of
>Childhood" or some other materials that show very clearly that part of
>Steiner's developmental theory developed out of his belief in
>reincarnation.
MISLEADING: "Most" parents read these books? When? Surely not before they
sign up, SO THIS IS NOT "PRIOR NOTICE".
MEANINGLESS: Some parents may read books such as the one you mention. If,
however, they express doubts about the validity of Steinerian beliefs, the
school falsely pretends that the metaphysical "truth" of Steiner's system
is not critical to WE; they claim that the education "stands on its own".
In fact, however, the "7-yr-stages of development & the theory of
temperaments - the main contributions to education by Steiner (according to
"The Essential Steiner, pg 396) are meaningless when separated from their
religious justification. And most of the "educational theory" and the
contents of the pedagogy become similarly meaningless or arbitrary without
the religious/metaphysical justification of "the spiritual
incarnation/development of the child's immortal soul".
WRONG: The WEEs themselves admit that WE parents are left uninformed of the
true nature of the education they are being sold: Consider: "A HIGH
PERCENTAGE of the parents of Waldorf School students know as little about
Steiner or his philosophy, spiritual or EDUCATIONAL as do their grade-school
children." (pg 295-6 of The Essential Steiner). Sure SOME know about it:
they are the Ant.s and Ant. fellow travellers.
=========================================================================
4 - YOU ADMIT WEEs LIE .... BUT PARDON WEE LYING because of.... Hitler???
I wrote:
> > No one is persecuting the Ant.s, so persecution is no excuse for their
lying.
You wrote:
Anthroposophists may be safe now, but I can understand that
>their movement may have been STRONGLY CONDITIONED (ie: to lie) by seeing German
>tolerance turn into scapegoating and persecution of any available
>minority target as soon as times got tough.
You accept my point here that the WEEs lie but try to excuse this on the
basis of their being "conditioned" by German (aka Nazi) persecution. How
shallow your argument is becomes clear when one considers that we are
discussing U.S. WEES, the citizens of a country which has never persecuted
them, a country where they have full protection. Are you saying they LEARNED
TO LIE from their immmigrant leaders? Very well. We agree that THEY LIE and
that they have a CULTURE OF INGRAINED LYING, for whatever reason. Your
admission.
Funny though. Communists, Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses all manage to be
clear about who they are and what they believe and they all got _far worse_
treatment by the ... Germans. In fact, DanD has mentioned that some WE
profs, far from being persecuted, collaborated by becoming members of the
...German... teacher's union in the 30s. Yet you claim that WEEs lie out of
the fear that "it might happen again?" More realistically, what they fear is
not snaring enough students to keep their schools running, thereby
"depriving" their own kids a WE education.
====================================================
5 - YOU ADMIT WEE SECRECY ABOUT THE SECTARIAN FACTS OF THEIR SCHOOLS BUT
PARDON IT:
YOU wrote:
I'd cut them a little
>slack about their SECRECY, just as I do the Freemasons. With WE as
>for the Blue Lodge, if your opinion of the organization changes you
>can stop paying the dues. No one's forcing you.
So: You admit they are SECRETIVE and YOU think it's ok they KEEP THE FACTS
ABOUT THEIR SECTARIAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM SECRET and thereby trick
people into joining. Why is this ok? Because 'you can quit'. No refund for
lost time/money. No apology for the dishonesty. No help if your kid cannot
integrate into another school after a few years in WE.
The difference between the Masons and WE is that you know what you are
joinning when you join the Masons. The initiation process tells you from the
start that "this ain't quite like the Lions Club". You DON'T know when you
put your kid in WE that you are being roped into supporting a religious
community and that your kids are going to get a sectarian-directed education.
And by the way, the WEEs are ready to use a great deal of pressure to keep
parents from taking their children out of the schools when they become
disillusioned. I have heard parents testify that they were warned by the
WEEs that "It would be terribly destructive to their children for them to be
removed from the school, that the children will be destroyed by the public
schools". THESE ARE TRULY SHAMEFUL PRESSURE TACTICS DESIGNED TO KEEP PARENTS
AND STUDENTS GLUED TO THE SCHOOL.... and paying.
====================================================
6 - YOU ADMIT THE WEES EVANGELIZE THROUGH RECRUITMENT TO THEIR SCHOOLS:
You wrote:
>I've sat through a couple of recruiting lectures, or whatever they
>called them. It's my impression that the WE EVANGELISTS don't think
>they're lying....
So: You admit they 'evangelize' (religious recruitment, as DanD has often said)
and that 'it's ok for them to lie and be secretive because they don't think
they're lying.....', but you have already admitted they DO lie. What
Orwellian logic - on their part and on yours. By the way, you use the
argument here that because these evangelists 'think its good for the
consumer', they are not really lying or don't think they are 'really lying'.
The fact is they are an elitist group who think they have the right to trick
people into what "is good for them".... and what is good for them just
happens to be good for WE and WEE communities. This is the old "what's good
for GM is good for the American people" school of cynicism. In this respect,
WEEs are like so many other religious and political groups who get arrogant
enough to 'know what's good for people' and live off the public without any
guilt for their own dishonesty.
====================================================
7 RELIGIOUS RITUALS: YOU HALF ADMIT ONE RELIGIOUS RITUAL IN WE, BUT "DON'T
CARE":
I wrote:
> > LIE 3: You are kept in the dark about the rituals and/or the
> > meaning of the rituals being performed at the school.
You answered:
>Other than eurythmy (WHICH CAN BE GIVEN AN ESOTERIC INTERPRETATION THAT
EVEN EXPERIENCED ANTHROPOPS SEEM TO BE UNFAMILIAR WITH), >I'm not sure there
are any such "rituals". Could you elaborate about horrid "rituals"?
The issue is not whether there are "horrid" rituals, pretty rituals, or
whatever, but whether there are rituals of which the parents are unaware, or
rituals the meanings of which are purposely hidden from the parents.
There are:
-lighting of candles while saying prayers which reflect the sectarian
religious views of Ant.;
- the dragon game (Michaelic drama referring to the presiding spiritual
entity of the present era);
- walking 'into the spiral' with a candle..
- prolonged drawing of the 'occult number 8' and of other geometric/occult
drawing exercises.
Allied with such rituals is the iconic use of Madonna pictures on the walls
of lower classes ('to help incarnation of the newly descended souls of the
children'. (The WE list had a long discussion on this with some fine sectarian
contributions).
ALL OF THESE PRACTICES ARE FINE IN A DECLARED SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS SCHOOL,
NOT IN A SUPPOSEDLY "NONSECTARIAN SCHOOL" THAT HIDES ITS SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS
AGENDA. All of these rituals have HIGHLY RELIGIOUS INTENT THAT IS SPECIFIC
TO THE ANT. SECT. Tell the parents this in advance and let them decide to
join the school or not.
BTW, "experienced Ant.s" are not unfamiliar with the ritual aspect of
Eurythmie. Eurythmie is central to Steiner's 4 mystery plays. Ant.s believe
in its miraculous healing powers (check WE archives). They are just
carefully denying the facts. They are part of an initiatory religion that
sees nothing wrong with veiling the "truth" from the uninitiated..... Which
includes you.... I think....?
==============================================================
8) YOU ADMIT THE SUBSTANCE OF MY ARGUMENT THAT WE MISREPRESENTS ITSELF WHEN
IT CALLS ITSELF SIMPLY AN "ARTS AND MUSIC SCHOOL" RATHER THAN A "STEINER ART
& MUSIC SCHOOL"
I wrote:
> > WE deletes massive amounts of art as "unsuitable". Indeed, 20th
> > century art never happened as far as WE is concerned (excepting
> > Ant. art).
You wrote:
>I AGREE WITH YOU HERE, at least with reference to WE's general>tendency.
Then you add:
Waldorf seems to be primarily oriented toward cultural
>conservatives who are unlikely to be big fans of Pirandello, Brecht,
>Ionesco,... (or even of Picasso, Mondrian, Rauschenberg,...)
In reality, this is not about conservative taste, but about conservative
occult religious taste: ("Don't show them anything that clashes with their
"incarnation'").
Calling WE an Arts education is like calling an ROTC program a "leadership
program" without mentioning the specifically military orientation of the
program.
IN ANY CASE: YOU ADMIT HERE THAT THE WEE MEANING OF "ART" IS VERY DIFFERENT
FROM - AND FAR MORE CONSTRAINED THAN - THE COMMON MEANING. THEREFORE A WE
"ART SCHOOL" IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER "ART SCHOOL". PLEASE NOTE THAT
WEES DO NOT ADMIT THIS TO PARENTS IN ADVANCE. MY ACCUSATION STANDS WITH
REGARD TO "ART".... AND YOU ADMIT IT.
AS TO "ART & TRANSCENDENCE"
I wrote:
> > The only art that is permitted is the art that furthers
> > "transcendence" of the physical world to the spiritual worlds - in
> > the Steinerian sense.
You wrote:
>I wasn't aware that Shakespeare was an anthropop.
Don't play dumb: First of all, I said ART in its commonly used meaning -
visual art. Here you refer to "literature".
And as to literature in WE, it is true there is some Shakespeare tolerated.
This does not mean that the selections are not heavily censored and
carefully choses to conform to "Steinerian goals". Literature is in fact
used highly selectively in WE. The list of authors for a H.S. WE
English/American Lit program I saw was top heavy with Metaphysicals: Blake,
Emerson, Thoreau, and many more of the same bent - authors who can be
presented in a way that does not clash with - and even actively advances -
the WE goal of "spiritualizing" children. Where is Hemingway? Where is
"Catcher in the Rye"? Right.....
YOU ADMIT WEE ART IS LIKE SUNDAY SCHOOL ART (IE: RELIGIOUS/CONSERVATIVE/NON
MAIN STREAM ART). YOU THEREBY ADMIT IT IS NOT AN ART PROGRAM IN THE ORDINARY
SENSE.
You write:
While I grant that
>there's an unfortunate tendency to select "Sunday school" artworks in
>ACCORDANCE WITH STEINER'S DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY (which is purely religiously
based) , I think that you >exaggerate.
I exaggerate? YOU admit they censor art, select religious/spiritual stuff
THAT CONFORMS TO STEINER'S DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY and throw away 20th century
art, but "I exaggerate"?. No, you exaggerate in bending over backward to
give them an out. Or rather, you just plain bend over for them.
Would you tolerate a "science school" that taught creationism but did not
warn parents in advance of this "program orientation"?
The WE "Art program" actively represses children's exploration of their own
artistic expression, and in this way betrays the goals of a true "art
program". I have seen 2 superb young artists hammered down by their
teachers for their precocious and too-this-worldly art. Both left for more
art-friendly schools. They were tired of being told to "follow what the
teacher did" (the Steiner notion of imitation) and to "do what the other
students were doing" (herd mentality).
As I said above, ALL THAT GEOMETRIC DRAWING also has specifically occult
purposes and is done to further the spiritual development of the children.
Find me an "art school" with that kind of intent, method and goals....
Maybe: "Occult Art School" would be better.
AS TO "STEINERIAN MUSIC"
I wrote:
> > "As for the music, I've heard MUCH better in many public schools." (A
quality comment based on personal observation, my point being that an "arts
and music school" that cannot do better than an ordinary public school is
not living up to its billing and pretentions.)
You wrote:
>This will depend on the school.
That's right, and some WE schools are terrible musically. There IS, however,
a uniform pretention that ALL WE schools are "arts and music schools". You
then add:
Anyway, I
>wasn't aware that Bach and Mozart were "Steinerian drivel", nor the
>folk songs WE often uses, nor the use of the pentatonic recorder as an
>introductory instrument, ...
Again, don't play dumb. PENTATONIC RECORDER is a classic example of
STEINERIAN religious orientation. It is used in the early grades because of
the religious WEE belief that the child passes through stages equivalent to
earlier stages of human development (the pentatonic scale is associated with
antiquity). Hence it is Steiner-approved music that furthers the spiritual
evolution/development of the children.....
Old Folk music is permissible. It ties into a "backward-looking" approach to
art & music that isolates the child from the modern "materialistic" world.
It is safe ... if the right tunes and words are selected.
As for Mozart, Bach, etc: these are the equivalent of the Raphael and da
Vinci paintings on the walls of the classrooms: the "good art/music" of
history that is approved by Steiner and furthers the child's spiritual
development.
A bit of gentle jazz? a Folk song or spiritual? Acceptable if innocuous enough.
ELECTRICAL MUSIC? BITTER BLUES? HARD ROCK? TOUGH JAZZ? Forget it. "Blowing
in the Wind" might make it into a WEE music program. "Like a Rolling Stone"
or "Masters of War" would probably not. "Got My Mojo Workin"? BeBop? How
about "Imagine" - "IMAGINE THERE'S NO HEAVEN.....". WEE is as nervous as a
fundamentalist Sunday school teacher about "bad influences"....
Music is the least physical art form: it exists in time only. This
"immateriality" makes music easier to fit into the WE's program than other
art forms, BUT WE still restricts WHAT is chosen and WHEN it is presented to
the children.
Some "music school"! More like the "Oral Roberts Faculty of Music Approved
for Innocent Ears."
==============================================================================
So, Lee, how about proving how responsible you are by stating clearly that
WE's deceptive practices are immoral, illegal and fattening only to the
WEEs' wallets.
I know you intellectually enjoy playing the devil's advocate and arguing all
sides of every issue. But if you can't acknowledge here the simple reality
that WE exploits and deceives many of its clients to advance its own agenda
and prosperity, then you really ought to be recognized as a tourist on the
battlefield and treated as such.
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 09 23:37:24 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA17129; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 20:32:08 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA13941; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 20:29:31 -0700
Message-Id: <199606100329.UAA13941 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: 9 Jun 96 22:58:40 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Saykaly writes:
> And as to literature in WE, it is true there is some Shakespeare
> tolerated.
> This does not mean that the selections are not heavily censored and
> carefully choses to conform to "Steinerian goals". Literature is in fact
> used highly selectively in WE. The list of authors for a H.S. WE
> English/American Lit program I saw was top heavy with Metaphysicals:
> Blake,
> Emerson, Thoreau, and many more of the same bent - authors who can be
> presented in a way that does not clash with - and even actively
> advances -
> the WE goal of "spiritualizing" children. Where is Hemingway? Where is
> "Catcher in the Rye"? Right.....
Here's a partial list of the reading selections from my daughter's
eighth grade Waldorf School English class. (Partial because it's what
she was able to come up with on the spur of the moment -- I haven't
done any "editing".)
The Good Earth
The Red Badge of Courage
The Light in the Forest
My Antonia
Johny Tremaine
The Call of the Wild
Romeo and Juliet
a standard junior high school book of classic short stories,
including such spiritualizing classics as The Lottery, The Birds,
The Lady or the Tiger, and The Most Dangerous Game.
(And the class had an evening party with their class teacher and
their English teacher, to watch a video of the Zefirelli version of
Romeo and Juliet.)
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 09 23:37:31 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA17394; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 20:32:47 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA13898; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 20:29:16 -0700
Message-Id: <199606100329.UAA13898 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: 9 Jun 96 23:09:50 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Saykaly writes:
> I, however, have seen WE
> students come out of grade 6 after 6 years of WE with grade 2 reading
> skills, grade 3 math, no conceptualization skills at all, and no way to
> integrate into a regular school.
And I have seen one of the large regional public high schools nearby
where the valedictorian and salutatorian last year were among the
half-dozen or so Waldorf elementary school graduates in that class...
another local public high school (rated the best in the state) where
our Waldorf elementary school graduates routinely show up on the
honor role... my own daughter scoring in the 99th percentile on the
SSAT...
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 09 23:37:27 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA17250; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 20:32:25 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA13916; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 20:29:22 -0700
Message-Id: <199606100329.UAA13916 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: 9 Jun 96 23:26:59 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Saykaly asks Lee Story to admit that
> WE's deceptive practices are immoral, illegal and fattening only to the
> WEEs' wallets.
and refers to
> the simple reality that WE exploits and deceives many of its
> clients to advance its own agenda and prosperity
Anyone who is impressed by Dan's references to "WE's prosperity" ought
to take a look at the books of their local Waldorf school.
Anyone who believes that WE is fattening to anyone's wallet should take
a look at Waldorf teachers' salaries. (Hint: at our local school, which is
probably among the better in this regard, our most highly compensated
employee, with a master's degree and 18 years of teaching experience,
gets about $33K/year, plus half of the premium for a mediocre health
insurance program, a minimal retirement plan, and a 90% tuition rebate
for his children (a benefit whose value, of course, depends on your
evaluation of Waldorf Education -- Dan would presumably accord it
no value at all).)
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 10 10:40:06 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA06793; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 05:48:09 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA18778; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 05:44:26 -0700
Message-Id: <199606101244.FAA18778 lists1.best.com>
From: atllaw mindspring.com (Stephen Wright)
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 08:46:31 -0500
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>Dan Saykaly asks Lee Story to admit that
>
>> WE's deceptive practices are immoral, illegal and fattening only to the
>> WEEs' wallets.
>
>and refers to
>
>> the simple reality that WE exploits and deceives many of its
>> clients to advance its own agenda and prosperity
Sounds to me like Dan is really, dangerously high on drugs. Get him to a
detox unit (simple elimination of the material pollution unfettered, of
course, by any spiritual therapy will completely heal him).
Stephen L. Wright & Assoc., LLC
Attorneys at Law
atllaw mindspring.com
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 10 12:09:11 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA19528; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:58:43 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id KAA20572; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:50:59 -0700
Message-Id: <199606101750.KAA20572 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:40:37 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
A magnificent flame from Daniel Saykaly! But I forget, Dan, how to
interpret your acronymn WEE.
My favorite bit:
>Calling WE an Arts education is like calling an ROTC program a "leadership
>program" without mentioning the specifically military orientation of the
>program.
-Dan Dugan
P.S. remember we have 3 Dans here - Dan Dugan, Dan Sabsay, Dan Saykaly.
Please keep us sorted out in the ensuing dialogue.
Thanks, Neil Faiman, for breaking your reply into just the pertinent
points. Please follow his example. I hope nobody quotes Saykaly's whole
message!
-dD-
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 10 12:09:14 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA06771; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:21:43 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA22369; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:10:22 -0700
Message-Id: <199606101810.LAA22369 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:53:01 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Stephen L. Wright wrote,
>Sounds to me like Dan is really, dangerously high on drugs. Get him to a
>detox unit (simple elimination of the material pollution unfettered, of
>course, by any spiritual therapy will completely heal him).
This ad hominem is out of order here, Stephen. Please limit your comments
to the ideas expressed. Do not attack the character of the person
expressing them.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 11 00:19:42 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA23907; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:12:45 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA29082; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:42:31 -0700
Message-Id: <199606101942.MAA29082 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:22:54 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Daniel Saykaly writes:
> Indeed, as will be shown below, YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THE FOLLOWING:
Sure. Don't shout, man :)
> 1) WE is run by a religion and has a specific religious objective.
Yes, I think so. But "religion" is a rather amorphous concept. As
far as determining whether a group constitutes a "religion" for
legal purposes, we might do well to define the word as "holding a
religious tax exemption." (I don't think that's circular. The
government's interest follows money, and not much else.) In that
sense, they're not "religion."
> 2) Consumers are being conned by WE.
A little. In my opinion probably not as much as by an Ivy U., which
attract students primarily on the basis of its traditions and the
credentials of its faculty, without mentioning that the
undergraduate will typically be ignored, and her exorbitant tuition
used to pay for faculty and other resources used for graduate
research. This is not to say that the Ivys are particularly bad;
I'm not a great fan of institutionalized education in general.
Waldorf people probably do con the parents more than Catholic parish
schools do, less than the great universities; this is certain if you
measure the cost in dollars! Call them on it. Warn parents.
> 3) The religious beliefs behind the WE pedagogy are kept hidden from parents.
Hidden? No. "Hidden" and "not strongly advertised" are not the same.
Isn't there any spirit of "caveat emptor" left in America?
> 4) WEEs lie to consumers.
Same as #2.
> 5) WEEs are secretive about the sectarian facts of their schools.
Once again, it's possible for reasonable people to differ about whether
they're "sectarian" (unless you define "reasonable people" as those
who have joined your parade!)
> 6) WEEs evangelize through recruitment of students for their schools.
Unquestionably.
> 7) Eurythmie may very well be an occult ritual (you ask for more examples
> of rituals, which I provide below).
Eurythmy seems to be an occult ritual _in part_. I think American
football and army basic training are, too. (I take "occult" to mean
something like "with some objectives which are not explicitly stated
to the student/sportsman/candidate/trainee, and which are somewhat
obscure in their derivation." So what? Though you may find them
distasteful, there's no law against occult rituals, in school or out
of it. As soon as the Joint Chiefs proclaim that military training
is an occult ritual in the quasi-religion of organized murder, I'll
start to fault the anthropops.
> 8) WEEs are deceptive when they talk of running "arts and music schools".
They don't, that I've ever heard. They talk of having good art and
music programs in their schools. This they often do, and sometimes
do not. Generally, Waldorf tastes are too conservative, too gentle,
too cute, and--yes--too "New Age" for me; but "good" in the
aesthetic disciplines is very much a matter of taste.
> You wrote:
> >Yes, it's great to inform the consumer that she may be being soft-sold
> >an unexpected bill of goods by Waldorf Ed. My blessing! I was
> >horrified to hear (on this list some time ago?) that a prospective
> >Waldorf parent in Japan was not allowed to audit a class at the Tokyo
> >W.S.
>
> Lee, it is SO nice to have your blessing. Your ironic tone not withstanding,
> you have admitted the CON involved in WE ("being soft-sold an unexpected
> bill of goods"). You just don't find it very important or urgent, given the
> way you continue to excuse WE practices.
No irony intended! I can't come down too hard on WE on the basis of
this one case, though, because the closed nature of Japanese
institutions may be as significant here as WE attitudes. In any
case, I do think that parents who feel they've been deceived might
well register complaints with an administrative agency if there is
one. (Do you know of any who have done so? Dan Dugan?)
> Perhaps this deception is a minor issue to you. I, however, have
> seen WE students come out of grade 6 after 6 years of WE with grade
> 2 reading skills, grade 3 math, no conceptualization skills at all,
> and no way to integrate into a regular school. [....]
This isn't a matter of deception, nor even of the general pedagogy.
Were it, I suppose it would be solved. The Waldorf teachers that
I've met would hate to fail their students by not teaching them
basic skills. Unfortunately, it happens anyways sometimes.
Certainly non-readers/non-conceptualizers/... can come out of
Waldorf programs. However, I know several WE 4th- and 8th-graders
quite well, and have opportunity to compare them with my own
children, who are in public school. Some of the Waldorf kids are
superior students, some are lousy. More of the Waldorf lousy ones
get additional help at home than do similarly lousy ones in the
local public school; the reason is simple, and is as you imply:
their parents care about their education.
If there is any number-one reason for lack of academic skills among
otherwise-intelligent pupils, I would guess it to be that they are
not encouraged to be SELF-RELIANT enough about learning. (There...I
can shout too.) There seems too much of a protective atmosphere around
Waldorf education!
I also consider the single class-teacher scheme of WE to be somewhat
risky (at least beyond about the 3rd grade), since the teacher's
deficiencies and prejudices can all too easily amplify the student's
deficiencies.
So to the Waldorf pedagogy: Of course it's "unproven". It appears
to be a combination of what Rudolf Steiner believed (as a result of
his unique philosophy of knowledge, which trails along the ragged
edge of being a religion...) and of what he found worked well with
children in practice. Some of his ideas read like bunkum to me, but
the general thrust seems good once some arbitrary details have been
screened out. We then have emphasis on: low-pressure uncompetitive
learning; learning for the joy of it; strong emphasis on direct
observation, especially in grammar school (thank you, Goethe!); a
very supportive environment; emphasis on arts and crafts that the
children can do themselves rather than a pure "intellectual history"
approach...lots of good stuff. If they'd toss out RS-hero-worship
and much of his transcendental monism ("anthroposophy"), and modify
a few long-standing but dubious practices (like the single class
teacher mentioned above), I think they could have an excellent
program. But they'll never even try those changes. There's too
much dogma to be overcome.
****
I've heard a lot of stuff like Dan's comments on sixth-graders.
There are Waldorf high schools. Their students presumably take
SAT's and such as part of college admissions processes. That
would appear to be their first major contact with our "culture
of testing." Has anyone any information on what the distribution
of scores on the basic SAT maths and verbals would be, and what
Waldorf high school scores look like?
(Oh---thanks, Neil, for a bit of info on this; I'd love to hear
more, like means and distributions compared to public schools AND
other private ones.)
****
> You wrote: I think you should push this one." the Teachers do
> >deemphasize this [reincarnation] connection, since it surely would
> >not play well to an audience raised on "one-lifetime-then-
> >punishment-or-salvation" religious schema.
> THIS IS A DAMNING ADMISSION, LEE. YOU ADMIT MY CHARGE OF WE ABUSE OF
> CONSUMERS FOR PROFIT.
Nope. I never claimed that Waldorf educators were particularly interested
in "profit". Nor do I consider them "merchants". The world of ideas and
institutions is more subtle that you would paint it.
Otherwise we agree: if a belief in reincarnation is fundamental to
their educational ideas, they should say so. But a belief in a
Supreme Being is fundamental to most of the ideas of thousands of
U.S. public school teachers, and they _aren't allowed_ to say so.
Funny world!
> You accept my point here that the WEEs lie but try to excuse this on the
> basis of their being "conditioned" by German (aka Nazi) persecution. How
> shallow your argument is becomes clear when one considers that we are
> discussing U.S. WEES, the citizens of a country which has never persecuted
> them, a country where they have full protection.
Dan, unless you naively believe that it's possible to tell "the
whole truth and nothing but the truth," wouldn't you admit that
"deemphasize" is not the same as "lie"?
I do agree that my argument was stretched, and that Waldorf senior
teachers are probably _much_ more interested in not alienating
influential members of the community than they are in avoiding
persecution.
> In fact, DanD has mentioned that some WE profs, far from being
> persecuted, collaborated by becoming members of the
> ...German... teacher's union in the 30s.
C'mon now, this is old hat. I feel quite sure that every
institution of any size will have collaborators in any tyranny.
Does a collaborator-priest (or even a collaborator-rabbi) say
anything about the majority of religious Christians or Jews. And a
more important point: you would condemn the noted Herr Schindler and
all others who tried to save lives (and succeeded) by working within
the tyranny. Purity doesn't count for diddly-squat in politics!
And anyway, Dan D. seems at that point to have been fond of
arguments involving guilt by association.
> Why is this ok? Because 'you can quit'. No refund for lost
> time/money. No apology for the dishonesty. No help if your kid
> cannot integrate into another school after a few years in WE.
I am _not_ going to refund the opportunity-cost of entertaining this
discussion, nor will I assist you in reintegrating into the "real
world". I delivered the goods, and your child will benefit from my
"wisdom", even though you don't appreciate that. Tough it out!
Sarcasm aside: one can't reduce it to money.
> I have heard parents testify that they were warned by the WEEs
> that "It would be terribly destructive to their children for them
> to be removed from the school, that the children will be
> destroyed by the public schools". THESE ARE TRULY SHAMEFUL
> PRESSURE TACTICS DESIGNED TO KEEP PARENTS AND STUDENTS GLUED TO
> THE SCHOOL.... and paying.
Naw...there are plenty of people who have never heard of Waldorf and
are worried about the poorer sort of public schools "destroying"
pupils. The Waldorf teachers really believe their approach is
better, and that the student would be leaving a valuable
environment. I may think they're wrong; you may think they're
wrong; that doesn't mean they're "lying".
And again, it doesn't seem to be (primarily) a matter of money.
> BTW, "experienced Ant.s" are not unfamiliar with the ritual aspect of
> Eurythmie. Eurythmie is central to Steiner's 4 mystery plays. Ant.s believe
> in its miraculous healing powers (check WE archives). They are just
> carefully denying the facts. They are part of an initiatory religion that
> sees nothing wrong with veiling the "truth" from the uninitiated..... Which
> includes you.... I think....?
This will require some research. I admit to near-complete ignorance
of eurythmy. I've viewed one or two performances, and heard that it
is a required part of all Waldorf schools. I've also read that it
is a "language of the angels," but see no reason to take such
religious symbolism as anything but an metaphor/analogy (in just
about the same sense that a classical choreographer might refer to
the ballet as a language of the angels). I'll read some of
Steiner's lectures on the subject, and at least one or two of the
mystery plays, and respond.
> And as to literature in WE, it is true there is some Shakespeare tolerated.
What Shakespeare is _not_ tolerated? (since you imply this)
> The list of authors for a H.S. WE English/American Lit program I
> saw was top heavy with Metaphysicals: Blake, Emerson, Thoreau,
> and many more of the same bent - authors who can be presented in
> a way that does not clash with - and even actively advances - the
> WE goal of "spiritualizing" children.
> Where is Hemingway? Where is
> "Catcher in the Rye"? Right.....
You hit the nail on the head! That's precisely the sort of thing
that I don't like about Waldorf education. But then again, that's also
the sort of thing I don't like about public education.
Waldorf parents seem to be quite an educated bunch (I can't bring
myself to say "well-educated"), and they know that this selection
process is going on. Again, public-school parents know it, too.
Why are there so few that revolt?
> Would you tolerate a "science school" that taught creationism but did not
> warn parents in advance of this "program orientation"?
You can knock Steiner directly on this: One of the more troubling
aspects of anthropop/Waldorf is its dual scientific roots in
Goethe's theories (thoughtful but methodically doubtful) and in
Blavatsky's Theosophy (anti-empirical and anti-Darwinian in a big
way!)
> I know you intellectually enjoy playing the devil's advocate and arguing all
> sides of every issue.
Isn't that the only way we develop new ideas? Yes, I really dislike
the monochromatic competitive mentality that you (and Lefty on the
Waldorf- advocates' side) evince. I thought that Dick Oliver's
cautions were very much to the point, since I have to be careful not
to discard much that is sensible in your arguments when I read this
dragon-food:
> [....] you really ought to be recognized as a tourist on the
> battlefield and treated as such.
I do not wish to join your party, and certainly won't volunteer for
your army. It _is_ amusing flamebait though! --l
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 12 00:36:37 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA06852; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:08:20 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA29221; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:03:52 -0700
Message-Id: <199606120703.AAA29221 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: "Renewal" notes 1: 3 R's
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:26 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
In the current edition of "Renewal," Nancy Foster says:
"In reflecting on this principle of imitation, I realized that there are
"Three R's" in the Waldorf kindergarten. These are not the traditional
"Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmetic," to be sure. Rather they are "Reverence,
Rhythm and Repetition." If these three R's are present in a classroom-in
the environment to be taken up through imitation rather than as instruction
or admonition-then surely the Waldorf philosophy is at work in that
classroom."
[Foster, Nancy. "The Essentials of a Waldorf Kindergarten." Renewal: A
Journal for Waldorf Education, Spring/Summer 1996, p. 5.]
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 12 00:36:34 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA06441; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:07:36 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA29255; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199606120704.AAA29255 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Helen's letter 5: racism
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:35 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Helen Hansen said,
>Any charge of racism is utterly out of order=
>Nothing could be farther from the truth of Waldorf education. Steiner=
> may have made some statements in his time which were "racist", but both =
>Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and we still revere their legacies.=
> (They also both made provisions in their wills for their slaves' freedom=
It makes sense for Steiner to have been a racist in early-twentieth-century
Germany; it was a popular sentiment then, and it was justified by theory in
academia. What doesn't make sense is Anthroposophy's refusal today to
simply repudiate Steiner's racist statemnts as false.
I have heard complaints from two different schools about teachers referring
to the karmic significance of particular students' ethnic ancestry. This
erroneous theory is what Steiner taught, and Waldorf teachers study his
writings uncritically. It does get into the classroom.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 12 00:36:48 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA07987; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:11:00 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA29280; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:15 -0700
Message-Id: <199606120704.AAA29280 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: deception, sectarianism
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:42 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Lee, you quoted Dick Oliver,
> > [....] and you will make a much more powerful and persuasive
> > argument by sticking to those facts and presenting them in a way
> > that avoids calling 100,000+ Waldorf parents ignorant, foolish, or
> > decieved.
Agreed, except for deceived. I was deceived, I believe most Waldorf parents
are deceived. 100,000+ ignorant or foolish? Probably not. 100,000+
deceived? Most of them.
> > [....] It is much more convincing simply to point out that what
> > they mean by "non-sectarian" is often not the same thing that a
> > lawyer, judge, or public policymaker means by "non-sectarian."
Redefinition of common terms is a sneaky cult mind-control technique.
Steiner set it up that way.
>I think "non-sectarian school emphasizing (religious) 'spiritual
>development'" would be quite accurate, but would be impossible to sell
>to school boards or to the courts. (Probably WE would do well to
>remain wholly independent of government support, as many of its
>leading lights believe it should.)
Not accurate. Anthroposophy is a religious sect, and their doctrine
permeates the curriculum. How can it then be "non-sectarian"?
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 12 00:36:51 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA08623; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:12:27 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA29299; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:21 -0700
Message-Id: <199606120704.AAA29299 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Waldorf high school teachers meeting
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:50 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
This notice was posted on anthropos-science:
"There will be a Waldorf High School Teachers Conference at Rudolf
Steiner College, California, from July 12 to July 26. Of possible
interest to readers of this list are the workshops in physics teaching
given by Manfred von Mackensen, Director of Teacher Education at Kassel,
Germany; and the workshop in mathematics given by Ernst Schuberth,
Director of the Waldorf Teacher Education Seminar in Mannheim.
Mackensen's work is noteworthy for his advancement of the
phenomenological method in science teaching. Further information may be
obtained from Rudolf Steiner College (916-961-8727)"
I wonder where physics teacher Manfred von Mackensen stands on Newton's
color theory.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 12 00:36:43 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA07590; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:09:56 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA29362; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:04:56 -0700
Message-Id: <199606120704.AAA29362 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: "Renewal" notes 2: reading
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:05:14 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
In the current "Renewal," Bill Toole says:
"[I]t is a mistake to believe, what one sometime hears, that Waldorf
schools do not teach reading before the third grade. From day one of grade
one, the basis for reading-and for a lifelong relationship to language-is
being formed in a very methodical yet unique, holistic manner.
***
"[W]hat is the price of shortening an organically determined phase of
development? What is the long-term effect of hurrying children into an
adult, intellectual mode before they have had an opportunity to finish the
truly profound work of the young child?
***
"[A]re there any physical ramifications to starting early? At about the
ninth year, a maturational shift occurs in the eye. The development of
foveal vision accelerates. Before this time, visual experience is more
connected with peripheral vision, which takes in a scene as a whole
continuum. It is foveal vision that is used extensively in reading. This
change reflects the general inner progression from an experience of the
whole to the parts.
"What about the youngster who is clamoring to read early? Since young
children are in a stage of imitation, we can expect them to want to do all
the things they see adults doing. If the environment includes opportunities
for a variety of healthy, age-appropriate activities, the young child will
find many other satisfying outlets for his or her interests.
***
"[T]he reading level of fourth-graders in a Waldorf school is on a par with
that of students taught to read earlier."
[Toole, Bill. "Approaching Reading." Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf
Education, Spring/Summer 1996. pp. 16-17.]
It's funny how Waldorf supporters keep claiming to be teaching subjects in
early grades when they are not. Above we have "the basis for reading;" I've
also seen "science begins with nature stories," and "history begins with
fables and legends."
Does anybody know if Toole's statement about the eye changing in the ninth
year is true, and whether it has any relationship to reading readiness?
"If the environment includes opportunities for a variety of healthy,
age-appropriate activities, the young child will find many other satisfying
outlets for his or her interests." implies "besides reading," which is
implied to be not "age appropriate."
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 12 00:36:54 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA10040; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:15:34 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA29387; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:05:15 -0700
Message-Id: <199606120705.AAA29387 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: the N-word again
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:05:23 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dick Oliver said:
> > Also, anyone who brings vague-sounding historical associations with the
> > Nazis into any argument today loses a great deal of credibility immediately,
> > whether or not this association is valid.
And Lee Story replied:
>Yes! I don't like the implicit demonization of _anyone_, and
>especially of people we defeated in a major war, and so are likely to
>be enormously prejudiced against. No matter how horrible their morals
>and politics were, no matter how selfish or deluded, they were still
>human beings. Under the same economic pressures we could have turned
>to the same sort of wacko leaders...hmm...seems to me we've chosen
>lousy political leaders _without_ the pressures...
Agreed, but...if I hadn't found a book for sale at the San Francisco
Waldorf School in which Steiner says that intelligence is linked to blond
hair, I wouldn't have looked for the Nazi connection. And found it. Sorry.
Anthroposophy, as it was then, and as it is today, is "proto-Nazi," that
is, it is part of the foundations of the National Socialist world-view.
Surely, Nazism would have developed without Steiner, but it can't be denied
that he helped.
Item: The German occultist magazine "Ostara" turned racist in 1908; in an
article at that time Gravell referenced Blavatsky and Steiner as
authorities for racism. Hitler read every issue of Ostara.
(Goodrick-Clarke)
Item: The Nazis held that the Norse myths (the Edda) preserved the ancient
traditions of the Aryans. Why are kids in Northern California studying
Norse mythology and, of all the possible choices, the German language?
Answer: because Anthroposophists are maintaining Steiner's proto-Nazi
traditions, and his teaching that the German language plays a special role
in the evolution of consciousness.
Item: The bogus succession of cultural epochs (Blavatsky's "sub-races")
that Steiner taught went on to become part of the Nazi myth. I cannot help
pointing out that that pseudo-history is the framework of 5th- and
6th-grade history in Waldorf schools. Waldorf teachers are taught that this
is the evolution of culture. Not.
Item: German Waldorf schools fired their Jewish teachers (Leschinsky).
Item: Most German Waldorf teachers joined the Nazi teachers' union (Ibid).
Item: Rudolf Hess intervened twice to keep Waldorf schools open (Ibid).
Item: a remarkable parallel:
STEINER, 1923: "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using
the French language...It is also possible at the present time that the
French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept
their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French
people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of
transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of
all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will
substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened
as a race." (CT-3 pp. 87-88)
HITLER, 1925: "France is and remains by far the most terrible enemy. This
people, which is basically becoming more and more negrified, constitutes in
its tie with the aims of Jewish world domination an enduring danger for the
existence of the white race in Europe. For the contamination by Negro blood
on the Rhine in the heart of Europe is just as much in keeping with the
perverted sadistic thirst for vengeance of this hereditary enemy of our
people..." (MK p. 624)
Item: Hitler ordered Anthroposophists interned in 1938, FIVE YEARS AFTER he
came to power, in reaction to Rudolf Hess's flight to England. Hitler
perceived Hess's flight as a betrayal by the occultists whom he had
tolerated till then because they were a useful source of mythology. At the
same time he banned the Thule Society, which had also played a role in
creating the Nazi myths.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 13 01:21:31 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA20412; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 06:37:40 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id GAA27837; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 06:23:55 -0700
Message-Id: <199606121323.GAA27837 lists1.best.com>
From: atllaw mindspring.com (Stephen Wright)
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 09:25:58 -0500
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>Stephen L. Wright wrote,
>
>>Sounds to me like Dan is really, dangerously high on drugs. Get him to a
>>detox unit (simple elimination of the material pollution unfettered, of
>>course, by any spiritual therapy will completely heal him).
>
>This ad hominem is out of order here, Stephen. Please limit your comments
>to the ideas expressed. Do not attack the character of the person
>expressing them.
>
>-Dan Dugan
>
>
Dan Sakaly's comments are also an ad hominem attack if mine can be taken as
that. I take it by your censure, Dan, that Dan Sakaly was similarly
disciplined.
Stephen L. Wright & Assoc., LLC
Attorneys at Law
atllaw mindspring.com
From ??? ??? Fri Jun 14 01:16:09 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA22520; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 04:41:25 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id EAA09571; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 04:31:28 -0700
Message-Id: <199606131131.EAA09571 lists1.best.com>
From: litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery)
Subject: Re: Lee - What you have admitted so far
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:36:05 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
dan DUGAN noted the following, relative to dan SAYKALY's original post:
>My favorite bit:
>
>>Calling WE an Arts education is like calling an ROTC program a "leadership
>>program" without mentioning the specifically military orientation of the
>>program.
I also appreciated this analogy tremendously. In fact, I plan to use it
myself whenever the occasion permits (and I will try to remember to credit
dan SAYKALY).
Robert Flannery
20 Ann Boulevard
Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977
(914)352-7663
From ??? ??? Fri Jun 14 01:16:15 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA12660; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 05:18:06 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA11512; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 05:10:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199606131210.FAA11512 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Waldorf schools are not Arts schools
Date: 13 Jun 96 08:09:58 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>From Robert Flannery:
> dan DUGAN noted the following, relative to dan SAYKALY's original post:
>
> >My favorite bit:
> >
> >>Calling WE an Arts education is like calling an ROTC program a
> "leadership
> >>program" without mentioning the specifically military orientation of
> the
> >>program.
>
> I also appreciated this analogy tremendously. In fact, I plan to use it
> myself whenever the occasion permits (and I will try to remember to
> credit dan SAYKALY).
Well, yes, it's a pretty analogy; but I'm afraid you won't find that the
occasion permits very often, because it's also a straw horse.
Dan S's implications to the contrary, Waldorf Education does not present
itself as an "arts and music education," nor Waldorf schools as "arts and
music schools." Rather, Waldorf Education is an *artistic* and a
*musical* education.
The difference? An "arts and music education" is one which intends to
educate artists and musicians. The great energy that Dan has devoted
to proving that Waldorf schools are deficient when considered in this
light is rather like kicking down an unlocked door, because (as Lee Story
also noted) Waldorf schools do not purport to be schools to educate artists
and musicians. Indeed, anybody who sends their child to a Waldorf school
because they want him or her to grow up to be an artist or a musician has
probably been misled.
Waldorf education is an education in which is permeated throughout by
an artistic and musical element. Drawing, singing, playing instruments,
the practical and creative arts, are woven throughout the education.
There is, ideally, an artistic quality in all that the teacher presents,
in all that the children do -- even in the physical environment of the
school. To quote my daughter's school's brochure, "Visual arts, manual
arts, performing arts, physical activities and practical activities are
fully integrated into the program, often corresponding to the academic
subjects."
And debating that would be rather like debating whether we're having a
heat wave here in New England this week.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Sat Jun 15 00:50:02 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id BAA07803; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:54:18 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA10477; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:51:40 -0700
Message-Id: <199606140851.BAA10477 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: talk to Sacramento Atheists June 9, 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:52:09 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>From my journal:
Sacramento, California, June 9, 12:00 Noon
"Why Waldorf Programs are Unsuitable for Public Funding" (3rd time)
The Atheists and Other Freethinkers had a brief meeting before I
was introduced. They appear to be highly organized and active. They have a
dinner for poor people coming up, and had a slide show report on their
delegation to a national meeting. There was a tiny portable sound system,
conflicting with an air conditioner, and Peggy Lucas and a crew of two men
were videotaping with large and small camcorders for cable access. They put
their own mike up on the podium. The gooseneck for the PA mike was too
floppy to use, so we had to hold that mike. I tried to stay close to the
video mike, and had to be reminded to hold the PA mike closer several
times. People couldn't hear because of the damn air conditioner, but we
couldn't live there without it.
I roared through my 76 cels with consistent energy. The new
sequence worked well. The audience seemed either rapt or stultified, not
much reaction. There was one reporter there, a small woman from the Bee.
Near the end, some people in the front row said "enough," they got the
point, I told them I was going to nail it to the wall.
The question period was mostly taken up by Waldorf supporters.
Betty Staley made a confident denial. She had the brochure of comments by
prominent people praising Waldorf available in the back. A woman from the
staff of the new magnet school spoke, so nervous that she almost lost it.
Helen Hansen told about her daughter the doctor again, and said she didn't
see any of the stuff I pointed out during 12 years as a Waldorf parent.
Arline Monks was trembling too. She ended waving the Newsweek "your child's
brain" article and saying as she did at the previous talk that my
information was out of date. A couple of AOF members made rambling little
speeches, which were punctuated by cries of "what's the question?"
Afterward Mr. Monks, who had grinned at me the whole talk,
introduced himself, grinned some more, and thanked me for being respectful,
for raising some difficult points, and for noting that Anthroposophists
weren't unanimous about the wisdom of going into the public sector. I
didn't trust him.
We went for lunch at a corner deli with stupid overdesigned chairs
that were hard to handle. We put eight circular tables in a circle
upstairs, but the room was too noisy for a group conversation. Downstairs
there was a table of eleven Waldorf supporters huddling with the reporter.
----
Pat Kelley copied to me her mini-review she sent to a talk show host:
"I attended an "Atheists and Other Freethinker's" meeting tonight on the
Waldorf school system. The speaker was Dan Dugan, an impressive speaker,
who has amassed an equally impressive collection of incriminating info
against this religious cult. Seems Waldorf educational system is steadily
gaining acceptance within the public school system by systematically denying
that they teach religion and using double speak to convince unwitting school
boards of their good intentions toward the education of children.
"We had quite a controversy in our little meeting as a group of emotional
Waldorf representatives stood up to challenge Dan's assertions. The
Sacramento Bee press was there taking notes and asking questions.
"From what Dan revealed there is a definite stealth project going on here by
the Waldorf folks."
----
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Sat Jun 15 00:56:30 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA01945; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:58:32 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA13559; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:54:57 -0700
Message-Id: <199606150554.WAA13559 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: The Application of Guru Tricks in Waldorf Education
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:54:46 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
After having my attention distracted from the WCA list for the last two or
three weeks, I tuned back in this evening to find Dan Saykaly's outburst of
June 9 ("What you have admitted so far") at the top of the accumulated list.
My goodness. Looks like the energy level has been running high recently.
This is not a response to that, but instead a matter of picking up a loose
thread I left in an even older exchange with Dan Dugan. Most of the
following was prepared earlier. I will still offer it up, even though it may
be unsuitably mild for the present climate on the list.
In closing my note to you, Dan Dugan, awhile back, titled "Guru Tricks," I
said I would next take up the theme that I see I in much of your writing;
namely, the image of Waldorf education as involving a conspiracy to impose
anthroposophy (which you regard as a form of religion) on the students in
Waldorf schools, if only subliminally. Now is the time.
In a discussion like this one, I try to speak out of my own direct
experience, to the extent possible. So let me first recap my experience with
Waldorf education: My son was in three different Waldorf Schools
(Summerfield, Washington D.C. and Sacramento) from K-10 (then transferred to
Sacramento High School, in order to play more competitive basketball); my
wife was administrator of a Waldorf pre-school/kindergarten, member of the
Board of Trustees of the Sacramento Waldorf School (SWS), and is now a staff
member at Rudolf Steiner College; I have been a member and officer
(Treasurer, President) of the SWS Board and have completed the Foundation
Year (weekend program) at the College.
My first reaction to the conspiracy theory is amusement. Waldorf schools are
hard put to carry out basic organizational functions, such as financial and
personnel management, let alone having the time, energy and skill to carry
out a conspiracy of the subtlety implied in your statements. I suppose an
avid proponent of the conspiracy theory might say that this administrative
struggle is itself part of the smokescreen, behind which there lurks a cabal
of high priests and priestesses who are cleverly manipulating the minds of
faculty, staff, students and parents. If so, they have me completely fooled
as well--I have yet to find any trace of such a group.
More importantly, I have yet to find any trace of intent among Waldorf
educators, including those at Rudolf Steiner College, to use Waldorf schools
to create incipient anthroposophists. I don't even know of a
commonly-accepted definition of "anthroposophist." I joined the
Anthroposophical Society in America a few months ago, and while I was invited
to contribute a hefty membership fee I was not asked to subscribe to any
particular set of beliefs. No secret handshake, no decoder ring.
What is clear is that the Waldorf approach to education is based on Steiner's
insights about the nature of the human being; that those insights do include
a spiritual dimension; and that those insights are couched in terms not used
in other, more common, educational approaches. I first encountered the
Waldorf four-temperament classification scheme during the kindergarten
application interview for our son. I recognized the labels as archaic, but
also decided that the fact of teachers paying close attention to the
individuality of each student was more important than the classification
tools used to help organize that attention, unless and until experience
showed otherwise.
Over time I learned more about the philosophy underlying Waldorf education.
I came to realize that when a Waldorf teacher looks at a child, he or she
sees a spiritual entity in the process of becoming a human being, with
specific intentions for this lifetime. I think that even if I were a
non-believer relative to spirituality I would prefer such a teacher for my
child, since this perspective calls for the child to be treated with great
respect and sensitivity. Pedagogical methods and content should always be
subject to review and improvement, in Waldorf or any other educational
stream, but for me this view of the nature of the child is the foundation
stone for Waldorf education.
(After writing the above paragraph I came across a posting--on the WE list, I
believe--in which the writer identified himself as an atheist and his wife as
an agnostic, and described his comfort with having a child in a Waldorf
School because of its secular approach to spirituality. Interesting
semantics, don't you think?)
In your posting to me of April 22 you confirmed my understanding of your
objection to Waldorf schools in these words: "Of course most Waldorf
students don't become explicit Anthroposophists; as teenagers they will
likely be making fun of the Anthropops in their own teenage society. I
suspect that while intellectually rejecting the details they cannot have
avoided internalizing a lot of the world-view. The implicit indoctrination
is unethical because most Waldorf parents don't subscribe to the
Anthroposophical world-view."
In my experience, there actually is quite a spectrum of subscribing to the
Anthroposophical world-view among Waldorf _teachers_. I have seen no
evidence that the content of the Anthroposophical world-view is taught in the
classroom (and would object if I did find such evidence). There is a certain
amount of it "in the air" around a school--such as reference to the four
temperaments--but compared to the full content of Steiner's teachings it is
relatively minor, treated casually and definitely not promulgated as part of
a world-view.
What is likely to be internalized, I believe, is sensitivity to visual art,
music, and movement. In addition, I believe the requirement for students to
produce their main lesson books leads them to internalize an appreciation for
the subject that goes beyond facts and formulas, and helps them learn to
learn. All good effects, as far as I am concerned.
You seem to believe that even these subtle influences constitute "implicit
indoctrination," setting up students to succumb to anthroposophy later in
life. That is highly conjectural, to say the least. What is most
interesting to me is that this attitude makes you as much a true believer in
the invisible effects of Waldorf education as is any anthroposophist.
I do agree that information about the philosophical underpinnings of Waldorf
education should be freely available to all parents. In my experience the WE
movement has not done this well. One of my hopes is that the actions of you
and other critics will stimulate improvement in this area.
Another of my hopes is that I will soon comment on the core question of your
Free Inquiry article and much of your subsequent activity: Is public funding
of Waldorf education appropriate?
Best regards,
Rigby Leighton
From ??? ??? Sat Jun 15 00:56:47 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA08765; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:15:32 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA15946; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:11:20 -0700
Message-Id: <199606150611.XAA15946 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL AOL.COM
Subject: Ant/WE Penetration of Public Schools?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 02:11:14 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Fellow Waldorf Critics--
While we are busy protecting society from Waldorf Education we should also
be keeping a watchful eye on the content of public education.
Recently I happened to notice the following phrase in a Government textbook
my son brought home from the public high school he attends: "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
You can imagine my shock. The sexism in this statement is the least of its
offenses. Note the dogmatism--the claim to self-evident truth, admitting of
no debate. Note the creationism, an implication substantiated in the next
phrase, which refers explicitly to a "Creator" (capitalization in the
original). This is a religious theme completely inappropriate in a
tax-supported institution.
Perhaps the greatest offense is the ridiculous claim that all humans come
into existence as equals. This is contrary to all common experience and
insupportable with contemporary genetic science. At best, this is
misinformation. At worst, it is a trick, an attempt to point to some
supersensible level of interpretation as the source of meaning.
I must say that in spite of its irrationality I found the phrase strangely
compelling. I immediately recognized this as an experience common with
Steiner's writings and read no further, in order not to be seduced into
irrational beliefs. Consequently, I don't know the origin of the phrase, but
I must say that it smacks of Steinerism. Can it be that the anthroposophical
conspiracy has penetrated our public school textbooks?
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 16 01:01:43 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA03748; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:55:29 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA25790; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:51:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199606150751.AAA25790 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: "Renewal" notes 3: consensus
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:51:44 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Norman Davidson in "Renewal":
"How can a group of people of different ages, nationality, experience, and
so forth, run a school together, agreeing upon everything amongst
themselves as equals without the authority of a head teacher to do it for
them? How can this be achieved with a group of indivduals who may disagree
over details of how Rudolf Steiner's teachings should be interpreted?
***
"[T]he only genuine answer is to recognize that the problem is really
caused by ourselves and not the [Waldorf system], and that it can only be
solved by the self-development or inner development of the individual.
***
"It is only out of self-knowledge and balance of soul that the teacher can
meet fellow teachers in a truly human way. Basic working material for this
balance can be found, for example, in Steiner's book Knowledge of the
Higher Worlds, which should be the well-worn pocketbook of the Waldorf
teacher. There we can find treasure like the six fundamental inner
exercises, or indications of three trials on the spiritual path-those of
fire, water, and air."
[Davidson, Norman. "Teacher-to-Teacher Relationships in the Waldorf
School." Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf Education, Spring/Summer 1996. p.
25]
According to Davidson, teachers are to be "agreeing upon everything amongst
themselves", and if they don't, "the problem is really caused by ourselves
and not the [Waldorf system]" A system which insists upon unanimity,
achieved by induction of guilt feelings.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:26:20 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id BAA22743; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:07:42 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA18061; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:04:04 -0700
Message-Id: <199606160804.BAA18061 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Waldorf schools are not Arts schools
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:04:37 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>> dan DUGAN noted the following, relative to dan SAYKALY's original post:
>>
>> >My favorite bit:
>> >
>> >>Calling WE an Arts education is like calling an ROTC program a
>> "leadership
>> >>program" without mentioning the specifically military orientation of
>> the
>> >>program.
Robert Flannery commented
>> I also appreciated this analogy tremendously. In fact, I plan to use it
>> myself whenever the occasion permits (and I will try to remember to
>> credit dan SAYKALY).
Neil Faiman responded
>Well, yes, it's a pretty analogy; but I'm afraid you won't find that the
>occasion permits very often, because it's also a straw horse.
>
>Dan S's implications to the contrary, Waldorf Education does not present
>itself as an "arts and music education," nor Waldorf schools as "arts and
>music schools." Rather, Waldorf Education is an *artistic* and a
>*musical* education.
Dan Dugan:
That's how I see it, too
Faiman:
>
>Waldorf education is an education in which is permeated throughout by
>an artistic and musical element. Drawing, singing, playing instruments,
>the practical and creative arts, are woven throughout the education.
>There is, ideally, an artistic quality in all that the teacher presents,
>in all that the children do -- even in the physical environment of the
>school. To quote my daughter's school's brochure, "Visual arts, manual
>arts, performing arts, physical activities and practical activities are
>fully integrated into the program, often corresponding to the academic
>subjects."
Dugan:
This is exactly as I see it, and dedication to this principle is IMHO one
of the most wonderful and beautiful things about Waldorf education. I hope
it will be widely imitated. I think Waldorf education as it is has a good
chance of producing good all-around communicators, people who can write,
illustrate, speak, and make music. If it works everybody should pay
attention. I wish somebody would do research on Waldorf outcomes with this
in mind. Ida Oberman down at Stanford, are you listening?
Though I admire the principle of interweaving art and music throughout the
curriculum, I think Waldorf schools fall behind in their cultic dedication
to Steiner's particular art forms. Eurythmy, for example, and wet-on-wet
watercolor painting. Neither is without value, but each is impoverished if
compared to the worlds of styles in dance and painting that kids could be
trying on. Kids time is valuable, and it's tragic that, despite their good
intentions, Waldorf schools waste a lot of it on low-art-nutrition cultic
arts because Steiner prescribed them for their healing or spiritual
development effects. Crap.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:26:43 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA29208; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:21:46 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA00572; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:19:21 -0700
Message-Id: <199606161819.LAA00572 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: talk to Sacramento Atheists June 9, 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:19:15 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
DanD,
Congratulations on your presentation! I particularly liked Pat Kelley's
observation that:
>"From what Dan revealed there is a definite stealth project going on here by
>the Waldorf folks."
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:26:45 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA15171; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:03:23 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA03971; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:02:07 -0700
Message-Id: <199606161902.MAA03971 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 15:01:39 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
DanD,
I recently commented that WE 'fattens itself' by deceiving parents; that it
gets parents to hand over their children and money to WE, unaware that WE
is a religious, sectarian school system with a hidden agenda and beliefs.
Of course, the WEEs deny this. A standard WE defence agaist the charge of
profitting from deception is to moan that 'WE schools certainly aren't
getting fat; they are poor! Teachers are terribly underpaid.... etc.'
Do WE "Fatten on Deception?
============================
So, does WE fatten on deception?
A few questions resolve this matter:
Does WE charge as much or more than other private schools? There has been a
good deal of discussion about this on the WE internet list, and the
consensus is that it usually does.
Are parents purposely not informed of the occult-based, religiously driven,
irrationalist educational model of WE so that they are not scared away and
refuse to hand over their kids and money? Once more, according to the WE
list (7:58 PM 12/14/95 re cultural diversity), they are.
What would be the impact on WE schools if non-Ant. "ignorant" parents
stopped enrolling their children? Since such "ignorant" parents represent a
substantial portion of the school's clientele (Essential Steiner, page
295-6), it is clear that most WE schools would suffer serious setbacks in
funding and enrollment.
>From this it is clear that WE is able to charge high tuition fees and get a
substantial part of its clientele to pay them because these clients are
ignorant of the belief system that drives the schools. In other words, WE
fattens on deception and can ill-afford to be honest with new parents.
So Why are WE Schools "Poor"
=============================
WE charges as much or more than most private schools and benefits from the
deception of non-ant. parents.
So if WE charges as much or more than most private schools, why are WE
schools usually so "poor"?
If WE schools are poor it is because of the following:
1 Group-based management incompetence.
It is said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Similarly,
Waldorf poverty is often the result of management by a College of Teachers
with a committee-like decisional process, granola management skills or
worse, and illogical (read "occult") priorities.
2 Tuition discounts to profs. and other people ("Ant. people")
In small schools in which many teachers have children, all the free tuition
provided to the profs' kids is a lot of lost revenue. And the other people
who get tuition reductions make the cashflow situation worse. Is this
tuition reduction proof of some noble generosity of soul on the part of WE?
On the contrary. The people who get discounts are often co-religionists
(anthroposophists) and Ant. fellow travellers getting a free ride at the
expense of the "cattle", the none-Ant. parents. What about the teachers?
Should they get such reductions, which are paid for by ordinary and
often-deceived parents? The teachers, after all, run the schools and accord
themselves this privilege. A teacher with 3 kids, who gets free education
for all 3 kids avoids paying $15000.00 per year of tuition. This benefit is
considered part of the benefit package, and benefits are normally taxable,
although there is a real question as to whether WE profs always declare this
benefit. How do you think the IRS would interpret such benefits - as taxable
or nontaxable? $15000.00 of free tuition is worth much more than $15000.00.
Ordinary parents in most countries have to pay tuition in after-tax dollars.
You need to earn at least $21,000 pretax to have $15,000 after-tax.
(Another cash drain on WE schools is the practice of giving teachers paid
sabbatical years every 8 years, also paid for by "ordinary parents". These
sabbaticals represent a cash bonus to teachers, paid by ordinary parents.
Suddenly $22000- $33000.00 doesn't seem so bad....)
3 School Contributions to "WE Associations".
How much of the tuition from WE schools gets handed over to WE and Ant.
organizations and activities? I have seen up to 40% of children's tuition
redirected to a "Waldorf Association" that was distinct from the WE school
charging the tuition. Indeed, separate cheques were required for the school
and for the Association. In this way WE schools drain themselves of funds to
advance the causes of Ant. and WE, fattening their causes' pockets while
directing money away from the school children presently enrolled. Parents
should know that part of the tuition they pay does not go directly toward
the education of students presently enrolled.
4 Low enrollment.
The numbers don't lie. Many WE schools have to compress 2 classes into one
or close classes. Many hang on for years barely getting by with tiny
classes, even though Steiner stated that very large classes were best. Why
the low numbers? In part there is a high turnover of students which makes it
tough to build enrollment. And why do students leave? Because WE is
expensive, idiosyncratic, marginal, demanding and often disappoints.
Are WE More Expensive to Run Than Other Schools?
================================================
Are WE schools poor because they are more expensive to run than regular
schools? Consider the savings of WE schools vs regular schools. In WE there
are no computers, or A/V equipment, or large libraries, and none of the
staff associated therewith; there is lots of volunteer help from parents to
replace paid help; there is limited science equipment (no electronic
equipment). Nor are there any highly expensive extra costs to running a WE
school: bees wax, paint, wool and modeling clay just don't cost that much.
Yet despite these economies, many WE schools are always in difficulty,
always acting like money junkies trying to shake more funds and support out
of parents.
Where does the money go? As we have seen, bad management, low-paying and
no-paying students, small classes due to high student turnover, and payments
to "WE Associations" suck up a lot of funding and leave the regular parents,
the "cattle", to make up the difference.
WE struggles on, deceiving many parents into enrolling their children in a
system the parents would not normally accept or approve of if they knew the
truth about WE's occult religious sectarian assumptions and objectives.
Exploiting WE "Poverty"
=======================
The fact that WE is often broke does not disprove the fact that WE deceives
parents. Just as one may be a thief, but a poor thief (in both senses of the
word), so too, WE can deceive parents, hide its religious agenda, and still
be "poor". In fact, this much-bewailed poverty is a useful fund raising
weapon ("Help us!"). This makes it all the more likely that WE schools will
continue to complain of their limited funds. Poverty can be smart business.
Just ask the fundamentalist preachers who constantly beg for money....and
get it.
WE deception of parents is consistent and systemic. The quote I cited above
from the WE list makes this all too clear. (WE list 7:58 pm 12/14/95 "re:
cultural diversity").
WE Is Money Obsessed
====================
What is ironic is that these 'spiritually oriented' WE schools are, in fact,
money obsessed. I have been involved with a variety of schools, private and
public. No other schools I have encountered talk of money and student
recruitment half as much as WE. No other schools spend as much time annoying
parents and outsiders with fundraising activities, solicitations for
contributions, class-outing expenses, and requests for volunteer work. In
many other schools, what WE does would be considered unimaginable,
embarrassing and contemptible.
WE, however, cultivates the image of the underdog, bravely struggling to
make ends meet, and thereby turns poor management, deception and a doubtful
product into a cause.
WE's Fattening on Deception: the Big Picture
============================================
Now let us look at the big picture: WE as a whole.
Does Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education fatten globally from this
deception? Consider:
There are said to be 600 WE schools. Let us assume an average enrollment per
school of 200 students. Let us in turn assume 15% of enrollment is unpaid
(teacher's kids; ant. people.) Let us assume an average tuition of $5000.00
per student. Total revenue per year?: $510,000,000 - Tuition only. Transport
and donations would add at least another $100,000,000 in annual revenue.
Let us assume contributions by WE schools to WE Associations & Ant.
organizations of only 15%. This works out to $91,500,000.00 per year. And
where did it all come from? That's right. Out of the pockets of the ordinary
parents - the cattle.
Now think about the fact that these WE and Ant. tax-free organizations are
making that much money off the "educational arm" of Ant. alone. Of course,
the Ant.s also have several publishing houses, a bank or two, some
hospitals, various profit generating companies and substantial real estate
holdings.
Yes, WE fattens on the deception of many parents. It may be true that WE
teachers and the enthusiasts who actively help to run the schools are not
wealthy. However, their relative lack of wealth does not mean that money
isn't extracted by deception to fatten the WE/Ant. structure. And as we have
seen, these local profs and Ant enthusiasts benefit quite directly from the
deception through reduced tuition and/or through the existence of WE schools
that would be difficult or impossible to support without the deception.
The truth is that if tomorrow WE were obliged to be completely open with all
prospective and active parents concerning the occult religious belief system
that dictates every part of the WE curriculum, enrollment would drop
substantially, severely hurting the schools.
Those people who sit on WE schools Boards of Directors, Colleges of Profs,
and Admin Councils know the score. They know about the occult belief system
that dictates Waldorf pedagogy and that is hidden behind the normal-sounding
talk of "arts and music education" (or, as one WEE recently suggested,
"artistic and musical education", as though this makes a difference). They
know what R. Steiner wrote about racialism, reincarnation, karma, etheric
bodies and astral bodies, all of which have a direct relationship to WE.
They know the unproven and unprovable occult concept of the 7-year phases of
child development that drives the curriculum. They know it and they know
that the whole school program is based on it. And they hide it from
prospective parents so that the cash and students will flow in. They take
the money and use it to further the WE agenda because they themselves happen
to believe in it. Many of them send their children to the schools for lower
tuition or even for free, riding on the backs of the paying parents. Cattle,
after all, are not just for milking. You can ride on them too.
These committed WE people get something for their children they could not
afford without deceiving other parents into supporting the schools: they get
a Rudolf Steiner occult education. And by advancing the work of
"Anthroposophy" through WE, these people also benefit spiritually and
karmicly - or think they do.
They fatten on the deception of other parents.
No matter how sincerely WE supporters believe in the truth of their mission,
the deception in which they participate is contemptible. And until those
people in charge of WE institute a policy of full disclosure of the goals,
methods and beliefs of their school system, they are contemptible as well.
WE deserves investigation, alright, but not by new parents. By the
government and by the law.
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:26:57 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA20746; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:15:06 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA05205; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:13:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199606161913.MAA05205 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: The Application of Guru Tricks in Waldorf Education
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 15:13:11 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>I do agree that information about the philosophical underpinnings of Waldorf
>education should be freely available to all parents. In my experience the WE
>movement has not done this well. One of my hopes is that the actions of you
>and other critics will stimulate improvement in this area.
Since WE benefits directly from this failure (in terms of higher enrollment
and greater cash flow), this is equivalent to saying that a tax cheat "has
not done well" at reporting his income. True. Damning and true.
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:27:00 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA03135; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:44:38 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA07793; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:42:57 -0700
Message-Id: <199606161942.MAA07793 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: Waldorf schools are not Arts schools
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 15:42:47 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Re Art in WE:
Someone said that the unique thing about William Blake was not that he was a
mystic and an artist, but that he was a mystic and a good artist... That
mystics generally settle for 10th rate art because all they are looking for
is an approximation of the mystical experience they have undergone.
By this standard, Steiner is your run-of-the-mill mystic. One has only to
look at his own production to see how little the man mattered to art and to
art history. Like Auntie May, who loves art and passionately and hideously
dabs away in oils, Steiner shows no artisitic insight and gives no lasting
contribution to the visual arts. And the WE school system arts program is
one long homage to this 10th rate artistic vision: Wet-on-wet et al.
I am hoping to check with a local Architecture department some time to find
out whether his buildings rate any kind of honourable mention. Maybe he
wasn't as artistically challenged in concrete. I know the WEEs claim he
influenced all kinds of people... not that this means much.
As to the issue of "arts and music" vs "artistic and musical" education: Let
us be clear. There is no difference between the 2 in a marketing sense. It
is false to assume that other "Arts and Music" schools are automatically
schools for future artists and musicians. They are schools dedicated to
developing the artistic and musical talents of children, some of whom may go
on to be professionals in the arts. That is exactly the basis on which many
parents sign their kids up for WE. WE knowingly solicits clients by waving
the flag of the arts, and then gives them... Steiner art.
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:27:10 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA06880; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:20:57 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA16370; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:19:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199606162119.OAA16370 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Imagine
Date: 16 Jun 96 17:19:15 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Saykaly wrote,
> "Blowing
> in the Wind" might make it into a WEE music program. "Like a Rolling
> Stone"
> or "Masters of War" would probably not. "Got My Mojo Workin"? BeBop?
> How
> about "Imagine" - "IMAGINE THERE'S NO HEAVEN.....". WEE is as nervous as
> a
> fundamentalist Sunday school teacher about "bad influences"....
>
Dan,
Sorry I didn't have the program a few days ago, or I would have
sent you an invitation, so you could have come and listened to a group
of eighth Waldorf school eighth graders performing "Imagine" at their
graduation this afternoon. I didn't see any signs of nervousness from
the assembled teachers, either... tears, yes, but no doctrinal dismay.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:27:32 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA24842; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:41:01 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA28329; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:35:00 -0700
Message-Id: <199606170435.VAA28329 lists1.best.com>
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
While I don't really want to get into the habit of commenting on
Mr. Saykaly's peculiar diatribes, portions of this one are such
low-hanging fruit that I can scarcely resist.
On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Daniel Saykaly wrote:
>
> There are said to be 600 WE schools. Let us assume an average enrollment per
> school of 200 students. Let us in turn assume 15% of enrollment is unpaid
> (teacher's kids; ant. people.) Let us assume an average tuition of $5000.00
> per student. Total revenue per year?: $510,000,000 - Tuition only. Transport
> and donations would add at least another $100,000,000 in annual revenue.
>
> Let us assume contributions by WE schools to WE Associations & Ant.
> organizations of only 15%. This works out to $91,500,000.00 per year. And
> where did it all come from? That's right. Out of the pockets of the ordinary
> parents - the cattle.
>
> Now think about the fact that these WE and Ant. tax-free organizations are
> making that much money off the "educational arm" of Ant. alone. Of course,
> the Ant.s also have several publishing houses, a bank or two, some
> hospitals, various profit generating companies and substantial real estate
> holdings.
There are some 125 Waldorf schools in the US. Given Mr. Saykaly's
estimates, based on tuition alone he would seem to expect that some
$18,750,000 would be getting funneled through "Waldorf associations
and Anthroposophical Organizations" in the US alone.
I happen to have a copy of the annual budget of the Anthroposophical
Society in America for the year 1995-96, which was published in the
Winter 1995/96 issue of the Society's newsletter. Total actual income
for the year 1994-95 was the staggering sum of $636,706; none of it,
by the way, seems to be drived from Waldorf schools in any way, shape
or form. Total assets at the end of that year were $1,573,635. I
suspect that an examination of AWSNA's figures would show results that
were not even that impressive. If Mr. Saykaly seriously believes that
some eighteen million dollars is either going to AWSNA or being
laundered through some sort of Anthroposophical underground, frankly,
he's smoking dope.
The rest of his "analysis", which shows a serious inability to
distinguish between "unfounded conjecture" and "fact", is equally
unworthy of being taken seriously. Mr. Saykaly's posting bears
essentially the same relation to criticism as the Weekly World News
does to journalism.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 17 01:39:56 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id BAA23825; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:38:51 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA18656; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:36:16 -0700
Message-Id: <199606170836.BAA18656 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: "Renewal" notes 4
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:36:48 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
In "Renewal" magazine, David Adams argues that colleges of teachers should
take over from their boards:
"Waldorf Education arose in close connection with the Anthroposophical
efforts to develop and promote Steiner's picture of an ideal threefold
organization of society. If we have the idea that the social, economic, and
organizational principles of that threefold vision of the social organism
are also to live in the Waldorf school, then this implies ways of handling
finances, social relations, and governance that are rather different from
those to which our society is accustomed. For one thing, it implies that a
school cannot divorce the handling of finances and of practical
administration from a spiritual understanding and practice. In the past,
schools in the Waldorf movement have tended to do just this. However, for
the same spirituality to flow through both pedagogy and administration, the
Board, parents, and administrative personnel involved must be as
knowledgeable about Anthroposophical work in these areas as the teachers
are about education."
I wonder if they have a spiritual computer bookkeeping program.
***
"If faculty members or other Anthroposophists involved in Board affairs
are not clear and confident enough in their knowledge of Anthroposophical
principles in areas of economics, social life, and adminstrative structure
and procedure, it is all too easy for parents or Board members with
conventional training and life experience in these areas to assert
themselves and to promote other ways of doing things."
God forbid, "other ways of doing things."
***
(quotes Steiner) "No one should make decisions who is not directly engaged
in the educational process..."
***
"I would propose that a school that has not realized this original ideal
cannot yet be considered a complete Waldorf school."
Guilt-tripping the teachers again. They must strive harder, and do even more.
***
"[T]he College can only arise out of inner realities, not out of a need to
conform to external demands or to preconceived forms...I have never heard
or read anywhere that Rudolf Steiner included a Board as one of the
necessary governing organs in a Waldorf school. This organizational element
has been imposed on American and Canadian Waldorf schools by governmental
decree. It is my experience that the need to come to terms with this
"foreign element" within the school organism often has created unnecessary
burdens and tensions for the faculty of our schools."
Get rid of that "foreign element," democracy. Let those who know what is
best for us make all the decisions.
***
"But why couldn't a school simply be incorporated so that the College (or,
perhaps, the faculty if no College has yet been formed) is legally
designated as the Board? The College Board or Faculty Board could then take
charge of supervising and maintaining an overview of administrative
functions of the school. There could be a nonlegal, volunteer "Advisory
Board" providing legal, financial or other expertise in the form of advice,
expert opinions, and review. Members of this "Advisory Board" could also
take part in school committees and could help carry out agreed-upon
policies.
Board members worth their salt aren't going to waste their time advising
without authority. Adams imagines them helping "carry out agreed-upon
policies," i.e., the board subservient to the teachers.
***
"When the College is given full decision-making authority to govern all
areas of school life in harmony with the mission of the school, we would
expect to see a new striving to incorporate the insights of Anthroposophy
into every aspect of school life."
[Adams, David. "Does a Faculty-Run School Need a Board of Trustees?"
Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf Education. Spring/Summer 1996. pp. 32-33.]
Yup. We're having the Anthroposophical toilets installed next week, flow
forms, you know.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:28:12 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA14605; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 05:10:40 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA02860; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 05:09:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199606171209.FAA02860 lists1.best.com>
From: atllaw mindspring.com (Stephen Wright)
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:11:14 -0500
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>> Let us assume contributions by WE schools to WE Associations & Ant.
>> organizations of only 15%. This works out to $91,500,000.00 per year. And
>> where did it all come from? That's right. Out of the pockets of the ordinary
>> parents - the cattle.
>>
>> Now think about the fact that these WE and Ant. tax-free organizations are
>> making that much money off the "educational arm" of Ant. alone. Of course,
>> the Ant.s also have several publishing houses, a bank or two, some
>> hospitals, various profit generating companies and substantial real estate
>> holdings.
>
>There are some 125 Waldorf schools in the US. Given Mr. Saykaly's
>estimates, based on tuition alone he would seem to expect that some
>$18,750,000 would be getting funneled through "Waldorf associations
>and Anthroposophical Organizations" in the US alone.
At our school, not one cent goes to any Anth. Society directly and only
small fees for twice annual consultations are paid to AWSNA. Definitely
nobody is getting rich off of our parents.
Stephen L. Wright & Assoc., LLC
Attorneys at Law
atllaw mindspring.com
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:28:59 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA08732; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:11:47 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id KAA04535; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:16:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199606171716.KAA04535 lists1.best.com>
From: JoAnn Schwartz
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:59:55 -0400 (EDT)
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan S recently proclaimed that Waldorf Schools charge more than most other
private schools and cited recent discussions on the WE list. I believe
that a distinction needs to be made between independent private schools
and parochial (or church supported) private schools. Tuition at the
Detroit Waldorf School is indeed higher than tuition at area parochial
schools, primarily because the parish/diocese provides funds to the
parochial school but not to DWS :). Tuition at DWS is lower than that of
any Metropolitan Detroit INDEPENDENT private school save the Friends
School (which has lower tuitions for certain grades.)
Please remember that a private school is not necessarily an independent
school and temper your remarks accordingly (unless you have data to show
that DWS is the exception and not the rule.)
Peace,
JoAnn M. Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
, Detroit MI USA
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:29:14 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA02673; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:47:42 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA08006; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:06:45 -0700
Message-Id: <199606171806.LAA08006 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:48:48 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Daniel Saykaly writes:
> Does WE charge as much or more than other private schools? There has been a
> good deal of discussion about this on the WE internet list, and the
> consensus is that it usually does.
Yes, they seem to charge an average amount. Like almost any private
school, they use it all and almost never have any cash reserves. At
least around here they don't. Private schools which provide more
facilities and options seem usually to be the very old, very deeply
endowed ones. These are almost exclusively at the secondary level.
So I don't think we can seriously fault the Waldorf schools on the
basis on tuition (resources consumed).
> 1 Group-based management incompetence.
Nonsense. All groups have an IQ of 63, including the Harvard
Corporation (whose recent campaign raised tens of billions of
dollars).
> 2 Tuition discounts to profs. and other people ("Ant. people")
You want to attract competent people, you have to offer perqs. That's
part of the capitalism that Mr. Saykaly seems to applaud. Can you
imagine that a teacher's motivation would be improved could he not
afford to send his children to the school? You're not that much of a
dummy, Dan!
> (Another cash drain on WE schools is the practice of giving teachers paid
> sabbatical years every 8 years, also paid for by "ordinary parents".
So do most private schools. With several friends teaching in private
academies, I definitely consider the absence of such learning/
exploration years for most public school teachers a serious defect of
the system.
> 3 School Contributions to "WE Associations".
For all practical purposes nonexistent. A red herring.
> 4 Low enrollment.
> The numbers don't lie. Many WE schools have to compress 2 classes into one
> or close classes. Many hang on for years barely getting by with tiny
> classes, even though Steiner stated that very large classes were best. Why
> the low numbers? In part there is a high turnover of students which makes it
> tough to build enrollment. And why do students leave? Because WE is
> expensive, idiosyncratic, marginal, demanding and often disappoints.
I'll bet that many teachers and parents would agree with some of your
comments here. (But did Steiner really recommend large classes?
Please cite.) But small is often an advantage, and "low enrollment",
and even "high turnover", wouldn't seem to correlate particularly well
with "poor". There's a huge logical gap here, so I think I'll write
this off as a red herring too.
> Are WE schools poor because they are more expensive to run than regular
> schools? Consider the savings of WE schools vs regular schools. In WE there
> are no computers, or A/V equipment, or large libraries, and none of the
> staff associated therewith;
> there is lots of volunteer help from parents to
> replace paid help;
True also in my kids' public school. Those that don't ask for help
from the community are practically guaranteed to be bureaucratic,
incompetent nightmares.
By the way, I don't think Waldorf schools ask for enough volunteer
services. They, and all schools, should be drawing on the talents of
their communities for essential teaching. But this runs contrary to
the cult of professionalism that infests all schools, at least in the
USA. Certification (Waldorf or regular) seems to me practically
worthless except for the practice-teaching experience (and I've taken
some "ed" courses).
> there is limited science equipment (no electronic equipment).
Could somebody comment on "no electronic equipment". Is there some
sort of prohibition, or is it just their typical technological
conservatism? Anyway, I don't remember seeing any electronic devices
other than the telephone at the Cape Ann WS, but don't see that the
students suffered from it, either. I doubt I'd use television or
computers even were I teaching physics at the college level.
Hmmm...well...now that the World Wide Web has become such a wonderful
resource (vastly superior to the continuing barrage of wholly mediocre
computer-based and/or TV-based "educational courseware"), I suspect
that may change. Does anyone on the WE side think their school will
make good use of this new tool? And if not, why not?
Expensive "science equipment"? A few nice medical-quality microscopes
can be picked up from want-ads for $200-$400 each, and that's quite a
bit more equipment than primary schoolers need), Waldorf schools do
spend quite a bit of money on multi-day class trips devoted to nature
study. And that seems exactly as it should be. IMHO, the ideal
academy hires its teachers carefully, pays them well, and gives them
lots of freedom and encouragement. The shade of a plane tree will
serve for a physical plant.
> Where does the money go?
I believe they are trying to keep their teachers at a better-than-
starvation wage. In this economic system no other explanation is
necessary.
> ....No other schools spend as much time annoying parents and
> outsiders with fundraising activities, solicitations for
> contributions, class-outing expenses, and requests for volunteer
> work.
Yes. What's wrong with that?
> In many other schools, what WE does would be considered
> unimaginable, embarrassing and contemptible.
...but now once again you go off the deep end and into a mire of petty
ad hominum characterizations. Could you (Dan Saykaly) perhaps be a
member of that vicious cult of Ayn Rand-ian "Objectivists", to whose
disciples it probably _is_ "embarrassing and contemptible" to admit
that you don't make much money...
> ...turns poor management, deception and a doubtful product into a
> cause.
I feel that Dan is by implication measuring educational success by
financial skill and soundness. Even if I thought Waldorf schools had
all these problems (and to some extent all school administrations and
pedagogies, public or private, do), I would not agree with his argument.
Of course he'll now retreat into his "Let's not pay any attention to
anyone who disagrees with me" spiel.
> Let us assume contributions by WE schools to WE Associations & Ant.
> organizations of only 15%.
But they don't. You're going to get a lot of complaints about this, Dan!
Cheers, --lee
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:29:11 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA01272; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:45:25 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA08558; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:14:45 -0700
Message-Id: <199606171814.LAA08558 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf schools are not Arts schools
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:00:43 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Dugan writes:
> Though I admire the principle of interweaving art and music throughout the
> curriculum, I think Waldorf schools fall behind in their cultic dedication
> to Steiner's particular art forms. Eurythmy, for example, and wet-on-wet
> watercolor painting. Neither is without value, but each is impoverished if
> compared to the worlds of styles in dance and painting that kids could be
> trying on. Kids time is valuable, and it's tragic that, despite their good
> intentions, Waldorf schools waste a lot of it on low-art-nutrition cultic
> arts [....]
This is my impression, too. Music in Waldorf schools is rather more
in keeping with the mainstream of the Western tradition (maybe because
Steiner wasn't a professional musician?). Eurythmy is a limited
style, but dance gets such short shrift in most schools that I can
excuse that. It's in the visual arts that the Steiner curriculum
seems most limited, and that because Steiner's aesthetic and
technological preferences have been amplified into commandments in the
course of deifying the guy! --lee
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:29:21 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA14161; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:02:27 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA09299; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:22:54 -0700
Message-Id: <199606171822.LAA09299 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Ant/WE Penetration of Public Schools?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:16:43 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
> Recently I happened to notice the following phrase in a Government textbook
> my son brought home from the public high school he attends: "We hold these
> truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
A lovely message throughout, Rigby! "In God We Trust"? "One nation,
under God"? U.S. public proclamations are shot through with the
dubious assumption of theism; worse, of the direct intervention of a
personal God (something that many Christian theologians have
abandoned). Like anything in our written Constitution, separation of
government and religion will be brashly ignored if those in power so
will it. Our protection is only that we can largely determine who
gets to power. Similar democracy, and the elimination of the
"Foundation Year" religious-indoctrination requirement, would do much
for Waldorf schools. Cheers, --lee
From ??? ??? Tue Jun 18 00:30:12 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA24969; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:54:41 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA27862; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:39:53 -0700
Message-Id: <199606172239.PAA27862 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: "Renewal" notes 4
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:38:07 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
DanD,
Thank you for a great set of quotes. What a perfect example of falsifying
the system of educational control and school management democracy by
changing a few labels around: Disenfranchise the parents; call the
College/Faculty the "Board"....
You know where this goes from here, of course.... Once you start to play
with the system, you have to continue to tap dance around the facts.... So
when the State agency asks about the makeup of the Board, What will a good
WEE have to do? Look earnest and say that "the Board is made up of teachers
and parents to reflect the true nature of the Waldorf community." After all,
some of the teachers ARE parents, aren't they? Granted, parents who are part
of the elite ruling group; parents who get their WE for free on the backs of
other parents, but hey, if no one asks any more questions, it's great. And
after all, such an arrangement DOES reflect the "true nature of the Waldorf
community".
... And if someone in government digs deeper and is disapproving, look
surprised at the "misunderstanding" and drag your heals making changes....
Jesus, however pure of heart, was no sucker for a sham of piety or honesty,
and once observed that he who is faithful in little things is faithful also
in great things... and that the reverse was also true. (Luke 16:10) I guess
Steiner's followers don't need Luke's gospel now that they have the Gospel
according to Saint Rudolf.
>I have never heard
>or read anywhere that Rudolf Steiner included a Board as one of the
>necessary governing organs in a Waldorf school. This organizational element
>has been imposed on American and Canadian Waldorf schools by governmental
>decree. It is my experience that the need to come to terms with this
>"foreign element" within the school organism often has created unnecessary
>burdens and tensions for the faculty of our schools."
>
>Get rid of that "foreign element," democracy. Let those who know what is
>best for us make all the decisions.
>
>***
>"But why couldn't a school simply be incorporated so that the College (or,
>perhaps, the faculty if no College has yet been formed) is legally
>designated as the Board? The College Board or Faculty Board could then take
>charge of supervising and maintaining an overview of administrative
>functions of the school. There could be a nonlegal, volunteer "Advisory
>Board"
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 19 01:21:31 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA08109; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:35:12 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA16870; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:31:07 -0700
Message-Id: <199606180731.AAA16870 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: The Application of Guru Tricks in Waldorf Education
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:31:34 -0600
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Welcome back, Rigby; you said,
>In closing my note to you, Dan Dugan, awhile back, titled "Guru Tricks," I
>said I would next take up the theme that I see I in much of your writing;
>namely, the image of Waldorf education as involving a conspiracy to impose
>anthroposophy (which you regard as a form of religion) on the students in
>Waldorf schools, if only subliminally. Now is the time.
Conspiracy is a good word for it, isn't it? Spirits united.
>In a discussion like this one, I try to speak out of my own direct
>experience, to the extent possible. So let me first recap my experience with
>Waldorf education: My son was in three different Waldorf Schools
>(Summerfield, Washington D.C. and Sacramento) from K-10 (then transferred to
>Sacramento High School, in order to play more competitive basketball); my
>wife was administrator of a Waldorf pre-school/kindergarten, member of the
>Board of Trustees of the Sacramento Waldorf School (SWS), and is now a staff
>member at Rudolf Steiner College; I have been a member and officer
>(Treasurer, President) of the SWS Board and have completed the Foundation
>Year (weekend program) at the College.
>
>My first reaction to the conspiracy theory is amusement. Waldorf schools are
>hard put to carry out basic organizational functions, such as financial and
>personnel management, let alone having the time, energy and skill to carry
>out a conspiracy of the subtlety implied in your statements.
Myself, I use the words "missionary activity" to describe the whole Waldorf
school gestalt.
>I suppose an
>avid proponent of the conspiracy theory might say that this administrative
>struggle is itself part of the smokescreen, behind which there lurks a cabal
>of high priests and priestesses who are cleverly manipulating the minds of
>faculty, staff, students and parents. If so, they have me completely fooled
>as well--I have yet to find any trace of such a group.
I wouldn't use such colorful words, but I do think you have it generally
right there. I think Waldorf teacher training does turn out ministers of
Anthroposophy, who promulgate the belief system and perform the prescribed
rituals, such as teaching the curriculum. You don't see it because you ARE
it.
>More importantly, I have yet to find any trace of intent among Waldorf
>educators, including those at Rudolf Steiner College, to use Waldorf schools
>to create incipient anthroposophists.
"The hope for the future lies in bringing new powers of imagination into
our Western thinking so that human thought can once again testify to a
world of higher realities which permeate our everyday living. To serve
towards this end is perhaps the highest endeavour of Waldorf education-to
lead through education towards the new enlightenment which all the best
endeavours of our day, in art, in science, in religion, are seeking."
[Edmunds, 1987, p. 33]
"The challenge for the modern human being is to awaken these faculties.
This awakening is not an easy process, but Steiner gives exercises and
indications for helping to bring it about in a healthy manner. The path is
made easier if the faculties of thinking have been alowed to mature in such
a way that fantasy and imagination ripen in their own time, and independent
thinking filled with idealism grows in the adolescent. All of this, when
coupled with a sense of wonder, opens doors to new ways of thinking. A
renewal in thinking becomes possible and, through it, a renewal of all
other spheres of life." [Almon, 1992]
"[O]ne must first understand the purpose of the entire curriculum. Rudolf
Steiner hoped that Waldorf schools would serve as centers for the
reawakening of spiritual life. The curriculum and pedagogy would serve as
practical tools for this task by directly countering the hardening and
narrowing forces of materialism in modern life." [Pittis, 1995, p. 14]
>I don't even know of a
>commonly-accepted definition of "anthroposophist." I joined the
>Anthroposophical Society in America a few months ago, and while I was invited
>to contribute a hefty membership fee I was not asked to subscribe to any
>particular set of beliefs. No secret handshake, no decoder ring.
The Bay Area newsletter reminds students of the First Class that they must
bring their blue membership cards to the sessions.
Here is a published definition:
"The Anthroposophical Society in America is the national organ of the
General Anthroposophical Society, founded by Rudolf Steiner in 1923 as 'an
association of people who would foster the life of the soul, both in the
individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the
spiritual world.'" [1993 brochure, p. 29]
>What is clear is that the Waldorf approach to education is based on Steiner's
>insights about the nature of the human being; that those insights do include
>a spiritual dimension; and that those insights are couched in terms not used
>in other, more common, educational approaches.
Steiner had a lot of ideas, some good some bad. Once you start calling them
"insights," you've ditched rationality for cult devotion.
I first encountered the
>Waldorf four-temperament classification scheme during the kindergarten
>application interview for our son. I recognized the labels as archaic, but
>also decided that the fact of teachers paying close attention to the
>individuality of each student was more important than the classification
>tools used to help organize that attention, unless and until experience
>showed otherwise.
You may be right, but how would we know? The classification scheme could do
damage that undoes the benefit of paying more attention.
>Over time I learned more about the philosophy underlying Waldorf education.
> I came to realize that when a Waldorf teacher looks at a child, he or she
>sees a spiritual entity in the process of becoming a human being, with
>specific intentions for this lifetime. I think that even if I were a
>non-believer relative to spirituality I would prefer such a teacher for my
>child, since this perspective calls for the child to be treated with great
>respect and sensitivity. Pedagogical methods and content should always be
>subject to review and improvement, in Waldorf or any other educational
>stream, but for me this view of the nature of the child is the foundation
>stone for Waldorf education.
The child development theory is the foundation stone, and also a millstone
tied around its neck that keeps it sunk deep in a dark pool of
superstition.
>(After writing the above paragraph I came across a posting--on the WE list, I
>believe--in which the writer identified himself as an atheist and his wife as
>an agnostic, and described his comfort with having a child in a Waldorf
>School because of its secular approach to spirituality. Interesting
>semantics, don't you think?)
They haven't read enough Steiner.
>In your posting to me of April 22 you confirmed my understanding of your
>objection to Waldorf schools in these words: "Of course most Waldorf
>students don't become explicit Anthroposophists; as teenagers they will
>likely be making fun of the Anthropops in their own teenage society. I
>suspect that while intellectually rejecting the details they cannot have
>avoided internalizing a lot of the world-view. The implicit indoctrination
>is unethical because most Waldorf parents don't subscribe to the
>Anthroposophical world-view."
>
>In my experience, there actually is quite a spectrum of subscribing to the
>Anthroposophical world-view among Waldorf _teachers_. I have seen no
>evidence that the content of the Anthroposophical world-view is taught in the
>classroom (and would object if I did find such evidence). There is a certain
>amount of it "in the air" around a school--such as reference to the four
>temperaments--but compared to the full content of Steiner's teachings it is
>relatively minor, treated casually and definitely not promulgated as part of
>a world-view.
Yes, the teachers have varying understandings and committments. But those
who join the college of teachers are pledged to a community of belief. Your
statement about the lack of Anthroposophy is the schools is just not so.
Everything that happens in a Waldorf school has something to do with the
Anthroposophical world view, if the teachers are doing their job.
>What is likely to be internalized, I believe, is sensitivity to visual art,
>music, and movement. In addition, I believe the requirement for students to
>produce their main lesson books leads them to internalize an appreciation for
>the subject that goes beyond facts and formulas, and helps them learn to
>learn. All good effects, as far as I am concerned.
I agree.
>You seem to believe that even these subtle influences constitute "implicit
>indoctrination," setting up students to succumb to anthroposophy later in
>life. That is highly conjectural, to say the least. What is most
>interesting to me is that this attitude makes you as much a true believer in
>the invisible effects of Waldorf education as is any anthroposophist.
Not really. I think the process imparts a lot of the Anthroposophical world
view, without creating explicit Anthroposophists. I view this as a social
ill. By the intentional neglect of the development of rational thinking,
and the intentional substitution of magical thinking, the graduates are
fodder for any kind of quackery or mystical cult that gets ahold of them,
and what kind of leaders have they been prepared to choose?
>I do agree that information about the philosophical underpinnings of Waldorf
>education should be freely available to all parents. In my experience the WE
>movement has not done this well. One of my hopes is that the actions of you
>and other critics will stimulate improvement in this area.
Since you say above that you have "seen no evidence that the content of the
Anthroposophical world-view is taught in the classroom," and I see plenty,
I imagine our ideas of what an appropriate disclosure might be will be very
different.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 19 01:24:03 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA17385; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:37:16 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA24962; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:33:15 -0700
Message-Id: <199606182233.PAA24962 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: "Renewal" Notes 4 -- Board/College Relationship
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 18:33:28 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Dugan --
In your posting of June 17 you quoted, and commented upon, a David Adams
article in "Renewal", proposing that within a Waldorf school the College of
Teachers should have full decision-making authority over all areas of school
life, with the Board of Trustees in a subservient role, if existing at all.
Based on my experience as member, Treasurer and President of the Board of
Trustees of the Sacramento Waldorf School (SWS), I disagree with Adams.
Wholeheartedly.
To begin with specifics related to SWS itself, the legal body of the school
is the Sacramento Waldorf School Association, Incorporated, formed pursuant
to California's nonprofit public benefit corporation law. When I became
President of the Board it was clear to me, and I made my position clear to
others, that there was no question that this legal form placed ultimate
responsibility with the Board for all matters related to financial management
and compliance with employment laws; and compliance with all other laws and
regulations. And this form of organization entitles the school to be exempt
from income taxes and permits donors to take tax deductions for their
contributions, which I take to be tied to public accountability for use of
funds. From a legal standpoint, the Board is responsible for the school,
regardless of what anybody believes Steiner said or inferred.
Due to the legal basis of SWS, there must be a majority of Board members who
do not have a financial interest in the school (i.e.: are not employees,
contractors, nor have relatives who are employees or contractors). This
obviously is a provision of law designed to protect the supporters of a
"nonprofit public benefit corporation" from being ripped off by its financial
beneficiaries (also known as the Dan Saykaly syndrome). This means that
members of the administration or faculty, including the College of Teachers,
cannot control votes on the Board. In our case, the nine-member Board
comprises three faculty representatives appointed by the College, two members
elected by parents and four members elected by the Board itself.
David Adams may consider this to be an illustration of his point that "This
organizational element has been imposed on American and Canadian Waldorf
schools by governmental decree." There is a tinge of paranoia
here--obviously, the laws were not targeted at Waldorf schools per se--but
more importantly there seems to be a failure to recognize that the schools
are taking advantage of our society's special provisions for nonprofit
institutions and that they have concomitant accountability. Steiner called
for an entirely different societal structure in his ideas of a three-fold
social organism, but until that occurs the schools should learn how best to
integrate themselves with the social order in which they do exist.
Our Board's assertion of its responsibility and authority did not create a
power struggle at SWS, nor need it do so in any school. This is because it
was coupled with a deep respect for the challenges being faced by the College
of Teachers, and an understanding that their functions, not those of the
Board, were the reason for the existence of the school. This is how I put it
in a message of greeting to new Board members:
"In a conventional perspective, the Board holds all of the reins of power in
the school. Yet the Board as such does not have the power to perform in even
the smallest way the central mission of the school--it cannot teach one
lesson to one student. The role of the Board, then, is to distribute its
power effectively to those who are in fact taking responsibility for the
mission of educating the children.
"In part, that empowerment takes the form of assuring needed facilities and
operating funds. It also means delegation of responsibility and along with
that delegation the establishment of accountability, so that the Board, the
school community and the larger community can be assured that the school is
functioning properly. In my opinion, when all is well with the school the
work of the Board should be nearly invisible. Board meetings should be
rather boring, since the essential activities of the school are taking place
elsewhere."
It is in this perspective that I would agree with Adams' statement that the
Board should be subservient--it should understand its role to be that of a
servant to the College, just as the College should understand its role to be
that of servant to the student-teacher relationship. But from a legal
perspective the Board cannot be absolved of its responsibility for
essentially all school activities.
One final point, related to flow form toilets. (For those who missed Dan's
posting, he said "We're having the Anthroposophical toilets installed next
week, flow forms, you know" in response to David Adam's comment about
"striving to incorporate the insights of Anthroposophy into every aspect of
school life.")
Dan, I must congratulate you on discovering one of the most carefully hidden
secrets of the Anthro conspiracy. For flush toilets _are_ a type of flow
form, as is evident from the vortex they induce. We Anthros will work our
subtle indoctrination through whatever orifice presents itself. I point this
out so that you and other doubters can avoid these insidious facilities in
the future; or at least use them in full consciousness of their occult
influence.
Best regards,
Rigby Leighton
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 19 01:24:39 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA03712; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:53:13 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id QAA29440; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:44:21 -0700
Message-Id: <199606182344.QAA29440 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: "Renewal" notes 3: consensus
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 18:35:26 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Dugan --
In a June 15 posting you quoted excerpts from a Norman Davidson article in
"Renewal," regarding decision by consensus. Your concluding
characterization--"A system which insists upon unanimity, achieved by
induction of guilt feelings"--is apt, considering Davidson's statement that
if it doesn't work the fault must lie within the individual. But I believe
Davidson's statement is incorrect, leading to confusion about what decision
by consensus is all about.
I gather that decision by consensus is being recognized as a legitimate
decision-making method, with benefits that outweigh the costs if it is
undertaken in the proper way. A few months ago the College of Teachers at
the Sacramento Waldorf School was considering use of an outside consultant (a
non-Anthro) to teach them techniques of decision-making by consensus. That
there is such a consultant tells me that there are groups outside of Waldorf
Schools who use this method.
But let me give you an alternative interpretation of the reason for the
collegial approach (that is, decision-making as colleagues), from deep within
the anthroposophical movement. The following paragraph may be found in "An
Economic Testament In Relation to the Work of Rudolf Steiner" by Christopher
Houghton Budd, page 39ff. In this case he is talking about economic
decision-making, but the points are applicable to any decision-making
content:
"There is also much that is dubious about our economic decision-making. A
meeting that drags on because a financial problem is intractable or because
the appropriate expertise is absent, is not a measure of the importance or
rightness of the collegiate method. Insofar as the collegiate approach was
advocated and exemplified by Rudolf Steiner in the refounding of the
Anthroposophical Society, can inefficacy really be regarded as any part of
his concept--either spiritually or economically? Would Rudolf Steiner have
commended to us, let alone himself have trod, an inefficacious path? On the
contrary, for him the college is synonymous with efficacy, but it presupposes
the basing of its decisions on insights, not on group dynamics. No
insight--no efficacy. The reason for the college--that is, a collection of
concrete individuals, not a group--is precisely that thereby the lone
individual, in concert with other lone individuals, can create a vessel for,
and thus himself perceive, ideas of a higher order."
In short, the premise of consensus decision-making, as I understand it, is
that there does exist an idea that all will recognize as providing the
appropriate solution to the problem at hand. The goal of the process is to
allow that idea to surface, through contributions of one or more members of
group. The principal barriers to achieving this goal, I believe, are (1)
most of us are unskilled in the process, and (2) it takes a lot of
"homework", prior to meeting time, on the part of each individual.
I do not believe that consensus decision-making is essential for all
decision-making bodies within the context of anthroposophical institutions.
As President of the Board of Trustees of the Sacramento Waldorf School I did
not attempt to achieve consensus on every issue. I did make an attempt to
see that all ideas on an issue were surfaced and given due regard. And in
fact the great majority of votes were unanimous. Only once in more than two
years did I as chair cast a vote to decide an issue, and that I did without
qualm and without adverse reaction from the group.
In any case, you are quite right that guilt should have no role to play in a
consensus decision-making process. It is difficult enough without
introducing this pitfall.
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 19 01:23:59 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA13661; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:31:34 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA25308; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:38:04 -0700
Message-Id: <199606182238.PAA25308 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: WE Fattening
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 18:38:34 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Saykaly --
Your posting of June 16 had a lot to say on the "WE Fattening" theme. I must
say that the image of connecting WE institutions with economic fat is about
as oxymoronic a concept as I have encountered recently. You have had apt
responses already on most of your points; I will add a couple more:
1. Sabbaticals. In many schools--in particular, the Sacramento Waldorf
School (SWS), where I am Treasurer--the sabbatical is not paid. Health care
coverage and the employment-related tuition benefit are continued through the
sabbatical year, but salary is not. This is unfortunate, in the opinion of
the Board of Trustees, because it interferes with one of the purposes of the
sabbatical, which is to give the teacher opportunity for continuing
education. We just don't think we can afford it.
2. Employment-related tuition benefit. This is a legitimate pre-tax benefit
under IRS rules, whether or not you believe it should be. At SWS it
typically represents an offset of about 10% of the gross tuition--the amount
of tuition revenue the school would receive if full tuition were paid for all
students. Incidentally, another 10% of offset is represented by financial
aid and sibling discounts.
I expect that many Waldorf schools do not do a good job of disclosing
financial matters to their public. If you have a conspiracy mentality about
WE you will tend to see this as a cover-up. In my judgment, it is more
likely to be simply a matter of lack of skill; and an understandable one,
considering that the schools are usually carried by enthusiasts who have
little experience in financial matters. The unfortunate result is an
opportunity for wild speculation about what is actually going on with
finances, as exemplified in your June 16 posting.
When I became Treasurer at SWS, my first priority was to make the financial
transactions of the school highly visible. (There was already an excellent
accounting and financial management process in place, to the credit of my
predecessor and the Administrators.) The first year was spent in answering
any and all financial questions raised by members of the school community,
only stopping short of disclosing individual salaries. Since then the
questions have been few and far between, even though we continue to have
significant financial issues.
Most of your June 16 posting is far off the mark, in my opinion, but you are
onto something in noting the awkward relationship between WE and money. One
economist within the anthroposophical movement has described it as a
"somewhat schizophrenic relation to economic life -- a general disdain
coupled to a keenness to be given money." My intention to help out in this
area is a primary reason for my own involvement in the anthroposophical
movement.
Best regards,
Rigby Leighton
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 19 01:25:36 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA01438; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:30:18 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA17556; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 22:05:45 -0700
Message-Id: <199606190505.WAA17556 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: "Renewal" notes 4
Date: 19 Jun 96 00:19:28 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan D,
I'm a little perplexed about the motivation behind your critique of David
Adams's _Renewal_ article.
You've been around Waldorf schools enough to know that Adams is
describing the way he thinks things ought to be, not the way they
are.
You've been reading _Renewal_ enough to know that it is encouraging
discussion and debate about various issues in the Waldorf movement, and
that the publication of Adams's article isn't even an editorial endorsement
of his position, much less some sort of position statement in the name
of Waldorf Education.
So, what is your rationale for promulgating his article in this forum?
My cynical side says, "Dan will be quoting Adams at his next atheists club
meeting and saying, 'This is what those Waldorf Ed people think'"; but
really, I don't think you would resort to that sort of cheap trick. But
what is your point, then?
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Wed Jun 19 01:25:26 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA01106; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:29:48 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA17405; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 22:04:22 -0700
Message-Id: <199606190504.WAA17405 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: 19 Jun 96 01:02:45 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Greetings.
Dan Saykaly purports to answer "a few questions" that will resolve the
question, "does WE fatten on deception?" Here are a few comments on
some of his particular assertions.
> Does WE charge as much or more than other private schools? There has
> been a
> good deal of discussion about this on the WE internet list, and the
> consensus is that it usually does.
Dan's recollection here is simply wrong. There was no such consensus.
I don't even recall a contention that "it usually does".
I've never seen any indications that Waldorf schools generally command
a tuition premium relative to other independent schools. Such information
as I do have would suggest the contrary. I think it's probably indicative
that the only grounds Dan adduces for this claim is a misremembered
discussion from the Waldorf list.
> If WE schools are poor it is because of the following:
>
> 1 Group-based management incompetence.
> It is said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Similarly,
> Waldorf poverty is often the result of management by a College of
> Teachers
> with a committee-like decisional process, granola management skills or
> worse, and illogical (read "occult") priorities.
Note that Dan has no grounds at all for this flat assertion.
> 2 Tuition discounts to profs. and other people ("Ant. people")
> In small schools in which many teachers have children, all the free
> tuition
> provided to the profs' kids is a lot of lost revenue.
I would be most interested to be pointed to *any* independent school
that doesn't offer tuition remission as a fundamental benefit. I've
certainly never heard of one. (For obvious reasons. Can you imagine
trying to hire a teacher, and saying, "Well, no, you probably won't be
able to afford to send your own children to the school we're inviting
you to teach in, but that's ok -- there's a fine public school just down
the road"?) In fact, not only is this universal in private schools: it
isn't even particularly uncommon in public schools.
> And the other people
> who get tuition reductions make the cashflow situation worse. Is this
> tuition reduction proof of some noble generosity of soul on the part of
> WE?
> On the contrary. The people who get discounts are often co-religionists
> (anthroposophists) and Ant. fellow travellers getting a free ride at the
> expense of the "cattle", the none-Ant. parents.
This is not only nonsense: it is profoundly offensive nonsense. It is so
far divorced from reality as to be mind-numbing.
> What about the teachers? Should they get such reductions ...
> A teacher with 3 kids, who gets free education for all 3 kids
> avoids paying $15000.00 per year of tuition.
As I noted above, this simply ignores the universals of independent
school benefits. Furthermore, it's seriously misleading. At a typical
Waldorf school, no parent earning the same salary as a teacher in the
school would be asked to pay anything remotely like full tuition. If
you value that tuition remission benefit at what the same teacher would
have been asked to pay if he or she had been an ordinary parent, it's
probably worth $5K-$7K.
Also, note that, while free tuition for your children is nice, it doesn't
put groceries on the table. It isn't any easier to raise a family on
$30K/year plus tuition remission than it is on $30K/year without
tuition remission.
>This benefit is considered part of the benefit package, and benefits
> are normally taxable, although there is a real question as to whether
> WE profs always declare this benefit. How do you think the IRS would
> interpret such benefits - as taxable or nontaxable?
Oh, there's no question about that. The IRS explicitly recognizes tuition
remission to school employees as a legitimate non-taxable benefit.
> (Another cash drain on WE schools is the practice of giving teachers
> paid sabbatical years every 8 years, also paid for by "ordinary parents".
> These sabbaticals represent a cash bonus to teachers, paid by ordinary
> parents.
Yet another benefit which is common, not only in independent schools,
but also in public schools. Why does Dan expect Waldorf schools to
deny benefits to their employees which are standard throughout
education? (By the way, in our school, sabbaticals represent maybe
1-2% of the budget -- scarcely a major cash drain.)
> Suddenly $22000- $33000.00 doesn't seem so bad....)
We compared our salaries to public schools in our immediate area.
(Not that public school teacher salaries in New Hampshire are anything
to boast about.) If you appraise the tuition remission benefit at its
full cash value (which seriously over-values it, as I noted above, but
we'll let that pass), then we're pretty comparable -- a little better
than some, worse than others. Of course, as soon as you start looking
at non-salary benefits (insurance, retirement, etc.), the illusion of
parity evaporates immediately.
> 3 School Contributions to "WE Associations".
> How much of the tuition from WE schools gets handed over to WE and
> Ant.
> organizations and activities? I have seen up to 40% of children's tuition
> redirected to a "Waldorf Association" that was distinct from the WE
> school
> charging the tuition. Indeed, separate cheques were required for the
> school
> and for the Association. In this way WE schools drain themselves of
> funds to
> advance the causes of Ant. and WE, fattening their causes' pockets while
> directing money away from the school children presently enrolled.
> Parents
> should know that part of the tuition they pay does not go directly
> toward
> the education of students presently enrolled.
Like others who have responded to this point, I honestly have no idea
what Dan is talking about. I do know how much we pay to "advance
the cause of Waldorf Education" -- about $20 per student in AWSNA
dues -- probably about enough to cover the cost of the _Renewal_
subscription each parent gets as part of the deal.
> 4 Low enrollment.
I.e., high teacher-student ratios -- something Dan would probably be
praising if he weren't writing about Waldorf schools.
In summary,
> Where does the money go? As we have seen, bad management, low-
> paying and no-paying students, small classes due to high student
> turnover, and payments to "WE Associations" suck up a lot of funding
> and leave the regular parents, the "cattle", to make up the difference.
I'd say Dan is batting 0 for 4.
Why are Waldorf schools poor?
How about, "Waldorf schools are poor because poverty is the lot of
independent schools in this country, regardless of their ideological
affiliations -- at least those without major outside sponsorship or
substantial endowments."?
How about, "Waldorf schools do their best to make themselves as accessible
as possible to people of limited financial means, while
doing their best to allow a decent living to their employees, and in
the inevitable nature of all such balancing acts, don't really succeed
at either very well."?
So who is it that really profits from Waldorf education? Certainly not
the teachers and other school employees, whose compensation is fair,
at best. Definitely not some bloated global anthroposophical plutocracy.
No, the only real financial beneficiary of Waldorf education is ... the
taxpayer.
The taxpayer? Yes, the taxpayer. A Waldorf school with 200 students
is directly relieving the public schools in its area of the financial
reponsibility of educating those students -- probably a million dollars
or so that shows up directly in the pockets of the taxpayers, who haven't
had to lift a finger for that benefit.
> Exploiting WE "Poverty"
> =======================
> The fact that WE is often broke does not disprove ...
It certainly disproves the assertion that I had challenged, and that
Dan is apparently trying to bolster here: that Waldorf education is
fattening someone's -- anyone's -- pockets.
> In fact, this much-bewailed poverty is a useful fund raising
> weapon ("Help us!"). This makes it all the more likely that WE schools
> will
> continue to complain of their limited funds. Poverty can be smart
> business.
So, if Waldorf schools weren't poor, they would be fattening their
pockets; but since they are poor, it's just a useful strategem for
getting even more money. I think this is what is called an unfalsifiable
hypothesis.
> Just ask the fundamentalist preachers who constantly beg for
> money....and get it.
So the teacher who is earning $25K/year is equated with the
televangelist who's bringing in a million or two from his television
program. Cute.
> WE's Fattening on Deception: the Big Picture
> ============================================
> Now let us look at the big picture: WE as a whole.
>
> Does Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education fatten globally from this
> deception? Consider:
Dan's logic here -- especially his "let's assume that Waldorf schools give
just 15% of their revenues to the world anthroposophical cause" -- has
no apparent connection with reality. For example, when AWSNA changed
its dues formula a few years ago, it was a matter of some debate in our
finance committee whether it was reasonable of them to ask us to
increase our contribution to something less than half of one percent
of our budget.
Those two-orders-of-magnitude errors will get you every time.
> No matter how sincerely WE supporters believe in the truth of their
> mission,
> the deception in which they participate is contemptible.
For someone with his casual attitude towards facts and his willingness
to slander others, Dan seems to be awfully loose with the word
"contemptible".
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 16:58:51 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA28912; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:24:00 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA12568; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:19:37 -0700
Message-Id: <199606210519.WAA12568 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Separation of Church and State
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:20:02 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Dugan --
I am still working my way toward a response to the primary theme of your Free
Inquiry article--that public funding of Waldorf-inspired charter schools
violates the principle of separation of church and state, as set forth in the
Constitution, because (you believe) Waldorf methods promulgate anthroposophy,
which (you believe) is a religion. In order to get a better understanding of
your position, I would pose for your comment a hypothetical alternative to
the existing relationships among state, church and education in the U.S.,
setting aside for the moment of whether Waldorf schools are essentially
religious institutions.
The Constitution itself doesn't have a great deal to say about the
church/state separation issue. The relevant phrase in the First Amendment is
simply "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." I gather that the Lemon v.
Kurtzman case cited in your article centered on the use of tax funds to
support sectarian schools; and, as represented in your article, the finding
was that no government action (not limited now to law-making by Congress, as
the Constitution states) should support religion.
(By the way, if you could recommend a good reference or two on this issue, I
would appreciate it.)
Churches and church-supported schools do have a form of tax subsidy, in the
sense that contributions to them may be taken as deductions from taxable
income. I assume there are those who oppose even this form of interaction
between church and state, but evidently that opinion has not prevailed in
court.
Steiner was also a proponent of the separation of church and state, as you
undoubtedly know. He put it even more broadly, asserting that the "spiritual
sphere" or "cultural sphere"--by which he meant religion, education, the
arts, and certain elements of the judiciary--and "rights sphere"--by which he
meant a considerably attenuated version of what we now have as the
state--should be autonomous relative to one another. The third leg of his
social theory should appeal to the most conservative Republican: the
"economic sphere" should be also be autonomous relative to the other two.
Autonomy does not preclude inter-relationships, of course; and, in
particular, he proposed that the economic sphere fund the spiritual/cultural
sphere. This funding would have no strings attached, in terms of uses of the
money.
Suppose education--all education, not just special interest schools--were
funded through pre-tax contributions from income. This might be a two-tier
arrangement. Tier one would be a mandatory minimum amount going into a
general trust fund, to be distributed to all schools on a per-student basis.
The second tier would be a supplementary amount of size elected by the
employee (perhaps with a maximum) and directed to the school of the
employee's choice.
Communities of parents would be permitted to form schools based on any of a
wide range of educational philosophies, whether or not based in religion.
Full disclosure of that philosophy would be mandatory, to assure informed
choice by parents. Schools would be publicly accountable primarily in terms
of the postgraduate activities of their students. They would also be subject
to periodic accreditation review, which (as accreditation now does) would
look primarily at each school's compliance with its own stated mission, goals
and objectives.
Funding through pre-tax contributions should pass the "Lemon" test, since
such contributions are now recognized as legitimate deductions. The funding
mechanism would not favor any particular educational or religious approach,
nor sectarian schools generally. Schools would compete for students and
informed consumer choice would drive the educational "market" to an optimum
balance between price and quality.
What do you think?
-- Rigby
(P.S. and as a total digression: You probably have noticed with interest
what a spell-checker recommends when it encounters personal names. Mine just
suggested "dudgeon" as a substitute for "Dugan." Hmmm.)
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 16:58:57 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA00602; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:26:56 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA13175; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:21:51 -0700
Message-Id: <199606210521.WAA13175 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: "Renewal" Notes 3: Consensus
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:22:19 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
In his posting of June 15 on this subject, Dan Dugan presented excerpts from
an article in the latest "Renewal" by Norman Davidson, which is titled
"Teacher-to-Teacher Relationships in the Waldorf School." I commented on
this in a June 18 posting, pretty much in agreement with the critique stated
(and implied) by Dan's own comments. I have since read the complete article
and would like to offer a few more comments.
In quoting Davidson, Dan substituted "[Waldorf system]" for a phrase in the
original. The phrase was "the vehicle," and it referred to an analogy used
by Davidson to introduce his theme. The analogy was that of a factory recall
of an automobile, to replace a faulty part. The requirement for consensus
decision-making was analogized with "faulty part," and the factory recall
element of the analogy was (more or less) represented in the statement "Of
course, we can send the Waldorf vehicle part back to the factory and ask for
a new social form outwardly . . ." That statement was a straw man, as shown
in the next statement, which was quoted by Dan: ". . . the problem is really
caused by ourselves and not the vehicle. . ."
Dan's substitution was completely fair and understandable to avoid going into
explanation of the analogy, as I have just done. And my reading of the
complete article doesn't change the opinions I offered based on Dan's
excerpts. But if I were in a collegial meeting with Norman Davidson, I would
use his analogy to make my counterpoints. For example, I would point out
that few of us try to fix our own automobiles, but instead rely on experts in
that area. I might note that while the fundamentals of automobile design
have not changed since the 1920's, essential details certainly have. And so
forth. I would try to work from his ideas to bring in other ideas that I
believe are also necessary for a balanced viewpoint on the topic.
Basically, Davidson is encouraging Waldorf teachers to recognize that
consensus decision-making requires each individual to develop the capacity
described in the following quotation from Steiner (included in his article):
"Instead of taking an interest merely in my own way of thinking, and in what
I consider right, I must develop a selfless interest in every opinion I
encounter, however strongly I may hold it to be mistaken."
I view this as an appropriate aphorism for anybody who claims to be a free
thinker. (Yes, I know, Dan D, its a guru trick if Steiner said it.) It
doesn't imply that you are supposed to end up in agreement with every opinion
you encounter. The implication is that if two opponents are able to do this
in a context where there is mutual interest in resolving conflicting
opinions, there is a good chance that they will find common ground. One of
the keys, of course, is that there be that mutual interest.
Something that Dan did not quote from Davidson is the following: "The
Waldorf school pioneered this art . . .", where "art" refers again to
consensus decision-making. I'm not sure this is true; for example, I believe
consensus decision-making has always been highly valued by Quakers. In the
final paragraph, Davidson says that if Waldorf schools learn to practice this
art, the "vehicle part" will not need to be sent back to "the factory"
(whatever that might mean), nor would they need to use "an external mechanic
employed from another firm. . ." These statements, and the general
impression of consensus decision-making being the burden of WE, betrays a
certain parochialism. WE would be well-advised to look to other resources,
such as the theory and practices that have evolved within "the new business
paradigm."
Following is a quote from Kazimierz Gozdz, "Building Community as a
Leadership Discipline," a chapter in the book "The New Paradigm in Business."
Gozdz describes Scott Peck's fourth stage of community-building as follows:
"Having emptied itself of its mental models, the group is available for
authentic communication. Characterized by flow of Spirit [ :-o ],
differences are embraced. A context for the underlying inter-connectedness
in the diversity becomes apparent. In this safe place, creativity emerges.
The group as a whole makes decisions co-creatively, learns as an entity, and
innovates as a whole." Other presentations in the book touch on the same
theme, although not necessarily with reference to "spirit."
I think this is what Steiner had in mind. In general, I would encourage my
more Steiner-centered friends within anthroposophy to the viewpoint that if
there is fundamental truth behind his teachings that truth will be trying to
break through everywhere, "like shining from shook foil." I believe they
should view themselves as co-creators of a new way, along with many others
who have no knowledge of--and may not need to know about--Steiner's
teachings.
In a collegial setting I don't believe Norman Davidson and I would have
difficulty in coming to common ground. His basic theme is correct, in my
opinion, but I it needs to be put in the larger context indicated by my
comments here and in my prior posting on the topic. (And I see by his bio in
"Renewal" that he is English, and thus likely to be suitably polite about any
residual disagreement.) We could adhere to the Steiner aphorism quoted above
(or, if you prefer, to the Peck aphorism also described above) without much
problem. For a College of Teachers trying to decide whether to fire a
non-performing faculty member (yes, they do face up to that issue from time
to time) the challenge would be considerably greater, but still surmountable.
Finally, I would note that the Waldorf critics list is not a collegial
setting, in my experience, not an environment in which community-building is
an objective. (It does offer ample opportunity for practice of Steiner's
"equanimity," for those who care about it.) I don't suggest that it should
be. I don't expect to change the mind of anybody here nor to be acknowledged
as winning any arguments (nor to acknowledge losing any, although as a
selfless free thinker I would certainly do so in the unlikely event it
happened :-). The interchange here helps expand and strengthen my own
thinking, in preparation for other settings in which it will be important to
reach agreement, and that is a sufficient purpose for my participation. But
this is not a setting in which the consensus-building theme of Davidson can
be investigated experientially; it can only be critiqued rhetorically. That
will be true of most, if not all, of what we talk about here.
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 16:59:05 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA00794; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:27:18 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA13682; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:23:50 -0700
Message-Id: <199606210523.WAA13682 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Conspiracy
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:23:30 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
In a recent posting I suggested that in much of Dan Dugan's writing I saw the
image of Waldorf education "involving a conspiracy to impose anthroposophy. .
." Dan commented, "Conspiracy is a good word for it, isn't it? Spirits
united." Dan obviously has me pegged as a word-mongerer and I can't help but
respond.
A quick trip to the dictionary confirmed my recollection that the
etymological roots of "conspiracy" actually carry the meaning "to breathe
together." For example, we see the "spire" again in "respiration." "To
breathe together" does a nice job of supporting the contemporary connotation
of a conspiracy, presenting the image of people huddled together in secret
conversation.
Dan was not far afield, however, because "spirit" is also derived from the
root meaning "to breathe." This reflects the ancient identification of
spirit with breath, and also can be seen in the forms of meditation that use
breathing patterns. I haven't noticed this form of meditation practiced or
advocated among anthroposophists, but eurythmy is often characterized as a
type of whole-body "breathing."
My own experience with eurythmy, in Foundation Year training, confirmed the
idea that it has much the same effect as breath-related meditation. I was in
the weekend program, and eurythmy was the first class on Friday evening.
Coming out of the usual busy-ness and stresses of the work week, I found it
to be centering, calming, and to a surprising degree, energizing. And this
with a body stiffened by five decades of conventional movement (and a mind
that initially took the whole thing as somewhat foolish).
A few years ago the SWS boys varsity basketball team (which incidentally has
been _very_ competitive for many years) felt as they started their season
that they weren't really in synch. The players asked for eurythmy and the
school's eurythmist designed a movement pattern geared to basketball. Prior
to the next few games these hairy teenagers, sometimes in public view and as
full of self-consciousness as any teenagers are, performed their eurythmy.
It worked; it helped them "breathe together" on the basketball court.
(If any readers out there feel tempted to think that this makes them wimps, I
would offer a challenge: my selection of 10 ex-SWS basketball players, say
in the 20-30 age range, against a similar selection from among WCA critics
and their relatives. We could start an annual WE vs. Critics basketball
game, as a relief from this wordplay.)
Anthroposophists sometimes will start meetings with eurythmy, particularly
the form of eurythmy that requires coordinated movement among participants.
This helps each participant to become centered within him- or herself and to
create an awareness of interaction with all other participants.
So, perhaps it is correct after all to talk about a "conspiracy" within WE
and anthroposophy, particularly related to the practice of eurythmy. That
is, a conspiracy in the high-minded sense intended by Dan--a "breathing
together" in order to develop a kindred spirit. It is, of course, a
conspiracy to which all are invited. I thank Dan for his inspiring
observation.
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 16:59:45 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA07023; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:03:59 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id IAA10700; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:40:25 -0700
Message-Id: <199606211540.IAA10700 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Separation of Church and State
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:26:48 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Rigby,
Although I think the general principle is very nice, I have several
little problems with your proposal for complete school/state
independence as an alternative to the church-school/state independence
we struggle with in the USA:
> Tier one would be a mandatory minimum amount going into a general
> trust fund, to be distributed to all schools on a per-student
> basis.
In the context of home-schooling, this would presumably mean that a
family could withhold payment? Okay, that would work, although it
might discourage families from seeking other educational resources.
But:
> The second tier would be a supplementary amount of size elected by the
> employee (perhaps with a maximum) and directed to the school of the
> employee's choice.
Objection #1: If home schooling were allowed (and I think it would
have to be), it would be very difficult to keep this "second tier"
from becoming a tax dodge; and even in the context of organized
schools, policing them (preventing dummy tax-exempt schools, kickbacks
to unscrupulous parents, etc.) might be a nightmare.
> Communities of parents would be permitted to form schools based on any of a
> wide range of educational philosophies, whether or not based in religion.
> Full disclosure of that philosophy would be mandatory, to assure informed
> choice by parents.
Objection #2: It seems to me that no one can precisely articulate an
"educational philosophy". In any case I would very much dislike such
a requirement, since it would reduce the teacher's freedom to adapt to
the needs of particular students.
My most serious complaint about U.S. public schools is that they are
too dogmatic and inflexible: they seek measurable goals (e.g.,
"Education 2000" citizenship/workforce readiness, better standardized
test scores) by predetermined methods (state-mandated texts and
media).
Though achievement of the goals of Waldorf education is less easily
measurable, the methods and media used to achieve them seem to me to
allow the individual teacher and student even less latitude: Basically
you have to buy into Steiner's theory of development, and feel that
certain Waldorf methods can hardly be improved upon. Yet many of
these---having the same main teacher bring a class through all grades,
aversion to electronic media, teaching two foreign languages
simultaneously, strongly preferring that the class teacher digest
information rather than presenting other sources directly (esp. in
early grades)---can seem rather dubious to the most beneficent
observers. All these techniques may be valuable in particular
teacher-student circumstances, but the flexibility to use or discard
them just isn't build into the program!
> Schools would be publicly accountable primarily in terms of the
> postgraduate activities of their students.
Objection #3: This is probably workable in a trade/professional
school, but not elsewhere. And maybe not even there: Do we want to
judge a business school by how much money its graduates make? Or a
law school by the number of corporate senior partners or Supreme Court
Justices it produces? These may be symptomatic---roughly correlated
with achieving goals of producing effective lawyers or
executives---but that's all. Waldorf-like schools would be barraged
by (state) criticism and threats of funds cutoff, for having
insufficiently quantifiable objectives.
Also, under this sort of scheme the state thus implicitly determines the
goals of a school, although it is freed of the responsibility for
running it (that is, actually accomplishing the goals). This
is the wrong sort of accountability!
Much worse than that: such a notion of accountability would further
reduce the incentive to work toward poorly-quantifiable goals like
artistic accomplishment (unless, again, it's measured on a competitive
scale of dollars-per-painting or orchestral-seats-won...) or customer
satisfaction (students' satisfaction with their lives as a whole).
Cheers, --lee
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:01:37 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA03462; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:34:40 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA12247; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:31:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199606221931.MAA12247 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:30:26 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
It was a pleasure to see so many people running around angry at my posting
about WE and money.
AS usual, Lee gives me the opportunity to expand a bit.
(By the way, I note with interest that no one has disputed the enormous WE
cashflow I calculated: $600,000,000.00 (and change) was my rough calc., all
of it charged at about $5000 per child for tuition, plus transport, etc.
Pretty big time numbers! Funny to see WE shift like Alice in Wonderland from
big: "WE're the biggest private school system in the world!"/$600,000,000.00
of fees; to tiny: "WE's jus' little ole schools strugglin and strugglin!")
Lee writes
>Yes, they seem to charge an average amount. Like almost any private
>school, they use it all and almost never have any cash reserves.
If they charge as much as other schools they should make ends meet like
other schools without whining for money all the time. My submission was an
explanation of this whine factor, of why they do not make ends meet very
well. Typically, Lee, you fail to disprove the arguments, you just get
defensive for the WEs.
At
>least around here they don't. Private schools which provide more
>facilities and options seem usually to be the very old, very deeply
>endowed ones.
"Seem"? The market is full of private schools of all stripes. None I have
encountered grovel for money all the time like WE.
> > 1 Group-based management incompetence.
>
>Nonsense. All groups have an IQ of 63, including the Harvard
>Corporation (whose recent campaign raised tens of billions of
>dollars).
Then WE should try to raise its IQ to 63.
Most schools have a director, most companies have a CEO. He/she ultimately
makes most of the practical decisions. When things go bad, he/she gets it in
the neck. Here you have a bunch of teachers/spirit-seekers on the College
making decisions according to a set of criteria that are often poorly
grounded in financial practicalities. The school I knew for a few years
acted exactly as one might imagine such a group to act: A mixture of granola
and wishful thinking.
> > 2 Tuition discounts to profs. and other people ("Ant. people")
>
>You want to attract competent people, you have to offer perqs.
As you still seem to have trouble focusing on a point of logic, Lee, I will
go over this _again_. The point is that a great many WE schools have serious
money problems. I explained the reasons for these problems. You admitted
they give free tuition and sabbaticals and reduced rates to some clients.
This reduces revenue flow. The issue is not whether this is good. It is
whether it is affordable. From the amount of financial distress, it appears
not to be. Living within one's means may not be very "perqy", but it's a
fact of life.
That's
>part of the capitalism that Mr. Saykaly seems to applaud. Can you
>imagine that a teacher's motivation would be improved could he not
>afford to send his children to the school? You're not that much of a
>dummy, Dan!
You might try to dummy up and think this through, since again you miss the
point. A cabal of teachers sets the terms for the running of the school.
They give themselves and other teachers free tuition. Their children
represent a substantial part of the student pop. and the school has cashflow
problems. One of the problems they have is that so many students don't pay.
Motivation is nice. A jacuzzi in the teachers' room might be nice. But
"nice" and "practical" are sometimes different. One logical complaint of
regular parents is that there are so many riding for free. this makes it
even harder to get parents to pay more.
> > (Another cash drain on WE schools is the practice of giving teachers paid
> > sabbatical years every 8 years, also paid for by "ordinary parents".
>
>So do most private schools.
Again you miss the point. If WE dogmatically insists on giving benefits that
it can ill afford, it will go on in deficit. Simple. And true. Policies need
to be tailored to circumstances.
> > 3 School Contributions to "WE Associations".
>
>For all practical purposes nonexistent. A red herring.
My, how confidently we wave away reality. The School I knew _specifically_
required that tuition be paid by cheques made partly to the school and
partly to the Waldorf Association for our area during the first year we were
there. The payment to the Association was extremely high.
Now some earnest WEEs (and LEEs) have scoffed at this notion of payments to
associations. Some have said there were NO payments made (untrue in my
experience). Some said about $600,000 was sent to the AWSNA last year.
(Interesting. Since US schools are about 20% of the global WE market, that
works out to $3,000,000 globally for contributions to the country
association offices (US, Germany, etc.) But my payments (representing about
40% of tuition that first year) went to a _local_ association. So the bulk
of payments may be into local associations, on top of the declared money to
central associations like AWSNA.
There is also a great deal of cash paid in WE schools that can be directed
as desired and that would not need to go through the schools' regular books.
In summary, I have personally witnessed such payments routed to an
assocation and I am _not at all_ surprised to see WEEs deny that such
payments are made.
> > 4 Low enrollment.
> > The numbers don't lie.
But small is often an advantage, and "low enrollment",
Yes, it's an advantage when you can afford it. When not, not. When you aree
stuck with it, you suffer along.
>and even "high turnover", wouldn't seem to correlate particularly well
>with "poor". There's a huge logical gap here, so I think I'll write
>this off as a red herring too.
The gap may be in your logic circuit. High turnover means you are not
retaining customers. It costs much more to get a new customer than to keep
on old one. This undermines the financial stability of the school.
A member of the regional Education department confirmed my impression that
the local WE school had unusually high turnover. Indeed she admitted that
the department had been puzzled by the high turnover at the school over the
years, but said things were "getting better". What is "better"? The last
year, 35 students did not come back out of 175 enrolled , with about a dozen
in the graduating class, making for approx 13% non-graduate turnover. It's
hard to build viable class sizes when the students keep dribbling away like
that every year. And why did they leave? It was expensive, it was far, and
there were a good many dissatisfied customers.
> > Are WE schools poor because they are more expensive to run than regular
> > schools? Consider the savings of WE schools vs regular schools. In WE there
> > are no computers, or A/V equipment, or large libraries, and none of the
> > staff associated therewith;
>
> > there is lots of volunteer help from parents to
> > replace paid help;
>True also in my kids' public school. Those that don't ask for help
>from the community are practically guaranteed to be bureaucratic,
>incompetent nightmares.
False statement. I know schools that ask very little of parents and run
extremely well. Yous is also a highly misleading response. While all schools
have some volunteers, WE is, in my experience, unique in the amount it
demands of parents.
> > there is limited science equipment (no electronic equipment).
>
>Could somebody comment on "no electronic equipment". Is there some
>sort of prohibition,
How nice of you to stumble onto the facts, Lee.
> > Where does the money go?
>
>I believe they are trying to keep their teachers at a better-than-
>starvation wage. In this economic system no other explanation is
>necessary.
They appear to be doing this quite badly even though they charge high
tuition equal to that charged by other _more successfully run_ schools. It
is logical to look for reasons for this failure. You have been given good
reasons for believing that the causes of failure are: poor management,
contributions to WE and Ant Assoc.s, free and reduced tuition, etc....
> > ....No other schools spend as much time annoying parents and
> > outsiders with fundraising activities, solicitations for
> > contributions, class-outing expenses, and requests for volunteer
> > work.
>
>Yes. What's wrong with that?
What's _wrong_ with that? What's _wrong_ with wearing out your welcome and
constantly going back to the same well for more water? For one thing, it
alienates customers and encourages them to move on to more competent
schools. No one likes a money junkie badgering them for another fix all the
time.
> > In many other schools, what WE does would be considered
> > unimaginable, embarrassing and contemptible.
>
>...but now once again you go off the deep end and into a mire of petty
>ad hominum characterizations. Could you (Dan Saykaly) perhaps be a
>member of that vicious cult of Ayn Rand-ian "Objectivists", to whose
>disciples it probably _is_ "embarrassing and contemptible" to admit
>that you don't make much money...
There YOU go on one of those pathetic attempts to neutralize criticism of WE
by finding a handy - and, again, wrong - label to replace an argument.
> > ...turns poor management, deception and a doubtful product into a
> > cause.
>
>I feel that Dan is by implication measuring educational success by
>financial skill and soundness.
Again myopic. I am saying that when so many WE schools experience the same
problem in so many different parts of the world, there is a systemic
problem. And the causes of that problem are as I stated.
Even if I thought Waldorf schools had
>all these problems (and to some extent all school administrations and
>pedagogies, public or private, do),
In other words, you admit my arguments are true and then try to play this
down by saying "everyone has those problems". The difference is that most
schools do not go out and shamelessly beg, grovel and whine for money, and
act like martyrs.
I would not agree with his argument.
>Of course he'll now retreat into his "Let's not pay any attention to
>anyone who disagrees with me" spiel.
Once again, very sloppy, Lee, as I've come to expect. In reality my line
is: "This is the Waldorf Critics Association for discussing - and
_criticizing - WE from OUTSIDE the cult of R. Steiner, and there is
virtually nothing in that mandate that makes it logical to waste time
talking to religious believers from within the cult. We are here to
criticize WE and compile more effective means of countering their abuse of
the client's right to full information about their religious, sectarian
school system."
> > Let us assume contributions by WE schools to WE Associations & Ant.
> > organizations of only 15%.
>
>But they don't. You're going to get a lot of complaints about this, Dan!
As I stated, the REQUIRED contribution to sign up at the school I am
acquainted with was MUCH higher than that the first year. They must have
decided to be more discrete thereafter due to either government or parental
complaints.
By the way, the book "Nouvel âge, Nouvelles croyance" (Editions Paulines,
1989 pgs 203 + 204) discusses Ant. funding and speaks of yearly fees being
sent to the Goetheanum, the country's Ant. Assoc., and the local Ant.
movement.
Like any religious movement, lots of people at the bottom may live modestly,
but lots of money flows to the centre.
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:02:02 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA08634; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:50:53 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA13302; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:48:23 -0700
Message-Id: <199606221948.MAA13302 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Hold the fort, Dand!
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:48:17 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
DanD,
I'll be away for 2 weeks, back briefly and then away again. I'll try to
check in as often as possible over the summer and give you any news I get.
Thank you for running this list!
Looking forward to reading more great Steiner quotes and debunkings when I'm
back.
All the best to you and to the WCAs, especially Liliane if she's online!
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:02:05 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA19309; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:22:33 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id NAA15001; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:15:08 -0700
Message-Id: <199606222015.NAA15001 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: A few more comments to Lee
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:13:49 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
>Lee,
You write:
>I guess I just assume that everything social and institutional
>involves some coercion and misrepresentation, and WE doesn't seem to
>me to be misrepresented too badly by its advocates, nor is there much
>of any coercion practiced.
My comment:
>You ASSUME. Our last posting shows you have already admitted that you
ASSUMED wrong. You have admitted misrepresentation by WEEs, and I have given
evidence of coercion, so climb off the fence and admit that WE deserves to
be condemned.
You write:
>In other words, I'd look for something
>that's worse than the norm before I'D fight it very hard.
My comment:
Your choice goes something like this: Even if WE is dishonest with clients,
it isn't doing anything THAT terrible, so forget it. Let us look at the
facts: if there are 600 schools with an average of 200 students per school
and an average tuition of $5000.00, that works out to $600,000,000 tuition
per year, and probably another $100,000,000 in incidental funds from
donations, bazaars, etc. If only 20% of students have been signed up by
parents from whom WE has hidden the facts, that is a total of
$140,000,000.00 worth of misrepresentation and deception...EVERY YEAR. My
best estimate is that at least 40% - 50% of parents come from outside the
Ant. circle: $350,000,000.00 of tuition. That is a lot of exploitation.If
you're indifferent to this, stay on the sideline, but don't interfere with
the the perfectly valid process of defining and unmasking the deception.
Your arguments to absolve WE of blame are irresponsible, illogical and more
than a little suspicious. If you want to be a WEE apologist, label yourself.
You write:
>Considering
>our large-nation politics and large-church religion in general, and
>the problems in a lot of our schools (though certainly not all),
>that's going to have to be pretty bad.
An interesting argument. 'There's so much evil - about which I do little -
that I might as well not do anything about lesser evils. The legal
equivalent is: 'Murder, maiming, rape and treason are the worst crimes, so
let's ignore anything less.' Your business card should read: "Lee Story: Why
Bother?" Indeed.
RE: YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF RHETORIC & DECEPTION
=========================================
>You write:
>Yes, I think that Dan S sometimes uses the same techniques of
>ill-supported rhetoric and deception that he accuses the anthropops of
>using.
My comment:
You have not disproved my charges of deception and fraud in WE. On the
contrary, you have ended up admitting them. It is YOU whose rhetoric is
unsupported here, deceptive and illogical. You try to slide out of the
argument through the back door: ('Even if WE is deceptive, it's not so bad
compared to.....'
True I've certainly been a lot harsher than you've been with your tender
comments on WE. So sorry it hurts your delicate sensibilites and those of
the WEEs.
As to "Rhetoric" in my submissions, when I submit something to this list, I
submit it to WCAs. I said at the start that I take little or no interest in
WEEs. WEES ARE BY DEFINITION NOT REAL MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP: THEY DO NOT
DISCUSS WE FROM "OUTSIDE THE CULT OF RS". WE IS, BY VIRTUE OF ITS RELIANCE
ON STEINER'S BELIEFS, AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS "CULT OF RS".
Some of my items try to fit together the pieces or Ant. religion and WE
occult objectives. Are they speculative? Often. Is that wrong? Hardly. I am
trying to compare notes with people like DanD who has a extensive database
on WE. If WEEs (or LEES) want to listen in, I don't care. I SEE THIS LIST AS
A TOOL THAT WILL EVENTUALLY SUPPLY INFORMATION IN FINISHED FORM TO THE
PUBLIC ON A WEB SITE.
Take my submission on Ant. as luciferian cult. Does this help the WCAers
fit the pieces together better? Can they add to the picture from their
information? Does this idea explain the bizarreness of WE a bit better? If
you know something to the contrary, let's hear it. If not, stop snorting
disapprovingly. The purpose is to expand the data WCA has available in order
to better expose the carefully hidden 2nd face of WE/Ant. I AM NOT ALLOWED
TO ARGUE WITH WEES ON THEIR LIST. WHY SHOULD I BOTHER TO ARGUE WITH THEM ON
THE WCA? So: are my arguments about luciferianism right or wrong. Go read
the book I mentioned. Then talk to me.
Or take the case of Ahriman & Jehovah. You seem to think my refusing to
answer some WEE request for sources here is proof of "ill supported
rhetoric". You forget that DanD raised this issue first and produced a
source for it. I simply added to this the fact that a number of gnostics
supported this identification of an Ahriman-like figure (the oppressive
Demiurge) with the O.T. God. Where is the deception or the ill supported
"rhetoric"? Your beloved Cathars shared this view; so did Blake. I see ANT
as part of this line of thought. If proved otherwise, fine. It proved true,
it explains a lot - including the WE passion for light-bearer imagery
(Lucifer = lucis (light) + ferre (bear). I refer you to a recent piece on
the WE list about "children of fire, children of light"... ie: rebellion >
truth; Lucifer/Prometheus rebelling and then being reconciled to the higher
reality/higher godhead.
Or take RS and racism. DanD has already produced a 4-section summary of
Steiner quotes on this topic. You don't like this line of argument, but so
what? RS said what he said. Yes, MOST PEOPLE OF THE EARLY CENTURY WERE
RACISTS. THAT DOESN'T MAKE STEINER'S RACIALISM ANY BETTER. He believed the
Aryans were the most advanced race and that the Blacks, Asians and Jews all
had lower spirtual status/awareness... with a "few exceptions" involving
advanced souls incarnating in lower race bodies. How pathetic of you to try
to obfuscate this. How pathetic that WE does not repudiate this. How
disgusting to hear Ant/WE people deny this racist language exists and then
deny its manifest meaning. And YOU are making yourself an accomplise in this.
You write that I am 'off-target critiquing WE'. Your talk here is cheap Lee.
My recent posting quotes you admitting virtually all my charges against WE
for deception.
Similarly you try rhetorically to undercut my charges by writing:
>Again..._WHO CARES_ what symbols the anthropops use to represent
>various aspects of human consciousness?
Yet you know - surely you DO read some Steiner? - that these are not
"aspects of human consciousness" alone. They are parts of the cosmic reality
according to Steiner (Check: Essential Steiner, pg 371-376). I care when
Christian/Buddhist/whatever "symbols" are used to create a false sense of
familiarity in the minds of nonAnt. Waldorf parents. I care when various
symbols are falsely softpedalled as "symbols" by people who believe them to
be very much realities. The unsuspecting WE parent should know that "we're
not in Kansas any more, Toto". Especially when they are buying an education
of a supposedly "religious but nondenominatinal and essentially Christian"
kind. "Essentially Christian" is simply misrepresentation. "Gnostic
Christian" is somewhat shakey (given all the eclectic religious elements)
but will at least do to distinguish Steiner religion from what people are
being led to believe that they will get.
ANY religion recognizable as Christian has a tough time with the God of the
O.T. being downgraded to some sort of lesser spirit. Check out "Old
Testiment Stories" by our friend Wilkinson for his explanation of creation -
Jehovah is "one of 7 Eloheim". .... Try that out on any Rabbinical or
Christian scholar. There is NO Jewish tradition or non-Gnostic Christian
tradition for even a symbolism of a
7-fold-Elohim-as-7-distinct-and-separate-spiritual-entities. The Hebrew
plural used in "Eloheim" is understood within Judeo-Christian scholarship as
a plural of respect. Check. As one Jewish Studies Prof I checked with put
it: "Sounds like Gnosticism to me." Right. Gnosticism - a religious system
teaching that knowledge rather than faith leads to salvation. And in this it
differs so profoundly from Christianity as to be unrecognizible in the herd
of Christian Churches - various as they are.
You write:
>I rather like the "unholy"
>(lowercase) trinity of ahriman, lucifer, jesus,
>
>Good for you, Lee, maybe at last you've found a home. What does your
aestheic enjoyment of Ant. (or Cathar) religious lore have to do with
people's right to know the underlying assumptions and nature of the
education they are buying for their children?
>You write:
>Whatever symbols are
>powerful, and get the moral points across to your chosen audience---
>those are the ones to use. Steiner seems to have done all right there
>(qualified by "toward his chosen audience," of course).
>
>DBPD (Don'T be purposely dumb). Steiner did not consider these "symbols"
The Essential Steiner, pg 372-6 makes it clear that these are BEINGS, not
SYMBOLS.
Read it. You will find the following: "In addition to stars, planets, the
hierarchies and elemental beings, Stiner's ACCOUNT OF THE SPIRITUAL COSMOS
INCLUDES ELABORATE DESCRIPTIONS OF 3 SPIRITUAL BEINGS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN
THE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY: LUCIFER, AHRIMAN AND MICHAEL. ... Steiner's
.... writings on L. and A are perhaps the most likely to be ridiculed or at
least avoided by readers new to his teachings".
As to Steiner's having "done all right" in communicating with his "chosen
audience": Has it occured to you that religions answer spiritual needs of
the publics they attract, and that a religion that attracts a few hundred
thousand people in 75 years is not pumping into a very widespread need? Nor
can you use the "exclusivity" argument. Clearly Steiner expected to be the
light of the world, with the nations flocking to his political system and
with Ant. as the light of the world (read "Reincarnation and Karma" and the
"Michaelic Age" for details.
You write:
>I don't think
>it should be classed as "deception" when Waldorf Education, seeking a
>wider audience among a variety of RELIGIOUSLY-PREJUDICED (SIC) INDIVIDUALS,
tends to DOWNPLAY Steiner's choices of SYMBOLS...it's
>just saying the same or similar things in different words to avoid
>offending.
WOW! Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Here you exonerate the deceivers
and blame the victims. WE has the right - for MONEY - to camouflage ideas
central to its world view that are alien and possibly distasteful to the
public, and they aren't to blame. You assume the best about WE. Then you
turn around and assume the worst about their clientes. According to you
-with no evidence presented to back it up - the variety of
_"religiously-prejudiced individuals"_ are to blame for not being
enthusiastic about the philosophy behind WE. What makes people "prejudiced"
for not jumping at Ant. mythology? What about people's right to choose their
own religion? What about respecting THEIR religions rather than INSULTING
THEM AS YOU DO by automatically calling them prejudiced. THIS IS "SIC(K)"
ALRIGHT, LEE.
>You write:
>P.S.: There are anthropop fundies who read Steiner in a horribly
>literal fashion and deny that Ahriman or Jehovah are symbols in any
>sense.
>Ie: they are just like Steiner himself (Essential Steiner, pgs 372-376
among MANY others SELECTIONS, that demonstrate that this was NOT JUST
symbolism but COSMIC REALITY to him. Go on... scrap together the change. Buy
a copy. Or if you have one, READ IT.
>You go on:
>If _those_ people try to hide their beliefs in order to
>increase Waldorf enrollment, I shall roundly condemn them as
>hypocrites.
But Steiner himself encouraged such deception, as DAnD has show in a number
of quotes from Steiner in his lectures to teachers. (such as the quote on
"secretly laughing at" people while tolerating them to advance the cause).
So BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION St-Ruddie is a hypocrite, and so are those who
adopt his methods.
>You say:
I prefer fully open forums, but this line of argument is likely to
>deteriorate (again) into an wholly unprofitable flame war.
>
This IS a fully open forum, and that implies flames. Don't whine. Anyone can
say anything they want to here (unlike the WE list, the proud owner of which
brags of its lack of democracy) and anyone has the right here to ignore what
they choose to ignore. Or are you only for "open" when things are "nice"?
If the war is too hot, go be a tourist somewhere else.
>Heck, let
>Dan bash everyone who has anything good to say about Waldorf, and try
>to contrast yourself with him through examples of honest, cogent,...
If the WEEs were "honest and cogent" they would admit the fact that they
deceive the public AS YOU HAVE ADMITTED. Since they don't, they are part of
the problem to be cleaned up. And since you keep defending this sort of
dishonesty with shabby and slipshod arguments that usually turn on
subjective opinions ("as far as I'm concerned...") YOUR honesty is in
doubt, not mine.
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:02:05 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA19309; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:22:33 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id NAA15001; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:15:08 -0700
Message-Id: <199606222015.NAA15001 lists1.best.com>
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: A few more comments to Lee
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:13:49 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
I noted with interest that after kissing up to one WEE, you stated about me:
>even the speechwriters and ad-writers for Gingrich, Clinton, Dole
>don't make that kind of misteak. But demagoguery is a difficult skill
>to learn!
Wow"! "Demagoguery"! Nice big word, Lee. I hope you look it up some time and
find out what it means. I have pointed out a case of false advertising and
deception
and am trying to use this list as a tool to ensure the exposure of this
deception. You admitted the truth of my charges (see recent post). Since
when is the truth "demagoguery"? You are mistaking your indifference for
openmindedness.
As to linking me with the sorry state of U.S. political honesty, I'D SAY
THAT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF DEMAGOGIC TACTICS, LEE. PAINTING ME WITH AN
IRRELEVENT SET OF ASSOCIATIONS. Trouble is: those boys lie, and - as you
have admitted - I'm telling the truth about WE deception.
>I think "non-sectarian school emphasizing (religious) 'spiritual
>development'" would be quite accurate, but would be impossible to sell
>to school boards or to the courts.
Change that to "sectarian school emphasizing religious spiritual
development" and you have a deal. And I agree - the courts and boards won't
buy it.... EITHER WAY. YOU ARE SAYING THAT W.E. HAS TO LIE AND DISSEMBLE IN
ORDER TO GET PUBLIC FUNDING. I AGREE. WHY ARE YOU KNOCKING ME WHEN ONCE
AGAIN YOU AGREE WITH ME?
NOW FOR YOUR REALLY OFFENSIVE DRIVEL:
>I see Dan S as reacting in kind to the Lefty Schlesinger brand of
>Waldorf-can-do-no-wrong polemics. I too find his broadsides against all
pro-Waldorf opinion
>offensive...no...nauseating.
Oh you poor delicate dear! Broadsides! How terrible.... although I notice
you don't bother calling Righty's polemics "offensive and nauseating".
NOW YOU REALLY GET "OFFENSIVE & NAUSEATING":
I hear echoes of Hamas leaders saying
>don't listen to those Jews,
Hoover and Nixon cautioning us not to
>allow books containing Communist ideas in our schools, and most of all
>ol' Newt saying to hell with Americans' health-care 'cause this time
>we can stick it to the Democrats.... Dan joins a great world-wide
>tradition which always alienates rational supporters. Because there
>are a plurality of irrational ones? Maybe. --lee
You know, Lee, you do smear tactics fairly clumsily. Maybe if you practice
more, though, you can end up just dishonest, rather than dishonest and inept.
In one paragraph you try clumsily to link me to anyone you don't like....
Hamas, Hoover, Nixon and Newt G. Why not throw in "Lee Story", so that at
least you have someone in there I used to have some sympathy for.
You have purposely used these irrelevent "symbols" in an attempt to smear
me, even though you have no basis for linking my arguments with their points
of views in any way. Have I ever been anti-Jewish? Pro-FBI? PRo-Republican?
My call is for 1 - just 1 thing from WE: The clear, brief, concise public
acknowledgement ro all prospective parents of the belief system that shapes
WE pedagogy and the WE conception of the child and of child development,
including reincarnation, karma, etheric bodies, astral bodies, racialism, etc.
SO: CAN YOU SAY "DEMAGOG" LEE? Because that is what YOU are. You have tried
to produce a kneejerk reaction of disapproval of my articles while failing
to offer any proof.... You also, by the way, show a pathetic knowledge of
mid-east rhetoric.
AND NOW - BONUS POINTS FOR INVERSION OF GUILT
=============================================
You wrote:
>Yes! I don't like the implicit demonization of _anyone_, and
>especially of people we defeated in a major war, and so are likely to
>be enormously prejudiced against. No matter how horrible their morals
>and politics were, no matter how selfish or deluded, they were still
>human beings.
Truly brilliant stuff, Lee. Germans are HUMAN! What a discovery! I think we
can found a religion on this kind of moral insight! In other words, how
terrible even to mention the '33-'45 era. How unkind to refer to that era.
And by avoiding that era, we also avoid linking Steiner's racialism to ...
that era... even though DAnD has lucidly shown the links.
The greatness of modern Germany has been its ability to confront its past,
not to bury it. Too bad the Ants. lack the courage to publicly repudiate
Steiner racial dogma in the same way.
Amazing that you are so concerned about the feelings of the Aryan peoples
(the poor persecuted Germans whose tiny error with fascism has so
inelegantly been mentioned) but so entirely unconcerned about Steiner's
racism and racialism. I know you don't buy the racialism argument despite
all the quotes DanD has put forward. You want to 'live and let live'. Is
this a .. personal thing, Lee?
And it does seem that RS felt Judaism was
>not as appropriate to the 19th/20th century as Christianity, but
>that's a legitimate opinion which is far, far from racism.
Right. For a bigot.
BUT BEST OF ALL, WE NOW PRESENT LEE STORY ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. MR.
"RESPECT" SAYS:
I "hammer" on that church because it's the largest,
(So that gives you the right to defame hundreds of millions of people,
correct? So logical)
You write:
>>and because it has doctrines which require the greatest suspension of
>>rationality.
On the contrary, as Joyce said, Catholicism is a logical absurdity;
protestantism an illogical absurdity. He would have considered Ant. merely
absurd. Or, as Wilde put it, "When we cease to believe in SOMETHING we do
not then believe in NOTHING, but tend rather to believe virtually ANTHING".
Catholicism more absurd than Ant, with RS as the incarnation of all wisdom?
More than Hinduism and its million gods and castes and murdered widows? More
than Tibetan Buddhism with its incarnate god kings? Sure Lee, sure. Face it,
you're an old-fashioned anti-papist and you're proud of it, and you are just
fishing for justifications.
You write:
I cannot remember a time when I didn't think Catholicism
>>absurd.
Just like Ian Paisley....
Certainly, Catholocism has long extolled the virtues of absurdity ("it is
impossible, therefore I believe" was one proof of Christianity centuries
ago). Every other religion is equally absurd in proposing faith in the
unproveable.... unless you buy the "spiritual science" of Ant., in which
case, YOU prove yourself a past master of absurdity.
You write:
Then I learned how dangerous it (the Catholic Church) has been
(historically), and
>>the extent to which its privileged hierarchy have tried to quash
>>differing opinion, either by killing the expounders of that opinion or
>>isolating them from their communities.
Gee, just like Luther, Calvin, the Anglicans, Islam... Face it: every large
religion has plenty to shame it Hinduism? Think of all the burned wives.
Zen? the religion of choice of the brutal feudal lords and warriors of Japan.
You write:
the Catholics, as a
>>"central pillar" of Western culture, are the standard of assininity
>>that I choose to measure other sects (like the anthropops) against.
>Okay?
Not Okay. Not by a long way. In fact, You get the "Ian Paisley Award" for
anti-Catholic bigot of the year for that. Every religion has a past. The
Catholic past has produced some of the greatest spiritual thinkers of
history, some of the greatest art and literature and some of the greatest
civilizations of history. Go found your own Catholic Hate Association. Ian
will be happy to hear from you. I myself will call it quites on the lowly
Ant.s as soon as they stop their sneaky recruitment of students under false
advertising. I don't give a damn about their absurdities, although it is
tiresome to hear them claim that the religious equivalent of cold fusion
(ie: Steiner's 'unique and unrepeatable experiments') is a 'rational and
scientific philosophy and not a Heinz 57 blend of beliefs.
By the way, it is amazing how you pull out 2 pairs of scales to judge as you
wish: I merely make a reference to Nazi racism and you howl about the poor
persecuted Germans. On the other hand, you demonize the Catholic church, and
by extension all Catholics in the most insulting terms and you expect to be
applauded.
ARE ANT.S CHRISTIAN?
You write:
>>I don't think there is any general agreement on "Christian doctrine"
>>other than (whether or not Jesus ever existed in history) taking the
>>moral teachings of the so-called "New Testament" as the basis for
>>one's own morality. This rules out Islam, but the Anthropops fit
>>within it to about the same extent that the Unitarians do.
Islam is out; Unitarianism is a form of Arian Christian heresy; Ant. is a
Gnostic heresy with some Christian elements. See above re 7 Eloheim for more.
A LAST FEW ITEMS OF YOUR ERROR TO SWEEP UP:
>========================================================
>YOU ARGUE - SOPHISTICALLY - THAT WEES DON'T LIE... "AS AN INSTITUTION":
>You write:
>no one slaps a Waldorf teacher's hand for discussing
>>_Theosophy_ or _How to Know Other Worlds_ with parents, and no general
>>mandate demands it, either; it's a matter of individual preference.
>>Thus there's little evidence that WE lies on this point "as an
>>institution".
>
>In fact: see WE archive, 7:58 PM 12/14/95 ("re:Cultural Diversity"). HERE
you get the real story. The author ironizes about someone's suggestion of
the schools' telling new parents the reality of WE. He writes: "That would
be an interesting approach, 'here are all the things that some people have
been offended by, but we don't think its a problem, now will you given us
$5000 per year for each child'." He then discusses how information about the
religious content of WE should be revealed: "Parents do need some basic
introduction, but the understanding of these matters" (ie: religious course
content, school orientation) "will take time and should be APPROACHED
CAREFULLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN STUDY GROUPS. JUST BLURTING THINGS OUT CAN
ONLY LEAD TO THE VISCERAL REACTION YOU HAVE DESCRIBED" (ie: of people not
wanting to join the school). However - in typical waldorf style - he then
goes on to say that "parents who feel that their spirituality is incongruent
to their children being exposed to other spiritual beliefs NEED TO SAY THAT
UP FRONT." IN OTHER WORDS, WEES THINK PARENTS HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO BE
TOTALLY HONEST WITH THE SCHOOL, (so potential troublemakers can be screened
out better) BUT THE SCHOOL HAS NO OBLIGATION TO BE HONEST AND OPEN WITH THE
PARENTS. Nice. Real nice!
====================================================
YOU REWORK THIS SOPHISTIC ARGUMENT ANOTHER WAY: 'ONLY INDIVIDUALS LIE':
You write:
>Anyway, only individuals can lie.
>
Every denial by the State Department that hides the facts (eg: "The U.S. did
not help to overthrow the Allende government".... "did not bomb the neutral
countries of S.E. Asia...") is a lie told by an entity larger than a single
person.
Every press release by a tobacco firm denying the "bumping up" of nicotine
is a lie by an organization, not just by an individual spokesperson.
And when people in WE follow a policy of silence about the religious content
and agenda of their schools and deny their schools are sectarian, they are
participating collectively in a lie IN ORDER TO BENEFIT COLLECTIVELY FROM
MORE STUDENTS AND MORE MONEY. It is a lie that costs unsuspecting customers
dearly.
SUMMARY
=======
There is enough here to show you as bigoted (anti-Catholic), an apologist
for the violators against the victims (our friendly 30s-40s in europe) and
ready to defend in indefensible in WE exploitation the public through
misrepresentation.
It becomes clear that you enjoy verbal fencing and can take a hit good
naturedly, you are like the king in Sun Tsu's Art of War: You like to talk,
but you do not like to transform words into action. You enjoy hanging out on
DanD's list (beats TV) but don't want anything done to disturb your little
friends at the local WE school.
I really don't care whether you are a WE in disguise or not. You serve the
same function. You block the compilation of more effective set of tools to
make WE accountable for its actions and honest about its religious beliefs
and agenda.
In other words, Lee, You just ain't worth spending time with no mo'. Like
Righty protesting that I don't get censored enough (when he simply lops
people off his list); like your freind Dicko, trying to blunt and misdirect
the attack on WE (to which he is deeply attached) while playing the
"open-minded" WE enthusiast; like Ryse and here blood cow heart... you just
waste time avoiding the fact that WE does not deserve an clientele OUTSIDE
ITS RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY until it first declares openly that it IS religious,
sectarian, and based on the concepts of karma, reincarnation, astral...
etheric.....
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:03:18 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA04583; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:18:30 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA13194; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:15:38 -0700
Message-Id: <199606230215.TAA13194 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: WE Fattening
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 22:15:20 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Saykaly --
I see from your recent note to Dan D that you will be on leave for awhile,
but I will drop this into the ether in the hope that it connects with you
sooner or later. This is comment on your June 22 advice to Lee.
Your $600M estimate of aggregate WE annual revenue is irrelevant as a measure
of WE economic fat, at least in terms of schools in the U.S. Each operates
as an autonomous economic institution; there is no flow of tuition money into
a central pool and then redistribution. Because its irrelevant I don't feel
inclined to spend the time to research the accuracy of your estimate, but if
I do come across related statistics I will be glad to let you know.
It may be different in other countries. I notice your use of "cheques"
instead of the more common "checks" usage in the U.S. You said the school
you knew required separate tuition payment to "the Waldorf Association",
representing 40% of the tuition. Does "the Waldorf Association" mean AWSNA?
Where was the school located?
I am Treasurer of the Sacramento Waldorf School. Our budget line item for
contribution to all associations runs at about 0.5% of total expenses (and
our expenses tend to run in the range of -2% to +5% of revenue). You can see
why I am puzzled by your 40% figure--it's a couple of orders of magnitude off
my own experience, and that of any Waldorf school I know of.
Until I get more clarity on the specifics of your experience I can't begin to
reconcile this difference. Perhaps "the Waldorf Association" was a local
nonprofit entity and the school was attempting to collect 40% of tuition as a
tax-deductible contribution. In the U.S. this would incur the displeasure of
the IRS.
Whatever school it was, it certainly seems to have offended you deeply.
Perhaps your catharsis here will help. I will second Lee's observation that
problems of management and relationship to money are neither endemic to WE
nor limited to WE. Here is a relevant quote from Peter Drucker, "The Age of
Social Transformation," in the November 1994 Atlantic Monthly: ". . . what
precisely management means for the social-sector organization is just
beginning to be studied. With respect to the management of the nonprofit
organization we are in many ways pretty much where we were fifty or sixty
years ago with respect to the management of the business enterprise: the
work is only beginning."
The reference here to "social-sector" relates to Drucker's observation that
there is emerging a third, non-profit sector--"organizations that
increasingly take care of the social challenges of a modern society." This
has qualities different from the the first two sectors--government (the
"public sector") and business (the "private sector"). There is a very
interesting similarity here to Steiner's social theory.
The point is that we should not expect a "social-sector" organization to be
managed in exactly the same way as a business. Obviously, there are many of
the same economic functions; and there are many useful analogues to business
activities (e.g.: marketing, customer satisfaction, etc.) But there is a
fundamentally different quality to management because "the bottom line"
really does not appear on the financial statements.
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:03:27 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA22584; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:09:29 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA23905; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:06:31 -0700
Message-Id: <199606230406.VAA23905 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: "Children of fire"
Date: 22 Jun 96 23:54:44 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Greetings.
In his "few more comments to Lee", Dan Saykaly, continuing with his
theme of Luciferianism in Waldorf Education, writes:
> it explains a lot - including the WE passion for light-bearer imagery
> (Lucifer = lucis (light) + ferre (bear). I refer you to a recent piece on
> the WE list about "children of fire, children of light"... ie: rebellion
>
> truth; Lucifer/Prometheus rebelling and then being reconciled to the
> higher reality/higher godhead.
Dan is apparently referring to my posting of a song that the parents of
the Pine Hill eighth graders sang to them at their graduation ceremony
last Sunday, which had the refrain, "Children of fire, forged in our love/
Rising from ashes, straight and true, gifts from above/ Embers of hope,
flames in the night/ We send you off to be children of light." (Copyright
1996 Basil and Mary Harris, all rights reserved; posted here by
permission.)
As I explained in the introduction of that posting, the central symbolism
of the song is that this class had their school burn six weeks after they
had started first grade, and spent the next year in temporary quarters
while it was being rebuilt.
Furthermore, the authors of the song are Catholics, have no connection
whatever to Anthroposophy, and have no connection to Waldorf Education
other than as the satisfied parents of a Waldorf School graduate.
Of course, Basil and Mary *might* have been thinking in terms of Lucifer/
Prometheus rebelling and then being reconciled to the higher reality/
higher godhead; but I rather doubt it.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:03:23 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA22390; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:09:19 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA23926; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:06:38 -0700
Message-Id: <199606230406.VAA23926 lists1.best.com>
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: 23 Jun 96 00:04:43 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Greetings.
Dan Saykaly writes
> My, how confidently we wave away reality. The School I knew
> _specifically_ required that tuition be paid by cheques made partly
> to the school and partly to the Waldorf Association for our area during
> the first year we were there. The payment to the Association was
> extremely high. [...] But my payments (representing about 40% of
> tuition that first year) went to a _local_ association. So the bulk
> of payments may be into local associations, on top of the declared
> money to central associations like AWSNA.
As I said before, this baffles me. My Waldorf School experience is that
schools have a hard enough time covering their bills, much less forking
over half their income to some outside group. Nonetheless, Dan quotes
this 40% figure with such fluency that it must correspond to *some*
real phenomenon. I have a few guesses, but I'd rather learn for certain
what the real story is. Therefore, I request that Dan post the name of
the school in question and the year when this took place to the mailing
list, so that I can do some research into the story and report back to
the list on what I find out.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:03:36 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA13615; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:57:01 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA11375; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:46:15 -0700
Message-Id: <199606230646.XAA11375 lists1.best.com>
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: A few more comments to Lee
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Daniel Saykaly wrote:
>
> Anyone can say anything they want to here (unlike the WE list, the
> proud owner of which brags of its lack of democracy)...
Hmm. I do the work, I foot the bills, I think I ought to have _some_
say in how it's run. Remind me again why I'm supposed to spend my
time and money based on other people's opinions.
Hey, I got a cool idea! Is _this_ list run democratically? If I can
get enough of my fellow "WEEs" on, can we vote about how _this_ list
ought to be run? Whaddaya think? Sound fair to you?
> Like Righty protesting that I don't get censored enough (when he
> simply lops people off his list);
I'm not quite clear on what you're talking about here, Mr. Saykaly.
I've removed fewer than a dozen people from the WALDORF list in over
two years, not at all a bad record, I think. Subscribers who were
removed were given numerous warnings before any definitive action was
taken. Unless I'm very much mistaken, you received several warnings
yourself about your generally combative tone, nicely displayed here in
recent postings.
The WALDORF list has a charter, not at all unusual. It was discussed
at great length among the list's subscribers before it was adopted.
Subscribers are expected to stay within the charter, again not
unusual. What's your gripe?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:04:33 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA13342; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:37:44 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA04531; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:33:48 -0700
Message-Id: <199606240433.VAA04531 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Separation of School and State
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:33:28 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Thanks for your positive response to my "Church and State" posting. (I have
modified the subject line slightly here to sharpen the focus.) There clearly
are many details to be hammered out before judgment can be made about its
practicality, but I wanted to keep attention on the key question posed to Dan
D: Would he view the avoidance of tax dollars for school funding as
accomplishing the necessary separation of church and state when the schools
in question are sectarian?
I had not thought about home-schooling, and I agree with you that it needs to
be included in the overall scheme. Perhaps the simplest way to handle it
would be analogous to tax deductions for a home office.
As you say, there may be incentive for dummy tax-exempt schools, kickbacks to
parents, etc. This incentive already exists for charitable contributions in
general, but I suppose it is possible that the proposed new funding strategy
for education would open up the temptation for more people. These would be
forms of tax fraud and we do have the IRS and Justice functions already in
place to detect and deal with such problems.
You questioned whether an "educational philosophy" of a school could be
articulated precisely; and even if it could, whether it would stifle the
freedom of teachers to adapt methods to individual students. The general
idea is for a school to disclose its mission, its curriculum, its classroom
methods and the view of the nature of the child that underlies the curriculum
and methods. This disclosure is to allow parents of prospective students to
make an informed choice among alternative schools.
The extent to which the curriculum and methods constrain teachers would be up
to the school to decide, as long as the parents have a clear picture of what
those constraints are, and a way to judge whether the school is living up to
its promises. Some parents may want relatively tight constraints, others may
not. A school might even have two or more "tracks" at parent option, with
differing curriculum and methods. For example, a school with the look and
feel of what is now a typical public school might offer classes based on
Waldorf methods. (Whether or not AWSNA would permit "Waldorf" to be used to
label these methods is a different question.)
I proposed outcome-oriented public accountability of schools and you
questioned the practicality of this. You have seen the questions raised here
by Dan D and others, about the extent to which Waldorf graduates are able to
cope in post-Waldorf education. I think these are fair questions to be asked
about all forms of schooling, even though it may stretch the ability of
current schools to answer them. Recognizing all the issues of data
collection and unbiased measurement, I would still hold that evaluation in
terms of outcomes is necessary to justify greater freedom relative to the
process of education.
I would add another requirement, not mentioned earlier: all schools
participating in this system would need to be nonprofit institutions with
public accountability for their financial affairs, and with Boards of
Trustees that have no more than minority representation by those with a
financial interest in the school. This would minimize the opportunity for
the type of "fattening" that bothers Dan S so.
There would still be a role for WCA-type organizations, to the extent that
opponents of a school system assert that it is damaging or that it is
covering up a hidden agenda. There might well emerge a more generalized,
"consumer reports" type of organization.
Another detail to be worked out would how unemployed parents would be given
the same freedom of choice as those who are employed. A voucher system might
be used (although this might get back onto the questionable ground of using
tax dollars), or schools might be required to keep a percentage of capacity
available for children of the unemployed.
In any case, there are two basic ideas: (1) keep the funding dollars from
going through tax channels, so that there can be no question of government
subsidy of sectarian institutions, and (2) give parents informed choice of
alternatives, without financial constraint.
Best regards,
Rigby Leighton
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:04:39 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA15304; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:42:40 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA04934; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:38:08 -0700
Message-Id: <199606240438.VAA04934 lists1.best.com>
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Children of Fire
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:37:49 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Neil Faiman --
Perhaps the most positive result of Dan Saykaly's "few more comments to Lee"
was that it stimulated you to repost "Children of Fire." I had not seen the
earlier posting of this beautiful little song. This is the sort of thing
that keeps me deeply attached to WE. Thanks.
Best regards,
Rigby
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:04:50 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA04488; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 06:50:26 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id GAA01776; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 06:46:55 -0700
Message-Id: <199606241346.GAA01776 lists1.best.com>
From: JoAnn Schwartz
Subject: Re: WE fattening at parents' expense
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
Dan Saykaly posted a very long response/diatribe to Lee based on his
experience with one (unnamed) waldorf school. I would just like to remind
other list members that Dan's experience (and that of Dan Dugan) may or
**may not** be typical of the experience of other parents at Waldorf
schools. For example, the Detroit Waldorf school has 3 fundraisers each
year -- a walk-a-thon in the fall, annual giving at the end of the year,
and an ongoing Scrip program (school buys discounted gift certificates
from local/national merchants which parents & friends then buy at full
price.) Scrip replaced an annual auction - with far less work for everyone
involved.
Families are also asked to commit to help at 2 school events each
year -- and can pick their events.
IMHO, this is not an excess of fundraising or volunteerism. Dan, of
course, may choose to disagree. As always, Waldorf Schools are independent
schools and so making generalizations is a tricky business.
From ??? ??? Mon Jun 24 17:05:15 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA20225; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:38:46 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id NAA12842; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:16:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199606242016.NAA12842 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: A few more comments on Dan Saykaly's comments...and then...?
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:09:32 -0400
BestServHost: lists1.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists1.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists1.best.com
I'm really impressed with Dan Saykaly's background knowledge, his
skill at polemic, and his ability to stick with the "mission" of
exposing the deceptive element in Waldorf education.
I offered what I thought was as honest a reply as I could make to the
following question, fully realizing that it could not help but
alienate a certain number of believers:
D.Saykaly.:
> I must assume you are a recovering Catholic by the way you hammer
> that particular Church.
L.S.:
> Absolutely not. I "hammer" on that church because it's the largest,
> and because it has doctrines which require the greatest suspension of
> rationality. [....]
I'd like to note right away that by "the greatest" I meant "the greatest
possible", and not "greater than in any other religion". There are
certainly equally unlikely claims made by other religions.
Part of Dan's recent response suggests that we do not have substantive
differences on this score:
> Certainly, Cathol[i]cism has long extolled the virtues of absurdity ("it is
> impossible, therefore I believe" was one proof of Christianity centuries
> ago). Every other religion is equally absurd in proposing faith in the
> unproveable....
...and yet, driven be his compulsion to classify various
correspondents as "WCA's" and "WEE's", he's eager to label the airing
of a different opinion from that of "millions of people" to be
defamation of those "millions of people":
> (So that gives you the right to defame hundreds of millions of people,
> correct? So logical)
and
> Just like Ian Paisley....
and
> Not Okay. Not by a long way. In fact, You get the "Ian Paisley Award" for
> anti-Catholic bigot of the year for that.
...and so forth. Would the same criticism of _Anthroposophical_
absurdities have received the same mock-ire? I doubt it. Dan is a
one-issue candidate, and he'll use any sort of defamation to provide
emotional support for his arguments, while accusing the other side of
the same. That's why I said (and don't retract it!) that he reminds
me of a Republican speechwriter.
> As to "Rhetoric" in my submissions, when I submit something to this list, I
> submit it to WCAs.
Yes, like the anthropops on Lefty's lists you speak only to your
community of believers.
> Take my submission on Ant. as luciferian cult. Does this help the WCAers
> fit the pieces together better? Can they add to the picture from their
> information? Does this idea explain the bizarreness of WE a bit better? If
> you know something to the contrary, let's hear it.
I do not deny that anthroposophy makes Lucifer and ritual
"light-bringing" important parts of its multi-theistic (not quite
"pantheist"...I don't know the appropriate word) creed. Nor do I
doubt that anthroposophy is pretty much gnostic to the extent that it
is Christian. (I find Dan's historical distinction of salvation-thru-
knowledge versus salvation-thru-faith quite accurate; personally I
accept neither.) There are frequent parallels drawn between Ahriman
and Jehovah; if Dan D. wants to stretch that to an equation, that's
fine too. It may misrepresent Steiner, but it adds a new image to
think about...
I do see one question as wholly irrelevant: What would the 'good'
Christian church-goers think if they knew that their children were
being taught these things? Implicit is the notion that they would be
horrified to find salvation-thru-faith rejected, and that they would
consider the inclusion of Lucifer in a spiritual pantheon to be
tantamount to devil-worship. And so on and so on. You appeal to the
ignorance and superstition of followers of the major religions to make
your points.
Moreover, you implicitly assume that parents have some sort of right
to buy the indoctrination-of-their-choice for their children; they
"pay the piper" and "call the tune".
I see religion as an irrepressible sphere of conflicting
charlatanisms, a floating carnival which seems to speak to some
permanent element within human beings (perhaps mostly to our fear of
death). It can't be stopped, and I could care less which con-man gets
to peddle his dubious wares in that carnival. But isn't mainstream
Christianity preferable to the Jones cult, or mainstream Buddhism to
Aum? Sure. But then what about the big churches compared with
Anthroposophy? Pretty much a wash. Since there's no way of
eliminating them all, I'm in favor of letting all but the most venal
set up their sleazy booths at the fair. I'll advocate higher
standards for Steiner disciples when the Catholics and Protestants,
Muslims and Hindus, all agree to address only consenting adults.
> Yes, MOST PEOPLE OF THE EARLY CENTURY WERE RACISTS. THAT DOESN'T
> MAKE STEINER'S RACIALISM ANY BETTER.
Agreed. And it doesn't make it any worse. So it's useless as a real
discriminatory factor when comparing Anthroposophy with other
philosophical or religious positions.
> "Gnostic Christian" is somewhat shakey (given all the eclectic
> religious elements) but will at least do to distinguish Steiner
> religion from what people are being led to believe that they will
> get.
Proper labelling of an intellectual product to protect the ignorant?
C'mon, Dan. Gnosis is as much a part of Christianity as any other,
whether a Catholic or an Adventist accepts that or not! It seems to
me that Steiner's position is very much "Christian", although not
"church".
> ANY religion recognizable as Christian has a tough time with the God of the
> O.T. being downgraded to some sort of lesser spirit.
I don't see why this should be true. Even if the dominant sects
swallow Hebrew theism whole, that doesn't give them any particular
right to define the terms used by other sects. Steiner's, and even
Mrs. Eddy's (wilder and more thorough!), redefinition of canonical
terms seem examples of a standard part of the competition between
creeds.
> What does your aestheic enjoyment of Ant. (or Cathar) religious
> lore have to do with people's right to know the underlying
> assumptions and nature of the education they are buying for their
> children?
I do not believe that such a right exists in practice, or has ever
existed, or should exist. Either some religion has been mandated by
the political power, and taught alongside academic subjects, as in
ancient Israel or medieval Japan or England 'til at least 1830, or
certain powerful religions have been given special tacit license to
indoctrinate youth. Admittedly, this is usually with the complicity
of parents. Corollary to this, I totally reject the supposed "right",
so popular today, of parents (usually "fundamentalist" of one sort or
another, since those are the belief systems which are most readily
contraverted by external evidence) to implicitly indoctrinate their
children into their sect by "shielding" them from contrary opinion in
society at large.
> >DBPD (Don'T be purposely dumb). Steiner did not consider these "symbols"
> The Essential Steiner, pg 372-6 makes it clear that these are BEINGS, not
> SYMBOLS.
I'll look, but I'm afraid there isn't much opportunity for rational
argument here. There's a long, long religious tradition of presenting
the myths of the tribe (and ethical tales!) as literal history: That's
where the Protestant fundies get off on the book of Genesis.
Also, remember that Steiner was gabbing about a "world" of thought,
where there might be no particular distinction between "being",
"image", and "symbol". Modern anthropops (at least the denizens of
the STEINER list) seem to (want to) miss this.
> As to Steiner's having "done all right" in communicating with his "chosen
> audience": Has it occured to you that religions answer spiritual needs of
> the publics they attract, and that a religion that attracts a few hundred
> thousand people in 75 years is not pumping into a very widespread need?
"Emotional responses to mental placebos" okay? It's the same "need" people
have to believe a sideshow barker. Yes, RS would probably be disappointed,
but it seems he was a patient man.
> What about people's right to choose their
> own religion?
They have that. I can't take it away from them, and don't want to.
But again, "caveat emptor". And I won't grant any particular right
to choose one's _children's_ religion, though it does have a slight
merit in the interests of social continuity and stability (which, for
one with a Marxian view of religion, is its primary purpose).
> What about respecting THEIR religions rather than INSULTING
> THEM AS YOU DO by automatically calling them prejudiced.
This no one has any right to demand of me. As far as I can
see, a preference for one sect over another is nearly pure prejudice,
and usually occurs as a result of childhood milieu and childhood
indoctrination. People can accept that or lump it, I don't care.
> >P.S.: There are anthropop fundies who read Steiner in a horribly
> >literal fashion and deny that Ahriman or Jehovah are symbols in any
> >sense.
>
> >Ie: they are just like Steiner himself (Essential Steiner, pgs 372-376
> among MANY others SELECTIONS, that demonstrate that this was NOT JUST
> symbolism but COSMIC REALITY to him. Go on... scrap together the change. Buy
> a copy. Or if you have one, READ IT.
Isn't there a fundamental confusion here? Ahriman and Jehovah "are"
inhabitants of a world of pure thought. They are not "mere" symbols
simply because, as I noted, the distinction between "being" and
"symbol" is irrelevant there.
> So BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION St-Ruddie is a hypocrite, and so are those who
> adopt his methods.
No, although I don't particularly agree with his analyses or empathize with
his fantasies.
> >You say:
> I prefer fully open forums, but this line of argument is likely to
> >deteriorate (again) into an wholly unprofitable flame war.
> >
> This IS a fully open forum, and that implies flames. Don't whine.
Sorry. You're right. I just thought that flames of the "Your mother
wears combat boots" or "you [...] defame hundreds of millions of people"
variety don't do much to advance the argument.
> Change that to "sectarian school emphasizing religious spiritual
> development" and you have a deal. And I agree - the courts and boards won't
> buy it.... EITHER WAY. YOU ARE SAYING THAT W.E. HAS TO LIE AND DISSEMBLE IN
> ORDER TO GET PUBLIC FUNDING. I AGREE. WHY ARE YOU KNOCKING ME WHEN ONCE
> AGAIN YOU AGREE WITH ME?
The difference is that you say that the Waldorf folk "lie and
dissemble", while I think they mostly believe what they say. In
either case they don't seem entitled to government support under
U.S. law.
> you don't bother calling Righty's polemics "offensive and nauseating".
I thought everyone already knew that :) All right, you're both
offensive and nauseating, although Lefty's much more logical and
literate.
> My call is for 1 - just 1 thing from WE: The clear, brief, concise public
> acknowledgement to all prospective parents of the belief system that shapes
> WE pedagogy and the WE conception of the child and of child development,
> including reincarnation, karma, etheric bodies, astral bodies, racialism, etc.
I support your call. It's good to be honest a large proportion of the
time (not always---don't tell your lover _everything_!)
> The greatness of modern Germany has been its ability to confront its past,
> not to bury it.
A beautiful and specious statement, Dan. Only individual people are great.
Who is "modern Germany".
> Too bad the Ants. lack the courage to publicly repudiate
> Steiner racial dogma in the same way.
That disappoints me too, but it would be like the ancient Jews quibbling
over certain of the "god-given" tablets.
> I know you don't buy the racialism argument despite all the quotes
> DanD has put forward. You want to 'live and let live'. Is this a
> .. personal thing, Lee?
I don't think so. The nazis could only gain a foothold where there
was already real economic desperation, and a (justified) feeling among
Germans that they were being very badly treated by the rest of Europe
in the aftermath of a war (WWI) which was the fault of privileged
classes (of Germany, the rest of Europe, and Britain). "We" strangled
Germany, and the Germans adopted a ruler who promised to strangle us
in return. Old, old story.
Right now I think that whether or not Steiner was racially
prejudiced is significant only if anthroposophy were to become a major
religion (in numbers) among an underclass---fantastically unlikely!
> And it does seem that RS felt Judaism was
> >not as appropriate to the 19th/20th century as Christianity, but
> >that's a legitimate opinion which is far, far from racism.
>
> Right. For a bigot.
This is mere name-calling. You don't like his attitude? I don't
either, but all Christians would agree with it, wouldn't they? And
all Jews would disagree. Maybe religion _is_ a form of bigotry?
> In other words, Lee, You just ain't worth spending time with no mo'. Like
> Righty protesting that I don't get censored enough (when he simply lops
> people off his list) ....
I don't remember such a protest, but he may have made one. Att'y
Wright did complain, when Dan D. chastised him for ad hominems, that
you deserved at least as strong chastisement. That's not censorship,
though, that's a sense of injury and justice.
Lefty's STEINER community of interest is one in which dissent and
argument are anathema, and any substantive disagreement is equivalent
to utter rudeness. This is consistent with religion in general:
Imagine the reception you'd get if you were found to be preaching
Santeria or Thelemite (or Anthroposophic!) views in a mainstream
Christian church...some time when it didn't happen to be in use for
anything else...so what harm is there? Myself I'd have no objection
(in the mailing-list case, I can decide for myself to hit the "next"
key), but the people who built and support the church would
undoubtedly complain. As I've noted before, and without any
intention of irony, Lefty has the absolute right to manage the WALDORF
and STEINER lists for whatever purpose and in whatever way he wishes.
Cheers, -lee
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 27 02:12:39 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA27602; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:18:54 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA09776; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:14:16 -0700
Message-Id: <199606260914.CAA09776 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Weleda definition of Anthroposophy
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:15:05 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Promotional material for Weleda products says:
"Anthroposophy embraces a spiritual view of the human being and the cosmos,
but its emphasis is on knowing, not on faith. It is a path in which the
human heart and hand, and especially our capacity for thinking, are
essential. It leads, in Steiner's words, "from the spirit in the human
being to the spirit in the universe," because only if we first come to
experience the spirit in ourselves can we know the cosmic spirit. But
anthroposophy is more than self development. Through it we can recognize
our humanity. Humanity (anthropos) has the inherent wisdom (sophia) to
transform both itself and the world."
"[I]ts emphasis is on knowing, not on faith" is a guru trick. IMHO wisdom
is not "inherent" (the romantic fantasy of the child being wise until
society beats it out of him/her), but is acquired, if at all, only with
great difficulty.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 27 02:23:51 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA24383; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:22:14 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA05921; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:13:43 -0700
Message-Id: <199606270913.CAA05921 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Novato, CA, school board approves Waldorf-inspired charter
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:14:28 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
On June 11 I spoke to the Novato School Board about their proposed
Waldorf-inspired charter school. I tried to warn them about the
church-state and education code morass that the first two California
Waldorf-inspired charters have created, but they didn't want to hear it. I
got through my analysis of Steiner's child development theory, and my
evidence for Waldorf teacher training being more a seminary than education.
When my fifteen minutes were up, I was summarily cut off. There were a few
questions. Alan Harris moved to include not teaching Anthroposophy as a
condition of the charter. Since the Anthroposophists have been hiding stuff
for 75 years, that may not have much effect, but it could at least provide
grounds to bust them on later.
On June 25 the board was scheduled to give final approval to the charter.
Daniel Sabsay used a three-minute public input slot to point out the
Anthroposophical absurdities in Waldorf science teaching. I used my time to
warn them again that they were starting down a slippery slope. I pointed
out that the description and curriculum in the parents' handbook were pure
Waldorf, despite denials that this was a Waldorf school. I read cult-like
statements from the handbook, that parents are required to attend "parent
education" meetings, and "adopt our philosophy." I recounted the story
(letter of parent Mark Warner to Twin Ridges School Board) of the Nevada
City teacher saying last year "we are all Anthroposophists except Barbara,
and she is coming to Anthroposophy," updating it with the news that Barbara
has been pushed out of the school. I warned that the same thing could
easily happen in Novato.
After three hours of a full agenda the charter item was pulled from the
consent calendar and discussed briefly. By this time the Waldorf organizers
had gone home, they knew what the outcome would be. Board member Ross
Millerick graciously asked me to speak again for a few minutes. I felt I
was beginning to establish some credibility, but it was too late. I
explained how the Waldorf philosophy was a fundamentalism like creationism,
which had gone to the supreme court to be defined as not science, and the
subsequent attempts of creationists to use a free speech argument. I said
they were heading for a cliff and I was waving a sign saying danger, but
they were going full speed ahead.
John Barker, V.P. of the Bay Area Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, had faxed them a strong and fully referenced letter that day. In
response to it, they added reference to the California separation clause,
which is stronger than the federal, to the "no Anthroposophy" condition.
Alan Harris brought up reading, and said if they didn't teach reading till
third grade they wouldn't last long. I noticed that reading wasn't
mentioned in the proposal. The vote was 6-0 to approve the charter.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 27 02:23:36 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA22974; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:18:04 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA05938; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:13:51 -0700
Message-Id: <199606270913.CAA05938 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Weleda definition of homeopathy
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:14:38 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
The Weleda (Anthroposophical pharmaceuticals) web page defines Homeopathy:
"Homeopathy is the practice of treating the syndromes and conditions which
constitute disease with substances that have produced similar syndromes and
conditions in healthy subjects. In keeping with our philosophy, our
remedies seek to facilitate the work that your body, mind and spirit do
naturally. Unlike allopathic medicines and treatments, which attack and
erase symptoms, homeopathy looks at the symptoms for clues to the direction
the body is taking to heal itself. The principle behind homeopathy is based
upon the "law of similars" which "lets likes be cured by likes."
Homeopathic remedies use small and safe doses and are prescribed to meet
the particular needs of each individual without unwanted side effects. The
homeopathic approach enables the body to set in motion the process of
healing rather than obliterating the symptoms, which are an effect, not a
cause of your body's affliction."
This illustrates the quack medicine which is part of the Steiner cult.
Homeopathic technique is part of the repertoire of "Anthroposophical
medicine."
Waldorf school families are often introduced to Anthroposophical physicians.
The "law of similars" is rejected knowledge, proven wrong in the 19th
century and discarded. The description is less than candid where it says
"small and safe doses." The homeopathic technique of "potentization"
produces doses that are more than "small and safe"; potentized substances
are diluted beyond the vanishing point so that the "medicine" given to the
patient is pure water.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 27 02:31:24 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA25363; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:25:03 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA06002; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:14:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199606270914.CAA06002 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: "Renewal" notes 3: consensus
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:15:13 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Rigby, you said:
>But let me give you an alternative interpretation of the reason for the
>collegial approach (that is, decision-making as colleagues), from deep within
>the anthroposophical movement. The following paragraph may be found in "An
>Economic Testament In Relation to the Work of Rudolf Steiner" by Christopher
>Houghton Budd, page 39ff. In this case he is talking about economic
>decision-making, but the points are applicable to any decision-making
>content:
>
>"There is also much that is dubious about our economic decision-making. A
>meeting that drags on because a financial problem is intractable or because
>the appropriate expertise is absent, is not a measure of the importance or
>rightness of the collegiate method. Insofar as the collegiate approach was
>advocated and exemplified by Rudolf Steiner in the refounding of the
>Anthroposophical Society, can inefficacy really be regarded as any part of
>his concept--either spiritually or economically? Would Rudolf Steiner have
>commended to us, let alone himself have trod, an inefficacious path? On the
>contrary, for him the college is synonymous with efficacy, but it presupposes
>the basing of its decisions on insights, not on group dynamics. No
>insight--no efficacy. The reason for the college--that is, a collection of
>concrete individuals, not a group--is precisely that thereby the lone
>individual, in concert with other lone individuals, can create a vessel for,
>and thus himself perceive, ideas of a higher order."
Good grief, Rigby, we are supposed to believe that consensus decision
making must be more efficient because Steiner recommended it? No way. This
is cultic fawning and puffery. "Ideas of a higher order"? Give me a break.
>In short, the premise of consensus decision-making, as I understand it, is
>that there does exist an idea that all will recognize as providing the
>appropriate solution to the problem at hand. The goal of the process is to
>allow that idea to surface, through contributions of one or more members of
>group. The principal barriers to achieving this goal, I believe, are (1)
>most of us are unskilled in the process, and (2) it takes a lot of
>"homework", prior to meeting time, on the part of each individual.
Nonsense. Well-intentioned people often disagree. That's why parliamentary
procedure has evolved as a fair and efficient way of making decisions
despite disagreement. Parliamentary bodies do decide many routine issues by
consensus, the list is often called the "consent calendar."
>I do not believe that consensus decision-making is essential for all
>decision-making bodies within the context of anthroposophical institutions.
> As President of the Board of Trustees of the Sacramento Waldorf School I did
>not attempt to achieve consensus on every issue. I did make an attempt to
>see that all ideas on an issue were surfaced and given due regard. And in
>fact the great majority of votes were unanimous. Only once in more than two
>years did I as chair cast a vote to decide an issue, and that I did without
>qualm and without adverse reaction from the group.
So, Rigby, you paid lip service to Steiner's indications and then proceeded
in a practical manner. A sensible compromise, given the cult environment
you were working in.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 27 02:23:48 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA23910; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:20:45 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA06010; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:14:31 -0700
Message-Id: <199606270914.CAA06010 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: "Renewal" notes 4
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:15:24 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Neil Faiman, you said,
>I'm a little perplexed about the motivation behind your critique of David
>Adams's _Renewal_ article.
>
>You've been around Waldorf schools enough to know that Adams is
>describing the way he thinks things ought to be, not the way they
>are.
I understood that.
>You've been reading _Renewal_ enough to know that it is encouraging
>discussion and debate about various issues in the Waldorf movement, and
>that the publication of Adams's article isn't even an editorial endorsement
>of his position, much less some sort of position statement in the name
>of Waldorf Education.
>
>So, what is your rationale for promulgating his article in this forum?
>My cynical side says, "Dan will be quoting Adams at his next atheists club
>meeting and saying, 'This is what those Waldorf Ed people think'"; but
>really, I don't think you would resort to that sort of cheap trick. But
>what is your point, then?
My point is to show that Steiner fundamentalism is prominent in the Waldorf
movement. I'm encouraged that some issues are beginning to be discussed in
"Renewal." That's a lot better than the self-congratulatory pap that has
filled so many issues.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 27 02:23:43 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA23406; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:19:24 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA06038; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:14:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199606270914.CAA06038 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:15:32 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Rigby, you said,
>Steiner was also a proponent of the separation of church and state, as you
>undoubtedly know. He put it even more broadly, asserting that the "spiritual
>sphere" or "cultural sphere"--by which he meant religion, education, the
>arts, and certain elements of the judiciary--and "rights sphere"--by which he
>meant a considerably attenuated version of what we now have as the
>state--should be autonomous relative to one another. The third leg of his
>social theory should appeal to the most conservative Republican: the
>"economic sphere" should be also be autonomous relative to the other two.
> Autonomy does not preclude inter-relationships, of course; and, in
>particular, he proposed that the economic sphere fund the spiritual/cultural
>sphere. This funding would have no strings attached, in terms of uses of the
>money.
I find Steiner's idea that justice should be part of the
"spiritual/cultural sphere," i.e., the church, one of the least attractive
features of his "threefold social order."
>Suppose education--all education, not just special interest schools--were
>funded through pre-tax contributions from income. This might be a two-tier
>arrangement. Tier one would be a mandatory minimum amount going into a
>general trust fund, to be distributed to all schools on a per-student basis.
> The second tier would be a supplementary amount of size elected by the
>employee (perhaps with a maximum) and directed to the school of the
>employee's choice.
Taxes are a mandatory minimum amount now. You are always free to donate
more to the government if you want to. I don't see the difference between a
"mandatory minimum" "pre-tax contribution from income" and a tax.
>Communities of parents would be permitted to form schools based on any of a
>wide range of educational philosophies, whether or not based in religion.
> Full disclosure of that philosophy would be mandatory, to assure informed
>choice by parents.
Here you have a problem. How can you have "full disclosure" of an esoteric
religion like Anthroposophy? For example, in the second year of the Waldorf
charter school in San Diego, the school board gave parents a choice between
the Waldorf school and a regular public school on the same site. But the
parents only received information about the Waldorf school from the Waldorf
promoters. No way did they get a full disclosure of the nature of Waldorf
education.
>Schools would be publicly accountable primarily in terms
>of the postgraduate activities of their students. They would also be subject
>to periodic accreditation review, which (as accreditation now does) would
>look primarily at each school's compliance with its own stated mission, goals
>and objectives.
So a school whose stated mission was to turn out ignorant fools would be
accredited on the basis of how well it accomplished that mission?
>Funding through pre-tax contributions should pass the "Lemon" test, since
>such contributions are now recognized as legitimate deductions. The funding
>mechanism would not favor any particular educational or religious approach,
>nor sectarian schools generally. Schools would compete for students and
>informed consumer choice would drive the educational "market" to an optimum
>balance between price and quality.
>
>What do you think?
It stinks in the same way voucher systems stink: money would flow from the
public treasury into the coffers of religious groups. I'm happy to pay
higher taxes for better -public- schools.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Thu Jun 27 02:23:40 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA23088; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:18:20 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA06067; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:15:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199606270915.CAA06067 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Separation of School and State
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:15:44 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Rigby, you commented (to Lee, I think),
>I proposed outcome-oriented public accountability of schools and you
>questioned the practicality of this. You have seen the questions raised here
>by Dan D and others, about the extent to which Waldorf graduates are able to
>cope in post-Waldorf education. I think these are fair questions to be asked
>about all forms of schooling, even though it may stretch the ability of
>current schools to answer them. Recognizing all the issues of data
>collection and unbiased measurement, I would still hold that evaluation in
>terms of outcomes is necessary to justify greater freedom relative to the
>process of education.
I agree. In 75 years of operation, the Waldorf movement has continually
opposed objective evaluation of the results of Waldorf education. It's time
to get with it. Without feedback the system can never be corrected.
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Fri Jun 28 01:03:00 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA28495; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:00:21 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA11413; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:57:09 -0700
Message-Id: <199606271857.LAA11413 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Separation of School and State
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:47:29 -0400
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Dan Dugan writes:
> Rigby, you commented (to Lee, I think),
>
> >I proposed outcome-oriented public accountability of schools and you
> >questioned the practicality of this. You have seen the questions raised here
> >by Dan D and others, about the extent to which Waldorf graduates are able to
> >cope in post-Waldorf education. I think these are fair questions to be asked
> >about all forms of schooling, even though it may stretch the ability of
> >current schools to answer them. Recognizing all the issues of data
> >collection and unbiased measurement, I would still hold that evaluation in
> >terms of outcomes is necessary to justify greater freedom relative to the
> >process of education.
>
> I agree. In 75 years of operation, the Waldorf movement has continually
> opposed objective evaluation of the results of Waldorf education. It's time
> to get with it. Without feedback the system can never be corrected.
Yes, Dan, on reflection I agree too, as long as the measurement of the
"outcome" is done by the kids and families of the _individual_
_school_, according to their requirements and wishes rather than those
of a national average (or a bureaucracy). (Goals vary enough with
culture and with personal circumstances that I don't see much use in
national standards.) Also it would seem that a couple of
concentrated evaluations, say 1-2 weeks at the end of 4th and 8th
grades, should be enough for this purpose: let's not encourage
test-itis! Cheers, --lee
From ??? ??? Fri Jun 28 01:03:09 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA10863; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:11:17 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA12968; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:06:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199606271906.MAA12968 lists1.best.com>
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:57:24 -0400
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Dan Dugan writes:
>
> Taxes are a mandatory minimum amount now. You are always free to donate
> more to the government if you want to. I don't see the difference between a
> "mandatory minimum" "pre-tax contribution from income" and a tax.
You cannot presently donate to the government with restrictions on the
use of the money, and have any reasonable expectation that those restrictions
(e.g., "for music education") would be observed.
> So a school whose stated mission was to turn out ignorant fools would be
> accredited on the basis of how well it accomplished that mission?
So what's wrong with that?! One man's foolishness is another's
wisdom. Anyway, unless you allow schools "to turn out ignorant fools"
you're going to end up with Stalin as arbiter of musical taste, or
whatever...
> It stinks in the same way voucher systems stink: money would flow from the
> public treasury into the coffers of religious groups. I'm happy to pay
> higher taxes for better -public- schools.
Your conclusion seems to imply (see my other message today) that there's
a common view which can be embodied by the public schools, and which is
in some (mysterious!) way superior to that of less common views (including
religious ones). I disagree with that presumption, though I'm obviously
not any fan of organized religion. I also disagree that you'd be paying
religious groups. (If you can achieve better secular education for less,
the religious would be paying you!) Cheers, --lee
From ??? ??? Fri Jun 28 01:05:04 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA27329; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 18:46:43 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id SAA15939; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 18:32:48 -0700
Message-Id: <199606280132.SAA15939 lists1.best.com>
From: litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:38:22 -0400
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Dan DUGAN said:
>I find Steiner's idea that justice should be part of the
>"spiritual/cultural sphere," i.e., the church, one of the least attractive
>features of his "threefold social order."
I do not claim to have any great grasp of what RS had to say about the
threefold social order. But I do know enough to say that Steiner's
"cultural" sphere is not in any way the equivalent of "the church".
What do you know. . .Dan SAYKALY goes on vacation, and the WCA list turns
into the STEINER list.
love, Robert
From ??? ??? Fri Jun 28 01:05:39 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA11089; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:15:58 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA29938; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:04:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199606280304.UAA29938 lists1.best.com>
From: "Gillespie_Kathi"
Subject: RE: Novato, CA, school board approves Waldorf-inspired charter
Date: 27 Jun 1996 19:05:38 -0800
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Dear Dan,
Please contact John Fiegel,U.S.Dept. of Education, (202)260-2671,Public
Charter Schools Program, Rm. 4500,Portals Building, 1250 Maryland Ave. SW,
Washington, D.C. 20202-6140 with the Novato Waldorf Stuff and the letter from
the Seperation of Churcha and State. Mr. Fiegel told me that he only had a
little information about Waldorf and didn't know how many charters they had.
He needs information and I only hope he will see me when I get there. Thanks,
Kathi Gillespie
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: waldorf-critics lists.best.com on Thu, Jun 27, 1996 1:22 AM
Subject: Novato, CA, school board approves Waldorf-inspired charter
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
On June 11 I spoke to the Novato School Board about their proposed
Waldorf-inspired charter school. I tried to warn them about the
church-state and education code morass that the first two California
Waldorf-inspired charters have created, but they didn't want to hear it. I
got through my analysis of Steiner's child development theory, and my
evidence for Waldorf teacher training being more a seminary than education.
When my fifteen minutes were up, I was summarily cut off. There were a few
questions. Alan Harris moved to include not teaching Anthroposophy as a
condition of the charter. Since the Anthroposophists have been hiding stuff
for 75 years, that may not have much effect, but it could at least provide
grounds to bust them on later.
On June 25 the board was scheduled to give final approval to the charter.
Daniel Sabsay used a three-minute public input slot to point out the
Anthroposophical absurdities in Waldorf science teaching. I used my time to
warn them again that they were starting down a slippery slope. I pointed
out that the description and curriculum in the parents' handbook were pure
Waldorf, despite denials that this was a Waldorf school. I read cult-like
statements from the handbook, that parents are required to attend "parent
education" meetings, and "adopt our philosophy." I recounted the story
(letter of parent Mark Warner to Twin Ridges School Board) of the Nevada
City teacher saying last year "we are all Anthroposophists except Barbara,
and she is coming to Anthroposophy," updating it with the news that Barbara
has been pushed out of the school. I warned that the same thing could
easily happen in Novato.
After three hours of a full agenda the charter item was pulled from the
consent calendar and discussed briefly. By this time the Waldorf organizers
had gone home, they knew what the outcome would be. Board member Ross
Millerick graciously asked me to speak again for a few minutes. I felt I
was beginning to establish some credibility, but it was too late. I
explained how the Waldorf philosophy was a fundamentalism like creationism,
which had gone to the supreme court to be defined as not science, and the
subsequent attempts of creationists to use a free speech argument. I said
they were heading for a cliff and I was waving a sign saying danger, but
they were going full speed ahead.
John Barker, V.P. of the Bay Area Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, had faxed them a strong and fully referenced letter that day. In
response to it, they added reference to the California separation clause,
which is stronger than the federal, to the "no Anthroposophy" condition.
Alan Harris brought up reading, and said if they didn't teach reading till
third grade they wouldn't last long. I noticed that reading wasn't
mentioned in the proposal. The vote was 6-0 to approve the charter.
-Dan Dugan
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by msmail.asd.k12.ak.us with SMTP;27 Jun 1996 01:21:04 -0800
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA05921;
Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:13:43 -0700
Message-Id: <199606270913.CAA05921 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Novato, CA, school board approves Waldorf-inspired charter
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:14:28 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
From ??? ??? Sat Jun 29 01:04:21 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA10323; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:39:34 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA00057; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:34:46 -0700
Message-Id: <199606290534.WAA00057 lists1.best.com>
From: DSabsay aol.com
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 01:35:28 -0400
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Hello Robert,
I have heard that the use of the name Waldorf occurs primarily in the United
States, and in Europe (and elsewhere) these schools are known as Steiner
schools. Is this true?
litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery) wrote >
> What do you know. . .Dan SAYKALY goes on vacation, and the WCA list
> turns into the STEINER list.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
From ??? ??? Sat Jun 29 10:13:39 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA18752; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:25:07 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA17515; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:21:20 -0700
Message-Id: <199606290921.CAA17515 lists1.best.com>
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: what do they call them?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:22:16 -0600
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Dan Sabsay said,
>I have heard that the use of the name Waldorf occurs primarily in the United
>States, and in Europe (and elsewhere) these schools are known as Steiner
>schools. Is this true?
In the Netherlands they're called "free schools."
-Dan Dugan
From ??? ??? Sun Jun 30 22:56:30 1996
Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA22712; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:24:02 -0700
Received: (daemon localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA09677; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:22:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199606291922.MAA09677 lists1.best.com>
From: litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery)
Subject: Re: Semantics
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:28:08 -0400
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Errors-To: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Dan SABSAY asks:
>I have heard that the use of the name Waldorf occurs primarily in the United
>States, and in Europe (and elsewhere) these schools are known as Steiner
>schools. Is this true?
Generally speaking and so far as I know, yes. Unfortunately, I can shed no
light on why that is so.
love, Robert