return to WCA Archive Index
------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n161 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Who determines school policy; fads; change; funding; State
003 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
004 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: parent's role in education
005 - "Peter Schwab" Try reading Steiner and someone like Piaget -- the correspondences are
>legion.
And so are the differences. The assertion that Waldorf is in harmony with
modern child development theory is often seen in Waldorf literature. I
think it is deceptive.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Who determines school policy; fads; change; funding; State control
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:58:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Lee Story USG writes
>> Do some teachers prefer to start reading instruction earlier?
STEPHEN TONKIN
>Earlier than what? Normally this begins in class 1.
Stephen, could you go into a little more detail how you teach reading in
class 1, and if this differs from standard Waldorf practice?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.3 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:42:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>In your dreams, Stephen. Perhaps you'd like to pretend that the doctrine is
>not important because it's so embarrassing. I personally have seen teachers
>at two Waldorf schools be willing to draw the line and fight over this one.
>It's a crucial issue that divides Steiner believers from the rest of the
>world. It won't go away.
A friend of mine, who had no connection to Waldorf, was talking to a
Waldorf teacher who evidently brought up the "heart is not a pump" topic in
social conversation. My friend didn't know what on earth the teacher was
talking about and asked me to investigate further when I mentioned that
there was an internet discussion of Waldorf going on. (That ws one of the
reasons I originally joined the Waldorf and Steiner mailing lists.)
So it would appear, at least in this instance, that it was considered
significant to the teacher. She also mentioned something about Steiner
dying with no blood left in his body and how the Germans were the first to
colonize North America.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:52:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>This does not imply that a parent has no role or input into their
>child's education -- of course they have -- in addition to termly
>parents' evenings I try to get the parents of each child in my class to
>come for a formal private discussion about their child's educational
>welfare at least once a term -- vast numbers of informal discussions
>take place.
>
>But in any school (not just Waldorf schools) it would seem appropriate
>that the educational _decision_ is made by the professionals. I know
>from experience that when there has been a dispute about which way to go
>and I have given in to the parent's wishes, I usually regretted it
>later. As I have become more experienced I have "held out" more often
>and a number of parents who disagreed strongly at the time have later
>agreed that I was right to do so. Obviously I make mistakes -- however,
>I think I make fewer by taking the perspective of a professional
>educator when trying to decide what is the best course of action for the
>child's benefit.
I guess I don't accept the fact that "professionals" in any field are more
knowledgable that I am. If I find myself talking to anyone who seems to
know more about a subject than I do and expects me to accept what they are
saying because they know more about it, that situation doesn't last for
very long. No matter what the topic (including medicine), I will get books
from the library or buy them on my own and read up so that I know what they
are talking about.
Never have I felt that teachers should call the shots because they are the
professionals. I let others stand in for me because they have the time or
they can physically do what I cannot do (cleaning my teeth, etc.), but not
because they know more than I do.
And I think one of the reasons public schools have sometimes lost touch
with parents is that teachers can come across as feeling superior to the
parents. I think in all educational endeavors, the parents must be sought
out as full partners in the educational process. Not only does that
increase their interest in their childrens' eucation, but they often do
know more about an individual child than the teachers. Yes, there are poor
parents in the world, but for the sake of the child, they need to be
encouraged to become better parents and more involved.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.5 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:22:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> I do not disagree with you that this METHOD OF TEACHING is one of the best. Just because
> Steiner has an area of excillence it does not mean that his whole being and/or all his
> ideas are excillent. I think this is the main reason for this list. Everyone does not
> accept ALL aspects of Steiner. All of his ideas should not be placed in the schools.
> --
> Rebecca L. Mast
> Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
> E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
> P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
>
No one ever said that ALL of Steiner's ideas should be placed in the
schools. I would be one of the first to object this. In fact, and this
has been told over and over, Anthroposophy is _no_ part of the official
Waldorf curriculum.
And even among anthroposophic circles I have not yet met someone who
believes ALL of Steiner's work.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.6 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:22:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> I would recommend that Peter read Michael's message more closely. He
> appears to have read Michael (as I did originally) as complaining about the
> *conclusions* of that discussion. In fact, Michael is expressing his
> dismay that such a discussion should take place at all. He is stating that
> he would have had serious qualms about having his children educated by
> people for whom "children incarnating with the wrong parents" is a concept
> worthy of being entertained at all. (My interpretation and paraphrase,
> obviously; Michael, please correct me if I have misrepresented you.)
>
>
I stand corrected, in fact, I should stop answering email after
midnight.
But then, this is even worse! If this time I get the picture right,
Mr. Kopp wants to say that people _concerned about Anthroposophy_
do not have the right, on an _anthroposophic list_ to hold an
discussion about a deeply _anthroposophic_ subject.
"Imagine, Emily, they even _speak_ about _reincarnation_!
Igitti-Bah..."
Mr. Kopp,
we just passed the period of "Kopp's NewSpeak"! We
definitly do not need any of "Kopp's MindKontrolle and
DiscussionZensur".
If you feel unhappy with the concept of reincarnation, that's your
business. But respect the intellectual dignity of those who do not
share your point of view.
I do not think you would have been removed from the Steiner list for
saying there: "I do not believe in reincarnation". But of course, you
would have had to cope with the answers....
"Silence is Discussion" .... or did I again get something wrong?
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.7 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:22:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> On the one hand, Anthroposophy and its cracked science and mystical stuff,
> and unchanged views of child development, but loving, caring, respectful
> and respectable (by the kids) teachers, and a social millieu which fosters
> community and thoughtfulness and self-knowledge .... or
>
> on the other hand, Western Judeo-Christian culture (which is tolerable),
> rationalist-based science (which I prefer), but mechanistic, utilitarian
> educational philosophy and curriculum, and teachers who usually don't have
> the same attributes as above, and a social millieu which fosters
> competitive advantage at all costs and maximisation of selfishness.
>
> It's a tough life, eh?
>
Not at all: find a couple of people who share your opinions and found
your own school. Take the best of both sides and call it the
"Michael-Kopp-School".
Call me it when you open the swiss subsidary, I'll send a bottle of
wine for the celebration.
Good luck
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.8 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:59:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>
> >> My experience is that children value hard work -- or, perhaps more
> accurately, they value its fruits. My experience is also that they
> better respect teachers who give them a sense of achievement -- an
> empirical observation is that these teachers tend to have fewer
> discipline problems.
> I agree. This interaction has the same affect for parents as it does for teachers.
>
--
Rebecca L. Mast
Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.9 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Defects of religion, materialism?
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:22:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Thus I think that Anthroposophy, to the
> extent that it is based on Christianity (without even considering any
> questionable "scientific" claims), it must be rejected by any
> intellectually honest and moral person.
>
So I am an itellectual dis-honest and im-moral person.
Thank you for the compliment!
+peter+
(I have to get out my umbrella, the insults are flying rather low
those days...)
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n161.10 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:22:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> I've talked to people who were institutionized who have developed rather
> elaborate theories about the universe. I've also talked to people who were
> stoned who felt they had figured everything out. LSD was embraced as a
> quick trip into the mind.
>
And here we go again: now we are compared to "institutionized people"
and LSD-addicts.
I'm going to offer a bottle of best regional (swiss) champagne for the best
"anthro-insult" of the year.
For now I have to get my daily dose...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n161 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n162 --------------
001 - Rebecca Mast - Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.1 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: religion in school]
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:27:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>
> Rebecca Mast writes
> >>Religion lessons _are_ taught in the school -- these are essentially
> >>Christian in the ones I have taught, but are non-denominational.
> >
> >Like I wrote, what about the non-christian children?
>
> If I chose to send my children to a Muslim school or a Jewish school or
> a Humanist school or a Krishnamurti school (all such schools exist in
> this country), I would not expect them to be taught Christianity in the
> religion lessons.
>
> Similarly, if a school makes no secret of the fact that its religion
> lessons will be grounded in Christianity, I would not be overly
> surprised if this was indeed the case.
>
> I agree that it is a problem if parents are not told about the nature of
> the religion lessons.
> O.K. I agree.
>
> Also to put this into perspective, under current legislation, all state
> (ie what you call "public") schools in this country are obliged by law
> to have a daily act of communal Christian worship.
> I am unfamilar with this legislation. Could you please cite it for me. I tried asking a
few educators both in my university education department and family members, they did
not know what you were talking about. We are all curious now. My aunt fears she may have
left something out now for twenty years (she, being a christain would LOVE to include
this into here public classroom).
>
> >
>
> > You are comparing apples to light bulbs!
>
> Then I have misunderstood your argument. I took your (seemingly
> rhetorical) question:
> >>How is this NOT having religion as the base of the school?
> I am sorry for not making myself clear. The subjects of math, writting, and religion are not comparable for the nature of religion is not the same as the nature of math and
writing.
To give you the benifit of the dought, I soppose you could have "religious lessions"
that are comparable to the other subjects if you present the contect of religion or
christianity from an observer perspective or scientific. "The role of the G_d is..." H_s
place statsfied the human need for..."
> to mean that the fact that religion lessons are taught was evidence that
> religion is the base of the school.
Your school maybe different than most. (Hopefully it is.) In the schools around my area
(not just Waldorf) it is the nature of the beast. I would have to say yes.
> --
--
Rebecca L. Mast
Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.2 ---------------
From: WaldorfEdu aol.com
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:50:35 -0500
1 Nov 1996
Mr. Tonkin's post makes a very big assumption. That the majority of Waldorf
teachers have received a professional training and are therefore
"professionals". There is no way that the teacher training courses at Emerson
or Rudolf Steiner College would ever obtain proper accreditation for a
variety of reasons viz. course outlines would be far too limited and
sectarian etc. etc.
I am still waiting to hear, for example, (for the sake of argument from any
Waldorf teacher) how they place their children (let us say around the age of
8/9) on an individualized reading scheme. We withdrew our children from two
Waldorf schools (and we believe in the approach) because the teachers were
incompetent - in both cases the teachers did not possess any teaching
credential, did not have any knowledge of general reading schemes, never mind
individualized ones, and were immediately on the defensive and hostile when
we brought up the subject. Please do not tell us we were treated by
professionals in a professional manner because we were not.
Sincerely,
Dr. David Mollet
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.3 ---------------
From: WaldorfEdu aol.com
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:50:40 -0500
The best test is when there exists public Waldorf-inspired programs. Then
parents will have a real choice and the private Waldorf schools will stand or
fall by their merits. Meanwhile the bodies representing them do not want a
fair market place and have in the past done everything in their power to keep
their monopoly position. As I said previously this is in direct contradiction
to Steiner's indications.
Sincerely,
Dr. David Mollet
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.4 ---------------
From: WaldorfEdu aol.com
Subject: Religious bigotry
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:50:42 -0500
1 Nov 1996
Neil,
I would like your opinion on the following. You said
"I started this thread. Out of respect both to Michael Kopp and to myself,
I ask the rest of you to let it die, or at least, if you must continue the
argument, do so under another subject."
I said in a previous posting on the Steiner list (but quoted since on this
list by Lefty and myself)
>I hope that others might feel like I do but I now see that the topic of the
>horrific murders in Scotland is being discussed, analysed, commented on etc.
>I find the whole thing at this point in time insensitive. I believe those in
>Scotland should be left alone (as families and community) to grieve and find
>what peace they can; and that any debate with people wanting to know this or
>that particularly disturbing coming from people sympathetic or believing in
>Steiner's vision (and please do not turn what I have just said into a topic
>for debate), Sincerely, David Mollet
Lefty replied
"While you're unquestionably entitled to have and express your opinion, and
in fact I tend to agree with it, I don't think that it's in the least
reasonable to ask that other subscribers "do not turn what I have just said
into a topic for debate"."
A couple of points. If you do not receive a reprisal from Dan Dugan
concerning your comments which list, as far as basic freedoms are concerned,
do you consider are nearer to Steiner's ideals - the list that makes those
restrictions or the list that doesn't? Do you think you are being
unreasonable by making such a request?
I would emphasize that I say this not because of the content of the message I
received but because of the principle behind it. I am well aware that any
posting I make on the Steiner or Waldorf list will be gone through very
thoroughly, that sentences will be abstracted, words omitted to change the
sense of what I said, etc., etc., and this is the freedom that Steiner talked
about!! All I am seeing, and I have been seeing it for some 30 years, is
denying basic freedoms to others and this is in direct contradiction to
Steiner's indications - such is life!.
Sincerely,
Dr. David Mollet
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.5 ---------------
From: WaldorfEdu aol.com
Subject: Re: Excellence in Waldorf Schools
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:50:47 -0500
31 Oct 1996
Dear Daniel,
Thanks for the e-mail and your suggestion. No I have no wish to start a
"Mollet School" and I'll describe, when time allows, my reasons for this. I
think it was Peter who said words to the effect "please, please do" or
something similar. It is that very attitude that I am opposed to. That people
like me will go away leaving them with a monopoly. As far as I see it Peter
like many others in the Steiner world do not want to give others the freedom
they want for themselves.
I'll stick by what I say. These people do not want discussion - they want
monopoly power to do what they want ; they do not care how they treat people
- it is self-interest in the extreme and it is quite the opposite to what
Steiner indicated. They have in effect turned it into a cult (dictionary
definition - devoted attachment to, or extravagent admiration for a person).
My own interpretation is quite different and IMHO is, incidentally, in
agreement with what Steiner wanted to happen.
Sincerely,
Dr. David Mollet
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.6 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:02:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>mckay oro.net writes
>>>I trust Steiner wiith regard to the education of children because, from
>>>empirical observation, I believe that the education works better than
>>>any other model I have seen or worked in.
>>>
>>Where is the psychological training to back up the ability to make a
>>psychological judgement about _any_ child and when they're ready to learn
>>what?
>
>Try reading Steiner and someone like Piaget -- the correspondences are
>legion.
Are there "legions" of substantiated test results?
>--
>Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:02:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>David McKay wrote,
>{Exactly! I've been told by so many Wldorf teachers over the last ten years
>that children would be better off if parents would stay out of the
>"education of their children".}
>
>Usually when people want parents to "stay out" of something concerning
>their children it
>is because they are doing something contriversial. I disagree with this
>statment.
>Parents need to protect and provide for their children. It is up to me as
>a parent to
>not only watch over my child's education, but to particapate in it. I have
>been teaching
>my children things from the time of their birth. Why should I stop now?
>
>{I've been told by so many Wldorf teachers over the last ten years
>that children would be better off if parents would stay out of the
>"education of their children".}
>
>I also find this statment ironic. Parents that particapate send their
>children to
>specialty schools. If they did not wouldn't their children go "wherever"?
We have also been very involved with our childrens education/teaching since
birth. In our local area, "wherever" are some of the best public schools
around (people transfer jobs from all over the country to live here and use
the schools here). Parent participation at these schools are also high.
David McKay
>--
>Rebecca L. Mast
>Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
>E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
>P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:02:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>mckay oro.net writes
>>especially since it's convenient to not do exit polls of
>>people who are disappointed with what they have seen and experienced.
>Actually, we do do "exit polls" (we call them "leaving interviews").
>They are conducted, in confidence, by a friend of the school. They are
>_completely_ voluntary and neither the College nor the Council knows who
>has accepted the offer of such an interview and therefore does not know
>who has made which comments.
We're not talking about your school, we're talking about all the schools
here or anywhere that don't do this. Again I've met many that have stated
so, as well as was not my experience.
>They are of some value, but I find it far more valuable to (to give a
>recent example) do something like come in at a weekend to help repair
>the parent-room roof and, during the conversation that generally ensues
>either up the roof or over a few beers afterwards, I can respond to the
>"Hey, Steve, why do..." questions and also get a feel for what, if any,
>are burgeoning concerns.
Interesting... how many people that have left the school hang around to
shoot the shit and repair a roof of a place that may have been a negative
experience? Maybe _more value_ should be put on those "leaving interviews".
Not just "active listening", but "deep listening".
>Doing a difficult job with others is often a good way of getting to know
>them -- quite a few friendships have been struck on rooves or down
>holes.
>
>--
>Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.9 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:02:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>mckay oro.net writes
>>>Rebecca Mast writes
>>>
>>>TONKIN
>>>>Religion lessons _are_ taught in the school -- these are essentially
>>>>Christian in the ones I have taught, but are non-denominational.
>>>
>>>MAST
>>>>How is this NOT having religion as the base of the school?
>>>
>>>I also teach (amongst other things) mathematics and take children caving
>>>-- that doesn't make mathematics or caving the basis of the school. It
>>>is made _very_ clear to parents on interview (as I have indicated in
>>>another thread recently) what the general content of the religion
>>>lessons is.
>>>
>>But caving and mathmatics aren't RELIGION!
>
>You appear to be saying that the evidence for religion being the base of
>the school is that religion lessons are given.
>
>Do I understand you correctly?
I found it so intertwined I could not think other wise.
>
>--
>Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n162.10 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:18:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dr. Mollet writes
>
>The best test is when there exists public Waldorf-inspired programs. Then
>parents will have a real choice and the private Waldorf schools will stand or
>fall by their merits. Meanwhile the bodies representing them do not want a
>fair market place and have in the past done everything in their power to keep
>their monopoly position. As I said previously this is in direct contradiction
>to Steiner's indications.
Maybe we're not residing in the same Universe, so correct me if I'm
mistaken: are there not already existing "public Waldorf-inspired
programs", such as the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf School, the public
Waldorf-inspired school in Detroit, Harriet Tubman Village School in
Southern California, charter schools in Novato, Twin Ridges, etc? These
schools have, I believe, received a level of support from AWSNA and from
Rudolf Steiner College.
So what are you talking about?
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n162 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n163 --------------
001 - snell oro.net - Re: parent's role in education
002 - RigbyL aol.com - The Heart is Much More Than a Pump
003 - {~_~} - > Subject: Re: Things I wish they told me
004 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
005 - Lefty - David Mollet is Lying (was Re: Religious bigotry)
006 - Lee Story USG 1 Nov 1996
>Mr. Tonkin's post makes a very big assumption. That the majority of Waldorf
>teachers have received a professional training and are therefore
>"professionals". There is no way that the teacher training courses at Emerson
>or Rudolf Steiner College would ever obtain proper accreditation for a
>variety of reasons viz. course outlines would be far too limited and
>sectarian etc. etc.
>
>I am still waiting to hear, for example, (for the sake of argument from any
>Waldorf teacher) how they place their children (let us say around the age of
>8/9) on an individualized reading scheme. We withdrew our children from two
>Waldorf schools (and we believe in the approach) because the teachers were
>incompetent - in both cases the teachers did not possess any teaching
>credential, did not have any knowledge of general reading schemes, never mind
>individualized ones, and were immediately on the defensive and hostile when
>we brought up the subject. Please do not tell us we were treated by
>professionals in a professional manner because we were not.
>Sincerely,
>Dr. David Mollet
Well, Dr. Mollet, you certainly represent *my* view and experience with an
amazing degree of accuracy. We had the *same* experience.40%
of our Waldorf educated 5th graders read at second grade level or below.
(Every parent *thought* it was *only* thier child havong problems...)
Deby Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.2 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:31:30 -0500
Stephen Tonkin, I want to express my appreciation for your description of
what you teach about the heart and the circulatory system:
"As far as the heart is concerned, I first introduce it as part of a complete
circulatory system, a system which also has arteries, capillaries, venules,
etc. as distinct but not separate parts. The blood is also introduced as a
necessary part of the circulatory system (this may be obvious as the /sine
qua non/, but take a look at how many text books omit this from the list of
"components"). The alveoli are also an integral part.
"I will describe the structure of these members of the circulatory system and
then describe how the blood moves through a complete "cycle" of circulation,
from the squeezing of the corpuscles through capillaries (something which a
fluid-dynamics approach to circulation as a "pump and plumbing" model has yet
to fully account for) to the mixing vortex in the heart, how the blood flows
in as the heart relaxes and distends, how the blood flows out as the
ventricles contract; how movement of the skeletal muscles aids venous flow;
demonstrate the action of venous valves by using a finger to squeeze blood
"backwards" in a vein in the back of my hand; the response of the pulse to
muscular exertion; changing mean pulse rates from birth to old age; describe
how blood is directed to where it is most needed (e.g. why going for a run
directly after a big meal is not a good idea); talk about "fight or flight"
response; describe what happens in shock, tying this in with "the law of the
heart"; discuss circulatory health and the role of exercise and diet; the
effects of altitude training for athletes; divers bends; the effect of
smoking on circulatory health..."
This is most timely since we have started discussions in this forum on the
Goethean approach to observation. It should help those who seem to be stuck
in the metaphor "the heart is a pump" to see how much can be missed by
refusing to think more freely.
I recently came across some material in Fritjof Capra's new book "The Web of
Life" that might also fit into the presentation. Capra cites the discovery
by Candace Pert and colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health in
Bethesda, Maryland, that white blood cells not only have peptide receptors
but also produce peptides, which have also been known as neurotransmitters.
Thus, blood participates in the nervous system, the endocrine system and the
immune system, all of which produce and consume the "molecular messengers"
known as peptides.
In fact, says Capra, "recent peptide research has shown in dramatic ways that
these conceptual separations [nervous, endocrine and immune systems] are
merely historical artifacts that can no longer be maintained. According to
Candace Pert, the three systems must be seen as forming a single
psychosomatic network." This should be of considerable comfort to those
critics of Steiner who worry that he was too parsimonious in his division of
the human body into systems.
Somewhere in Steiner's lectures published as "Man as Symphony of the Creative
Word" (I think) he made reference to man learning to think with his body. It
was presented as having literal, not figurative, meaning. As with his "heart
is not a pump" statements, my initial reaction was "What could he possibly
mean by that?" I was interested, then, in Capra's quotation of Pert,
relative to the discovery that endorphins (one class of peptides), formerly
thought to be produced only in the brain, are also produced in various other
parts of the body: "I can no longer make a strong distinction between the
brain and the body." Seems like any subdivision of the body into systems is
ultimately rather arbitrary and potentially misleading in terms of
understanding the whole.
Elsewhere in his book Capra also notes the phenomenon of which I have read
before (primarily in Deepak Chopra's works)--the rapid turn-over of the
physical building blocks of the body. The cells in the lining of the stomach
are completely replaced every few hours, the skin every few days, etc., so
that over the course of a year more than 99% of the body is replaced. (Capra
says that most of the dust in our homes is due to dead skin cells, not a
specially welcome observation.) What is sustained, then, is not the material
body but the pattern of organization it represents. The physical structure
of the body at any point in time represents a transitory manifestation of the
underlying pattern of organization, which is what really counts.
Based on these facts I have tried to convince my ex-wife that I can no longer
be held responsible for past acts, but she won't have it. More to the point,
this seems like a message that would work well into the teaching of science
in a Waldorf school. Have you ever used it?
Best wishes,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.3 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: > Subject: Re: Things I wish they told me
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:49:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Our oldest adopted son was 20 months old when he came to us. He had a
> horrific history of severe neglect and abuse with drug addicted birth
> parents. Then on to several foster homes before he was 20 months. Then, of
> course, we moved him again, to be part of a permanent family.
> He is doing extremely well, but remains a challenge. He has trust issues,
> and an *extremely* strong will. I am curious about Anthroposophical views
> on these kinds of kids. They are growing at alarming numbers. We have been
> fortunate with our son, but know several families who have been to hell and
> back with these kind of kids.
> Deby
Dear Deby,
I see now why you have asked me such questions. I also share your
concerns and agree that this phenomenon is growing beyond belief. I know
several families who have taken this path, out of the loving care and
goodness of their heart. I also know that some found this to became a
challenge they never expected. I can not say what your particular
challenges are with you child, you are working with this on a daily
basis. You have direct experiences I do not have. I can not give you a
some Pop psychological answer especially here on the net. There are many
ways to look at this and many good ideas. I can only offer some support that
may give you some ideas or some solace, if only for a few minutes.
In Anthroposophy there is the hope that it is taken up with an open
mind. I think this is essential in any endeavor. There is a movement that
works within the curative aspects of Waldorf Education. I have seen this
work and am greatly impressed.
I admit that some teachers and schools take on children they are not
equip to handle. I have great concerns when a school does this out of
financial reasons, they must know in their hearts what is best for the
child, parents, and the school community, but this is another issue.
I assure you that these children with their special needs will
demand that teachers receive the curative training. This is the future.
I believe you are undertaking this training, just by expressing your
deep concern for your child. Perhaps, it is the gift you have received
or are receiving from him.
I also hear the question why is this happening and what does it mean
from a spiritual science point of view? I can only tell you about my own
experiences from my own research. To me it is a wake up call. That
something requires and is demanding our attention. This may seem simple,
but I then ask the question why, if this is so simple, are we as a society
not taking the bull by the horns? This then leads me to ask myself as an
individual, what am I doing to make the difference? Is my heart in what
I do? Do I have understanding and compassion towards all human beings,
or are all my goals self serving?
This is where faith comes in for me, and most of all trust. I have
great trust in the spiritual world to help and guide me though my day
and in my life. Do I live in the moment or am I spending the moment
regreating the past and looking into the future. Can I balance what is
before me? Do I have enough within myself to let go and be awake in the
here and now? These questions, as simplistic as they may sound are our
most important challenges today.
A women, a mother, once asked Dr. Steiner how she could take up a
meditative path with all that was demanded upon her throughout the day by
her children her husband and her household, he told her that during the
dinner hour when she set the table to set each placement with care and love
towards each family member.
I believe through acts of thoughtfulness and kindness we are
led to an awareness of the spirituality in all human beings. This has
worked for me.
I really do not wish to make a point of this to you on this post,
but I see it here in the WC list. I hope and believe that everyone here
wants what is best for their children and society as a whole, consciously
or unconsciously, at least this is why I believe the list was started.
I may be wrong, but I believe it is what people who read and writs here
really want, an understanding. Science for all it's pros and cons is a
spiritual activity. The real question is what do we do with it on a
personal level...
Anthroposophy taken up as an intellectual pursuit IMHO will lead no
where. If Anthroposophy is to give anything to the world it will come
"through" the forces of the heart. There by anyone can be practicing
Anthroposophy, a heart force developed through experiences reflected by
the mind.
Dear Deby I personaly find this medium a bit hard to convey what
I would like to say were we to sit down and talk over a cup of coffee one
on one. I do hope in some small way it has brought you some answers to
your questions.
I do not wish to be on the firing lines here on the list for how
I view Anthroposophy, there is no joy in that for me, others may wish to
take that up. The path that I have taken is my own personal choice. I do
not claim part or all is for everyone, nor do I feel the need to defend
what I believe, but I am open to discussing points of which I have had
direct experiences, and am willing to share and learn with you and others.
Warmest Wishes,
-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:36:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>And here we go again: now we are compared to "institutionized people"
>and LSD-addicts.
No, if I am comparing anyone to institutionized people and LSD-users, it
would be Steiner. What I am saying is that I have had conversations with a
number of people who, through various means, have felt they have achieved
great insight.
The primary way I sort out what is useful from what is not is to what
extent ideas (however they originated) can be tested and verified. What I
am saying is that I won't discount out-of-hand ideas that have come from
non-scientific thought. But if there is no way to test and verify those
ideas, I will treat them all as speculation.
I may respect some sources more than others based on my personal
experiences and biases, but I will consider all sorts of creative thought.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.5 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: David Mollet is Lying (was Re: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:41:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
David Mollet writes
>
>I am well aware that any
>posting I make on the Steiner or Waldorf list will be gone through very
>thoroughly, that sentences will be abstracted, words omitted to change the
>sense of what I said, etc., etc., and this is the freedom that Steiner talked
>about!! All I am seeing, and I have been seeing it for some 30 years, is
>denying basic freedoms to others and this is in direct contradiction to
>Steiner's indications - such is life!.
Dr. Mollet clearly implies here that I am exercising prior restraint on
postings to the STEINER and WALDORF lists, and editing them to suit my whim
before they are propagated to the lists. This is not, nor has it ever
been, the case. I have never, not once, not ever, "gone through postings"
as a matter of course, "abstracted sentences" or "omitted words to change
the sense" of _any_ posting. In the instance that a subscriber is on
REVIEW status, I will simply reject inappropriate postings with a clear
explanation of why I am doing so. It is up to the author to rework the
post so that it is acceptable.
By making this charge, which is every bit as baseless and unfounded as his
_previous_ charges, Dr. Mollet makes it clear that he has no regard for the
truth and is willing to fabricate serious accusation without regard for the
actual facts of the matter. He has, further, not shown the backbone to
admit that his previous charges were clearly erroneous.
Dr. Mollet, if you have a shred or scintilla of evidence to back up this
charge, you'd do well to trot it out quickly. This relates very directly
to the question of who around here might be suffering from a lack of
ethics, integrity and professionalism.
Let's see the evidence for your outrageous assertion, Doctor.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: David Mollet is Lying (was Re: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:59:18 -0500
Lefty writes:
> Dr. Mollet clearly implies here that I am exercising prior restraint on
> postings to the STEINER and WALDORF lists, and editing them to suit my whim
> before they are propagated to the lists. This is not, nor has it ever
> been, the case. [....]
I'd like to second Lefty on this. I have had great differences of
opinion with him about appropriate style and content of messages
appropriate to those lists, especially the STEINER list. This led
finally to my "requested resignation" :} ... Maybe I have the curious
distinction of being the only person removed for reasons _other_ than
quoting messages? But _never_ did Lefty exercise prior censorship on
anything which I chose to send there. When I left my last message
appeared intact, and was echoed back to me. It would take some very
good hard evidence to make me think he's edited anyone else's
postings.
But please, let's not start another flame war over this! --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.7 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Catching the Light
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:06:34 -0500
Dan Dugan--
You noted Stephen Tonkin's recent reference to Art Zajonc' book "Catching the
Light," and you provided the following quotation from it:
"Light is the pure body of the Word, of the Logos. The very same light that
illumines our world is the most perfect image of God's creative song."
[Zajonc, Arthur. Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and
Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 220.]
Then you commented: " That's pure Anthroposophy. The capsule bio on the
cover doesn't mention that Zajonc is a former editor of The Journal for
Anthroposophy."
We seem to have a little problem of quotation out of context here. Your
selection together with your quotation might give the impression that
"Catching the Light" is espousing anthroposophy. That is incorrect, and I
know you wouldn't want to foster such a misapprehension.
The essential nature of the book "Catching the Light" is aptly represented by
this paragraph from the cover: "From biblical times to the world of modern
optics, "Catching the Light" is a brilliant synthesis of history, science,
religion, and art that brings together the multifaceted strands of human
experience to light the way to a new understanding of ourselves and our
cosmos." If we disregard the promotional adjective "brilliant," this is a
rather factual statement of what the book is all about.
As a history of those who have had interesting things to say about the nature
of light, the book describes Steiner's view along with Homer, Plato,
Empedocles, the Book of Matthew, the Bhagavad-Gita, Euclid, Alhazen,
Descarte, Zoroaster, Brunelleschi, Bohm, Bohr, Mani, Grosseteste, Newton,
Goethe, Edwin Land, Galileo, Faraday, John Bell, Fermat, Feynman, Planck...
and on and on. Goethe and Steiner are dealt with together, in a chapter
titled "Seeing Light--Ensouling Science."
Zajonc briefly describes Steiner's view on light (page 219), then quotes
Steiner, then immediately after that quotation says this: "Light is the pure
body of the Word, of the Logos. The very same light that illumines our world
is the most perfect image of God's creative song. Grosseteste had called
light the first corporeal form; Steiner agreed. The electromagnetic theory
of light was, in Steiner's view, but a pale and abstract reflection of
light's much greater nature, one of which we should remain forever mindful."
It is no wonder that the two sentences you chose to quote are "pure
Anthroposophy." Zajonc was clearly paraphrasing Steiner's view. Like any
author of an historical work, Zajonc paraphrases many writings throughout the
book, representing many views. He leaves the assimilation of those views to
the reader.
Regarding Zajonc' connection to anthroposophy, you will recall that the
posting in which I originally called your attention to his book--the one that
stimulated you to ask to borrow a copy--I clearly stated that he is one of
the leaders in the Anthroposophical Society in America. In fact, Art is
presently the General Secretary. That the publishers elected not to mention
his connection with anthroposophy in the brief cover bio should not be
interpreted as some form of cover-up. (I'm sure you didn't mean it that
way.) I take it simply to be a judgment that that connection is not
specially relevant to the message of the book.
I bring this to your attention because I know you would not want to become
known as one who uses quotation out of context to present a distorted view.
That might call into question the significance of many of the other
quotations you have made in this forum.
Best regards,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:11:28 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
>Mr. Tonkin's post makes a very big assumption. That the majority of Waldorf
>teachers have received a professional training and are therefore
>"professionals".
I obviously haven't a clue about what the majority have -- FWIW I have a
"normal" and a Waldorf teacher training (and sufficient other ridiculous
letters to plaster after my name to make it look as though I'm bragging
on the rare occasions I use them). A majority of my colleagues are
professionally qualified.
However, if you take "professional" to mean "membership of a
professional institution", then the majority of _all_ teachers are not
professional in that sense.
>There is no way that the teacher training courses at Emerson
>or Rudolf Steiner College would ever obtain proper accreditation for a
>variety of reasons viz. course outlines would be far too limited and
>sectarian etc. etc.
Time will tell if you are correct...the Waldorf training in Plymouth is
already properly accredited (Cert Ed and Dip Ed courses are available).
>
>I am still waiting to hear, for example, (for the sake of argument from any
>Waldorf teacher) how they place their children (let us say around the age of
>8/9) on an individualized reading scheme.
How? Simple -- give them a reading test (we use Schonell) and a few
other bits and pieces the remedial teacher (state trained) does with
them (I don't know the details) and take it from there -- we have a
portion of our "materials" budget dedicated to the maintenance and
development of reading schemes.
How do you suggest it is done?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Prof. Roger Penrose (was: Informing potential Waldorf parents)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:13:50 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>STEPHEN TONKIN
> Roger
>>Penrose endorses this book.
>
>If Penrose endorses it I would consider that to be a good reason to suspect
>the rationality of its contents!
Just so we can be clear about the basis of your innuendo (Coker #25)
about the judgement of the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the
University of Oxford, could you please inform us of your own
qualifications and achievements in Penrose's fields of endeavour; and
the grounds upon which you make the innuendo?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n163.10 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:02:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>This does not imply that a parent has no role or input into their
>>child's education -- of course they have -- in addition to termly
>>parents' evenings I try to get the parents of each child in my class to
>>come for a formal private discussion about their child's educational
>>welfare at least once a term -- vast numbers of informal discussions
>>take place.
>>
>>But in any school (not just Waldorf schools) it would seem appropriate
>>that the educational _decision_ is made by the professionals. I know
>>from experience that when there has been a dispute about which way to go
>>and I have given in to the parent's wishes, I usually regretted it
>>later. As I have become more experienced I have "held out" more often
>>and a number of parents who disagreed strongly at the time have later
>>agreed that I was right to do so. Obviously I make mistakes -- however,
>>I think I make fewer by taking the perspective of a professional
>>educator when trying to decide what is the best course of action for the
>>child's benefit.
>
>I guess I don't accept the fact that "professionals" in any field are more
>knowledgable that I am. If I find myself talking to anyone who seems to
>know more about a subject than I do and expects me to accept what they are
>saying because they know more about it, that situation doesn't last for
>very long. No matter what the topic (including medicine), I will get books
>from the library or buy them on my own and read up so that I know what they
>are talking about.
>
>Never have I felt that teachers should call the shots because they are the
>professionals. I let others stand in for me because they have the time or
>they can physically do what I cannot do (cleaning my teeth, etc.), but not
>because they know more than I do.
>
>And I think one of the reasons public schools have sometimes lost touch
>with parents is that teachers can come across as feeling superior to the
>parents. I think in all educational endeavors, the parents must be sought
>out as full partners in the educational process. Not only does that
>increase their interest in their childrens' eucation, but they often do
>know more about an individual child than the teachers. Yes, there are poor
>parents in the world, but for the sake of the child, they need to be
>encouraged to become better parents and more involved.
But not as superior as Waldorf teachers that I have met come off. I'd hate
to meet a Waldorf teacher from Texas! (for those of you outside the US,
Texans always brag about being the biggest and best).
david mckay
>Suzanne
>
>Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
>slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
>303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
>For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n163 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n164 --------------
001 - mckay oro.net - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
002 - mckay oro.net - Re: parent's role in education
003 - mckay oro.net - Re: Things I wish they told...
004 - mckay oro.net - Re: parent's role in education
005 - mckay oro.net - Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
006 - Stephen Tonkin >
>> I've talked to people who were institutionized who have developed rather
>> elaborate theories about the universe. I've also talked to people who were
>> stoned who felt they had figured everything out. LSD was embraced as a
>> quick trip into the mind.
I thought this was a very accurate observation that could apply to anyone
or any following
>
>And here we go again: now we are compared to "institutionized people"
>and LSD-addicts.
If the shoe fits...
>I'm going to offer a bottle of best regional (swiss) champagne for the best
>"anthro-insult" of the year.
Touchy,touchy. I didn't see this as trying to be an insult. I find Suzanne
to be very level headed and kind with her thoughts.
>For now I have to get my daily dose...
Of what?
David Mckay
>+peter+
>
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.2 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:02:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>snell oro.net writes
>>We were told by a Waldorf teacher, a member of the college of teachers, "I
>>feel *sorry* for the children whose parents *think* they know what is best
>>for their childs' education !! (Luckily, it wasn't *my* childs teacher.)
>
>Right, I probably ought to don an asbestos suit before I say any more,
>but here goes:
>
>Firstly, I fully accept that the ultimate responsibility for the child
>must normally lie with the parents -- I say "normally" because there are
>obvious cases where parents cannot, for one reason or another, cannot
>cope -- this is one reason the state can remove children from their
>parents.
You're right Stephen, but in this case this teacher was not speaking in
generalization, she said that directly to me separate from the others she
said it to, knowing that she was speaking to very well educated people whom
were also parents who are very involved with their childrens lives.
>Secondly, most of us live in a society where we have all had an
>education -- one aspect of this is that we now all seem to think that we
>are experts.
No I don't think I'm an expert, I do feel I can figure things out given the
proper information and chance, as well as knowing my children better than
anyone else.
>Thirdly, if I have a medical problem and I consult a doctor, I accept
>that he has made a deeper study of medicine than I have done and I will
>be inclined to follow his advice (even though I know -- from BMJ or
>Lancet, I can't recall which -- that statistically about 25% of
>diagnoses are incorrect and that the figure for first-time diagnoses are
>higher).
>
>The consequence of "secondly" is that we are less likely to accept the
>advice of someone who has made a deeper study of education than we have.
>If we consult a practitioner of almost any other profession, we are more
>likely to accept their advice where it differs from our own instincts.
I don't, I've always believed I carry the full responsibility for myself
and to ask questions so as to better understand what's going on, and to get
other opinions.
>This does not imply that a parent has no role or input into their
>child's education -- of course they have -- in addition to termly
>parents' evenings I try to get the parents of each child in my class to
>come for a formal private discussion about their child's educational
>welfare at least once a term -- vast numbers of informal discussions
>take place.
This is good. Unfortunately at our public Waldorf school what was said at
such meetings, and whatever was decided to be any corrective coarse were
hardly ever what ended up happening.
>But in any school (not just Waldorf schools) it would seem appropriate
>that the educational _decision_ is made by the professionals. I know
>from experience that when there has been a dispute about which way to go
>and I have given in to the parent's wishes, I usually regretted it
>later. As I have become more experienced I have "held out" more often
>and a number of parents who disagreed strongly at the time have later
>agreed that I was right to do so. Obviously I make mistakes -- however,
>I think I make fewer by taking the perspective of a professional
>educator when trying to decide what is the best course of action for the
>child's benefit.
Yes, it's what you and others in your position/title get paid for. You and
your school sound a lot more healthy at working with problems than our
private or now public Waldorf school was/is.
>In any "difficult" case I may well have regular (weekly, fortnightly,
>monthly) meetings with the parent to review the situation and "tweak"
>what we are doing.
>
>Obviously each and every mistake is deeply regrettable and we try to
>learn from them, but there is no way a human being can avoid making
>mistakes. What I find totally unacceptable is if I _repeat_ a mistake.
>I also accept that, even if only 1% of my decisions are wrong (and the
>figure is certainly higher than 1%), for the child who was the subject
>of that wrong decision it is 100% of them that are wrong.
It's good to be honest with yourself, keep it up.
David McKay
>--
>Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.3 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:02:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> I do not disagree with you that this METHOD OF TEACHING is one of the
>>best. Just because
>> Steiner has an area of excillence it does not mean that his whole being
>>and/or all his
>> ideas are excillent. I think this is the main reason for this list.
>>Everyone does not
>> accept ALL aspects of Steiner. All of his ideas should not be placed in
>>the schools.
>> --
>> Rebecca L. Mast
>> Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
>> E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
>> P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
>>
>
>No one ever said that ALL of Steiner's ideas should be placed in the
>schools. I would be one of the first to object this. In fact, and this
>has been told over and over, Anthroposophy is _no_ part of the official
>Waldorf curriculum.
Could have fooled me.
>And even among anthroposophic circles I have not yet met someone who
>believes ALL of Steiner's work.
I have!
David McKay
>+peter+
>
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.4 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:55:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>1 Nov 1996
>Mr. Tonkin's post makes a very big assumption. That the majority of Waldorf
>teachers have received a professional training and are therefore
>"professionals". There is no way that the teacher training courses at Emerson
>or Rudolf Steiner College would ever obtain proper accreditation for a
>variety of reasons viz. course outlines would be far too limited and
>sectarian etc. etc.
Exactly!!!
>I am still waiting to hear, for example, (for the sake of argument from any
>Waldorf teacher) how they place their children (let us say around the age of
>8/9) on an individualized reading scheme. We withdrew our children from two
>Waldorf schools (and we believe in the approach) because the teachers were
>incompetent - in both cases the teachers did not possess any teaching
>credential, did not have any knowledge of general reading schemes, never mind
>individualized ones, and were immediately on the defensive and hostile when
>we brought up the subject. Please do not tell us we were treated by
>professionals in a professional manner because we were not.
>Sincerely,
>Dr. David Mollet
Nor were me or the almost 60 families that left the public Waldorf program
just last year, not to mention all the families that have left over the
last 16 or so years that Waldorf has been in this community.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.5 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:55:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>The best test is when there exists public Waldorf-inspired programs. Then
>parents will have a real choice and the private Waldorf schools will stand or
>fall by their merits. Meanwhile the bodies representing them do not want a
>fair market place and have in the past done everything in their power to keep
>their monopoly position. As I said previously this is in direct contradiction
>to Steiner's indications.
>Sincerely,
>Dr. David Mollet
The best test does not prove out that when there are public
Waldorf-inspired programs there will be a better "waldorf choice". You
would have to use non-Waldorf -trained teachers to do such a job. OUr local
Public Waldorf School is no different than the private one!
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: religion in school]
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 21:17:01 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Rebecca Mast writes
TONKIN
>> Also to put this into perspective, under current legislation, all state
>> (ie what you call "public") schools in this country are obliged by law
>> to have a daily act of communal Christian worship.
MAST
>> I am unfamilar with this legislation. Could you please cite it for me.
I can't cite it -- my (somewhat lame) excuse is that, as an independent
school, we are not necessarily bound by that particular piece of
legislation (I don't think this contention has ever been tested in
court, but I may be wrong -- I'm not a lawyer). I am merely aware that
the legislation exists -- if you really want to know precisely what it
says, I suggest that you contact:
Department for Education
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3BT
UK
(sorry, I don't have 'phone number to hand -- I could get it next time I
go into school if you want)
or
HMSO Publications
PO Box 276
London SW8 5DT
UK
Tel: +44(0)-171-873-0011 (General enquiries number -- there is a queuing
system on this number)
I am sure one or both of these would be able to help (HMSO = Her
Majesty's Stationary Office, the outlet for government publications)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:55:29 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dr. Mollet writes
>>
>>The best test is when there exists public Waldorf-inspired programs. Then
>>parents will have a real choice and the private Waldorf schools will stand or
>>fall by their merits. Meanwhile the bodies representing them do not want a
>>fair market place and have in the past done everything in their power to keep
>>their monopoly position. As I said previously this is in direct contradiction
>>to Steiner's indications.
>
>Maybe we're not residing in the same Universe, so correct me if I'm
>mistaken: are there not already existing "public Waldorf-inspired
>programs", such as the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf School, the public
>Waldorf-inspired school in Detroit, Harriet Tubman Village School in
>Southern California, charter schools in Novato, Twin Ridges, etc? These
>schools have, I believe, received a level of support from AWSNA and from
>Rudolf Steiner College.
When the top two people in charge of such things from AWSNA came to Twin
Ridges they said they have nothing to do with our types of programs, and in
fact said that Milwaukee was unique as it was the first and last such
official "public" Waldorf school that AWSNA would be involved with. Harriet
Tubman is being sued and others are being challenged. So the answer is NO
they are not recieving any level of support from AWSNA unless they are
following the traditional Waldorf Way "do it anyway" mode of opperation.
>So what are you talking about?
Reality, what are you?
David McKay
>
>--
>Lefty [gYon-Pa]
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 21:38:32 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
WaldorfEdu aol.com writes
>The best test is when there exists public Waldorf-inspired programs. Then
>parents will have a real choice and the private Waldorf schools will stand or
>fall by their merits. Meanwhile the bodies representing them do not want a
>fair market place and have in the past done everything in their power to keep
>their monopoly position.
I am still curious to know how the "bodies representing" "private
Waldorf schools" are hindering the establishment of "public Waldorf-
inspired programs". I was under the impression that the opposition was
coming from people opposed to Waldorf education /per se/ like Dan Dugan
and his PLANS outfit.
If I am wrong and the major hindrance is from the "bodies representing",
perhaps Dan would be better advised to _encourage_ these "bodies
representing"? Somehow I doubt Dan would agree. Dan?
Incidentally, Dan, some time ago I asked how many public Waldorf
initiatives PLANS had successfully prevented -- I don't seem to recall
getting an answer. I am sure the "strike-rate" of PLANS would be of
interest to critics and "defenders" alike.
I know you have said previously that (I am paraphrasing -- please
correct me if I am misrepresenting what you said) the monopoly on the
use of the word "Steiner" or "Waldorf" prevented teachers using Waldorf
education in public schools -- I said at the time that I disagreed with
this contention; and have yet to have my reasons for disagreement
refuted.
Briefly, what is to stop someone using aspects of Waldorf education and
calling it something else? Then what is tried can be judged on its own
merits and the judgement is less likely to be predjudiced either way by
an association with "Waldorf" or "Steiner".
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.9 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 17:39:27 -0500
Dan Dugan writes:
> LEE STORY
> >>Let me not claim any authority here, but aren't Atlantis and Lemuria
> >>(the latter borrowed from some very shoddy 19th-C. Theosophical
> >>fantasies---see "Science Fads and Fallacies", M.Gardner) completely
> >>incidental to anthroposophy? Steiner's intro texts are first (for the
> >>philosophy of mind) _Philosophy of Freedom_, second (for the more
> >>esoteric ideas) _Theosophy_, and third (for "practical" access to the
> >>"spiritual world") _How to Know Higher Worlds_.
>
> Any Anthroposophical book catalog will tell you that there are -four- basic
> books, including "An Outline of Occult Science." Read it before you go on
> thinking Steiner is so rational...
>
> -Dan Dugan
C'mon, Dan, I don't think Steiner is (on the whole) "so rational".
What I wrote was in the context of recommended reading for prospective
Waldorf parents, and there were two reasons I didn't include
_Outline..._. One, I haven't gotten through it myself. Two, I think
_Theosophy_ and _How to Know..._ are sufficient introduction to the
esoteric/occult side of Steiner; surely there's no need for a parent
of a prospective student to read RS's complete works.
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n164.10 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Who determines school policy; fads; change; funding; State control
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 17:38:20 -0500
Thanks, Stephen. I accept and appreciate your replies to just about
all my questions (blackboards, medicine, et al), although I might
question whether a responsible person ought not say something when he
finds his pupils being dosed with highly specious and untested
nostrums, and not pass it off on the ground that there's another
profession which deals with that.
Reading's an odd thing: in my experience a lot of children
(unfortunately not all) suddenly get _interested_ in reading, and then
learn extraordinarily rapidly: you can't stop them. Maybe it doesn't
matter a whole lot whether instruction begins in kindergarten of much
later, or whether it's primarily phonics-based or visually oriented or
whatever. But it's my impression, although as you say, "normally this
begins in class 1", that in Waldorf it's usual to start with a
combination of listening to stories and letter-drawing (calligraphy as
a craft), and not especially encourage early attempts by the children
to decode the symbols into sentences, ideas. Isn't this so? I don't
deny that the approach may be effective.
If we are to discuss subject-matter pedagogy, I'd much rather consider
why it seems that real mathematics (rather than arithmetical
calculating tricks and facility with calculation) seems to be totally
avoided or given minimal lip-service until the secondary-school plane
geometry class...in many, many of BOTH Waldorf and state schools.
I wrote:
> > To discuss with
> >higher-grade-level students that "the jury is out", and probably
> >always will be, as to whether much of Steiner's "spiritual training"
> >and "clairvoyance" was real or deluded?
and Stephen Tonkin replied:
> Since Steiner's "spiritual training" and "clairvoyance" is not
> discussed at all (I think I have said before that we do not teach
> anthroposophy) in class, as a mattter of policy, it would seem
> particularly unsuitable to discuss it formally at all.
>
> I have mentioned previously my approach when an upper school pupil
> wanted to know about anthroposophy. Do you find that approach to be
> unacceptable and, if so, why?
>
> Of course it happens that younger children pick up, usually from
> parents, some ideas about what Steiner believed and taught -- my answer
> when I am asked by a class 8 pupil is that this is not a subject for
> class discussion and that their relationship to it is something personal
> about which they will have to make up their own mind. If they persist,
> I insist that they discuss it with their parents, not with me.
>
> My position, which I hold very firmly, is that is not for me in my role
> as a teacher to in any way abuse the trust of the parents of my pupils -
> - part of that trust is that I will not teach anthroposophy.
This whole section of your response is puzzling to me. Isn't the
"history of ideas" the very subject-matter of education, at least once
the mechanics of reading, writing, and reckoning are in place? (Of
course Waldorf teachers---and most other---are not satisfied merely to
provide these mechanical basics; they offer myth and poem, art and
craft, etc.) You would "abuse my trust" if you -DIDN'T- try to cover
ideas and opinions that you consider important. Either you think
Steiner is important enough to discuss, or you don't. If you (or at
least a large majority of Waldorf teachers) consider Steiner's ideas
not only a guide and foundation for your teaching approach, but quite
excellent in themselves, why would you respond to a student that they
are "not a subject for class discussion," and as to anthroposophy: "it
would seem particularly unsuitable to discuss it formally at all"?
Might you not discuss Plato's philosophy versus that of the Sophists,
and try to find interesting and useful ideas in both? To look at the
intellectual climate in which these ideas appeared? I'm not trying to
put you in a double-bind here (politically if you include Steiner's
claims, intellectually if you exclude them); it seems you're already
in one.
Rebecca Mast offered:
> I do not disagree with you that this METHOD OF TEACHING is one of
> the best. Just because Steiner has an area of excellence it does
> not mean that his whole being and/or all his ideas are excellent. I
> think this is the main reason for this list. Everyone does not
> accept ALL aspects of Steiner. All of his ideas should not be
> placed in the schools.
This amused me particularly, since I'd just written the previous lines
indicating why I thought Steiner's philosophy -should- be discussed in
school. If a part of Steiner's ideas form the basis for pedagogy,
-and- if many on the teaching staff accept some of his more
controversial ones, it would seem extraordinarily important to make
explicit to the students the controversy surrounding them (though
again, possibly not until "class 9" or so). The ideas and worldview
will be evident "in the hallways" anyways, and what could be more
dishonest (and tending to encourage a hush-hush reverence and implicit
belief) than not bringing them up in parity with all the other "things
in heaven and earth"? Shouldn't teachers in an upper (secondary)
school encourage comparison, appreciation, and critique of all
philosophical, religious, and political ideas which are of importance
in their particular environment? This includes representative
democracy and its alternatives, Christianity and its alternatives,
capitalism and its alternatives, British royalism and its
alternatives, anthroposophy and its alternatives... To do otherwise
seems terribly patronizing toward adolescents, and invites regression
to the horrid politically indoctrination ("civics") classes that
public secondary schools over here in America foist onto their
students as a substitute for real consideration of alternatives.
Stephen again:
> I have yet to work in a school where a majority of "stakeholders" have
> agreed upon a major change in the curriculum and that change has not
> happened.
This is a _very_ good point.
> >On the first sentence: Continual change does not mean _total_ change.
> >I think this is a red herring.
>
>
> Tell that to state-school teachers in this country! A friend who is
> the deputy head of a local comprehensive school has, at present, 25% of
> his staff off at any one time as a consequence of stress-related
> illness. All agree that the major precipitator of this stress is the
> frequent _changes_ the government keeps making to the National
> Curriculum.
I doubt that it's specifically the _change_, rather the government's
power to demand and enforce useless uniformity and predefine lots of
goals (and then of course to keep changing the rules defining that
uniformity) that makes state school teaching so stressful. It's not
keeping up with changing methods, but being told by some bureaucrats
or "educational theorists" precisely what method to use (when the
teacher already knows quite well how to do his job) that seems to
bother my kids' teachers. I agree with them. Among other things, I'd
like to see the State take their standardized tests and stuff them
where the sun doesn't shine...
> > > I absolutely agree with one exception: funding. The parents of Waldorf
> > > pupils also pay into the coffers from which the state funds state
> > > education -- let the state fund their children at the same per-capita
> > > rate as it funds children in what the US calls "public" schools.
> >
> >There seems an implicit conservative, even social-Darwinian,
> >political/economic idea here that parents ought to be wholly
> >responsible for their _own_ children's education, and to hell with
> >everyone else's.
>
> That is not my position and I find it difficult to see how you could
> arrive at that interpretation from what I said.
I'm not just trying to respond to you, tit for tat. In my next lines
(retained below) I suggest an alternative which seems to me more
reasonable. Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to frame you into a
false position.
Over here there's a deafening squawk from so-called "conservatives"
to the effect that -they- (often some of the most affluent members of
society) are being double-charged and forced to subsidize the
schooling of some child other than their own, this to the
accompaniment of much flag-waving and oratory about "family" and
parents' rights. Obviously I don't think that "parent" carries, or
should carry, any particular honor or responsibility that the rest of
us don't share. Rather I think we pool our resources and disburse
them with a goal of equal educational opportunity...probably -not-
through a system of state-administered schools.
I wrote:
> >But if you're talking about _eliminating_ the State role in school
> >establishment and curriculum, and limiting its mission to an
> >income-redistribution system (a.k.a. full educational voucher?) that
> >tries to guarantee that every child in the world has an equal economic
> >opportunity to attend _any_ school---then I'll agree wholeheartedly!
One other thing, Stephen...on your message pressing the need for
"professional" teachers, comparing them (that is, yourselves) to
physicians, and deriding parents who think they're qualified to
determine curriculum because they "all had an education." Keep that
asbestos suit well buttoned on this one! Maybe you're right that "in
any school (not just Waldorf schools) it would seem appropriate that
the educational _decision_ is made by the professionals," but I tend
to read this as an argument against (professional) schools in general!
There are plenty of alternatives; one that I find particularly
appealing is the sharing of teaching responsibilities by most or all
adult members of a modest-sized community, with "professional" experts
called in to deal with specialized subjects when the expertise does
not exist in the community. Of course this doesn't mesh well with
work-scheduling in our present industrial society, and doesn't promise
to immediately lead to improved test scores...
Then you offer the even more unbelievable: "I know from experience
that when there has been a dispute about which way to go and I have
given in to the parent's wishes, I usually regretted it later." To
the outsider, this says no more than: "When there's a disagreement, it
usually turns out the I'm right." It isn't very convincing, since
-all- of us feel that way from time to time. Please contrast that
with Deby Snell's experience, which seems to me a much better model
for schooling.
Deby writes:
>[....] His new class is run in a democratic fashion. Parents are
>consulted [during monthly meetings] about the curriculum. We generally
>vote on math programs, etc. We have wonderful discussions about the
>curriculum. We love, respect and trust our childrens' teacher.
It sounds like that respect is earned, and has no need of professional
titles or institutional support.
Deby also writes:
>I found in our local public schools, everything Waldorf
>claimed *it* was, without the dogma.
Obviously no institution can satisfy everyone, and undoubtedly even
the communal education that I sketched above wouldn't satisfy me, but
I feel similarly quite pleased with the public schools of Middleton,
Massachusetts as compared with various private grammar schools in the
area. Thanks for forwarding these thoughts to the list, Deby!
Cheers, --lee
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n164 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n165 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Who determines school policy; fads; change; funding; State control
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 19:09:17 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>>Lee Story USG writes
>>> Do some teachers prefer to start reading instruction earlier?
>
>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>Earlier than what? Normally this begins in class 1.
>
>Stephen, could you go into a little more detail how you teach reading in
>class 1, and if this differs from standard Waldorf practice?
No, I coudn't go into much detail because (as I have said on here
previously) I have never taken a class 1. In the schools in which I
have taught, reading begins in class 1. The approach which my children
experienced was a mixture of phonics and "look-and-say" (phonics is a
great "decoder"; look-and-say is more effective for eg the -ough words)
and it seems to have been effective -- both have (Schonell) reading ages
well in advance of their chronological ages.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:05:35 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>I trust Steiner wiith regard to the education of children because, from
>>empirical observation, I believe that the education works better than
>>any other model I have seen or worked in.
>
>Can you quote some beleivable studies here, or is it just naive empiricism?
No, I can quote no studies (I don't know if any have been done, do you?)
-- as I said above, it is a belief -- it is just, in your words "naive",
empiricism. I made the point that it was empirical observation because
I am fully aware of the limitations of empiricism.
>Believers in all kinds of quackery claim "empirical" evidence.
Of course, but I am sure that you wouldn't have the intellectual naivity
to interpret this to imply that empiricicism is sufficient evidence of
quackery. (see Coker's list #18)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 22:02:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
mckay oro.net writes
>>You appear to be saying that the evidence for religion being the base of
>>the school is that religion lessons are given.
>>
>>Do I understand you correctly?
>
>I found it so intertwined I could not think other wise.
I assume that means "yes"? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Then, if the evidence for religion being the base of the school is that
religion lessons are given, following the same logic the same must apply
to any other subject in which lessons are given.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 01:01:16 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.5 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 17:38:03 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>WaldorfEdu aol.com writes
>>The best test is when there exists public Waldorf-inspired programs. Then
>>parents will have a real choice and the private Waldorf schools will stand or
>>fall by their merits. Meanwhile the bodies representing them do not want a
>>fair market place and have in the past done everything in their power to keep
>>their monopoly position.
>
>I am still curious to know how the "bodies representing" "private
>Waldorf schools" are hindering the establishment of "public Waldorf-
>inspired programs". I was under the impression that the opposition was
>coming from people opposed to Waldorf education /per se/ like Dan Dugan
>and his PLANS outfit.
>
>If I am wrong and the major hindrance is from the "bodies representing",
>perhaps Dan would be better advised to _encourage_ these "bodies
>representing"? Somehow I doubt Dan would agree. Dan?
>
>Incidentally, Dan, some time ago I asked how many public Waldorf
>initiatives PLANS had successfully prevented -- I don't seem to recall
>getting an answer. I am sure the "strike-rate" of PLANS would be of
>interest to critics and "defenders" alike.
>
>I know you have said previously that (I am paraphrasing -- please
>correct me if I am misrepresenting what you said) the monopoly on the
>use of the word "Steiner" or "Waldorf" prevented teachers using Waldorf
>education in public schools -- I said at the time that I disagreed with
>this contention; and have yet to have my reasons for disagreement
>refuted.
mckay says: When AWSNA was at our public Waldorf school last spring, we
were told that the word "Waldorf" was trademarked by them and could not be
use in any way. So what would they say to potential enrollment to discribe
what they will be useing for their educational model? Of coarse this school
is "doing it anyway", their past history at the private school as well as
the current public one is on one side they want as much help, support and
recognition from AWSNA, yet when AWSNA doesn't tell them what they want to
hear, they do it anyway!
>Briefly, what is to stop someone using aspects of Waldorf education and
>calling it something else? Then what is tried can be judged on its own
>merits and the judgement is less likely to be predjudiced either way by
>an association with "Waldorf" or "Steiner".
mckay says: This local public Waldorf school WANTS that exact association
with "Waldorf/Steiner", afterall anything less wouldn't be _Waldorf_
according to them.
>--
>Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.6 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Religious bigotry
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 17:49:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>At 01:44 PM 10/29/96 -0500, Lee Story USG wrote:
>>
>>Peter Schwab writes:
>> > If you can not agree with the principles of Waldorf Education and/or
>> > Anthroposophy then take your children out of the Waldorf School and
>> > leave us alone.
>
>Interesting viewpoint.
>
>I recently posted a query to the Waldorf list: "Do you think one should not
>have one's
>kids in a Waldorf school unless one agrees with Anthroposophy on all issues?"
>
>The response I got was that one need not believe in Anthroposophy in order
>to have one's kids in a Waldorf school, as long as one feels that Waldorf
>education is the best choice for one's children. Several of those
>responding disagreed with Anthroposophy on major issues.
mckay says: some of those have also said or implied that they were still
working on this tough decision or had no other choice available at this
time.
>It would appear that Peter's "love it or leave it" attitude toward
>Anthroposophy and Waldorf education is not universal, and hopefully, is only
>the view of a small minority.
mckay says: ah,to be so naive must be bliss.
>-
>Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
>Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
>Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
> http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.7 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Goethean Science -- Examples
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:54:14 -0500
Suzanne Lainson, a couple of days ago you asked about the utility of Goethean
science, ending with this paragraph:
"I would say there is a difference between attempting to prove classic
physics wrong and showing that Goethian science is therefore more useful.
Could I get some examples to suggest that it is?"
You then had a conversation with Lee related to whether it is appropriate to
judge an approach to science on the basis of its products. I basically agree
with his view that science (a way of knowing nature) does not need to have
utility to be valuable, but I would like to try to respond to your request
for a few examples.
First, however, it is really important to understand that we are not talking
about attempting to prove classic physics wrong. Bortoft made that crystal
clear in his lecture and does so in his book as well. I suppose there could
be some avid proponents of Goethean science who would take that position, but
I haven't come across any, and I would consider them to be foolish if I did.
Bortoft's book has endorsements from scientists on the back cover. I will
quote a couple, to give you a flavor for what they see in Goethe. Brian
Goodwin, biologist, author of "How the Leopard Changed Its Spots": "By
locating Goethe's insights and methods within a conceptual framework that
reveals their distinctness from, but compatibility with, analytic science,
Bortoft shows how the contemporary impulse for a participatory science of
whole can be realized." Evan Thompson, co-author of "The Embodied Mind":
"Through a wide-ranging discussion of perception and cognition, he shows how
a Goethean science of qualitative wholeness complements the analytic and
causal-explanatory framework of modern science."
You get the idea: the two approaches are compatible and mutually
complementary. Bortoft himself says that "...the value of Goethe's science
is not revealed by assimilating him into the mainstream." Instead, says
Bortoft, what is important is Goethe's whole way of seeing. So the most
direct application will be within what is now being called cognitive science,
which can be expected to have practical impact on education; and through
education, on all areas of life.
As for examples, I am ill-qualified to give you a comprehensive overview, but
I will share a few of those that have come to my attention. The Rudolf
Steiner Foundation (a financial institution that supports anthroposophical
initiatives) has a Future Values Fund which is used to give seed grants to
individuals with research ideas. Following are a few examples of topics from
the latest report of the Fund:
--mapping indigenous and introduced wild plant qualities (growth and breeding
factors, medicinal, dye, and forage potentials, soil indicators) through
introduction of biodynamic farming methods and ending of overgrazing.
--classification of finite Finsler sets through enumerative methods,
establishing the absolute existence of an inaccessible number--"the least
circular ordinal." (I have absolutely no idea what this means, but I plan
buy the book that will be published to see if I can figure it out.)
--conduct of plant experiments in an attempt to replicate previously reported
observations of weight losses and gains of germinating seeds in an
hermetically sealed environment (which would violate the law of conservation
of mass).
--attempts to discover how various aspects of an animal--senses, skeletal and
muscular anatomy, environment, and behavior--are related to one another. The
book resulting from this experimentation ("Genetics and the Manipulation of
Life, Craig Holdrege) was reviewed by Harvard biologist Ruth Hubbard, who
said: "He thus offers an antidote to the current mechanistic thinking about
genes as causes of health, disease, and behaviors. But the special
contribution of this book is that it details, simply and again with
fascinating examples, how scientists' ways of conceptualizing organisms and
manipulating them and their parts are at the heart of the formulations they
offer about how organisms and their molecules function. The reader can thus
observe how scientific observations and their interpretations fuse in the
creation of systems of scientific explanation."
--search for a phenomenological basis for the study of weather, seen as a
manifestation of planetary movement.
--attempts to confirm evidence that tree leaf buds change their shape
rhythmically during the course of various planetary, lunar and solar
geometric arrangements.
I am sure most of this would be considered amateurish by the scientific
establishment, and some even foolish, but one point to note is that it is all
work that will result in something testable by others, which was one of your
criteria for acceptability. I will add two more examples before closing.
I have a xerographic copy of an article titled "The Developing Heart:
Pulsation as a Result of Form and Flow," produced in 1983 by Philip Kilner
of the Flow Design Research Group, Emerson College, Forest Row, Sussex. From
this source you might expect the content to relate not only to the Goethean
approach but to Steiner's indications, and it does: "Experiments here
presented, demonstrating how rhythmical pulsation can establish itself within
specifically formed streams of water, may have bearing on Rudolf Steiner's
assertion that the heart's activity is 'not a cause but an effect.'" Much of
the article illustrates how pulsations can be induced in a flowing stream of
water by the shape of the path it is made to follow, including a something as
simple as a bend in a trickle of water running across a tabletop. It
speculates on the possible relationship between such pulsation and the
formation of an embryonic heart. It discusses the complexity of blood flow
within the four-chambered human heart, based on observations made from
simpler flowforms. It does not attempt to confirm Steiner's indications, nor
to reach any firm conclusions at all, but it does document information that
appears to be relevant to cardiac development and function and that probably
would be forthcoming from more conventional research centers.
The second example is the drop-picture method of evaluating water quality.
In the drop-picture method the water sample to be evaluated is contained in
a thin layer in round glass bowl. A drop of distilled water is allowed to
fall into the water sample and the pattern of vortices formed in reaction to
the drop is photographed. This pattern may generally be described as a type
of rosette, but the features of the pattern vary depending on the quality of
the water in the sample. The book in which this method is
described--"Water--The Element of Life", by Theodor and Wolfram Schwenk
(Anthroposophic Press, 1989)--has photographs of natural spring water,
treated drinking water, Rhine river water, polluted drinking water and other
samples, all showing distinctively different patterns. It also has
photographs of water used for homeopathic remedies, showing differences
between remedies for intestinal illness, for heart and circulatory illness
and for skin and nerve illness.
This is an example of research findings that are reproducible, that may be
correlated with other (e.g.: chemical) analysis of the same phenomena, that
have no reliance on mathematics, and that have very practical application.
I want to share with you one more interesting set of observations from
Theodor Schwenk's water research, but this is already a long post. I will
put that in a separate one.
Best wishes,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:01:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>mckay oro.net writes
>>>You appear to be saying that the evidence for religion being the base of
>>>the school is that religion lessons are given.
>>>
>>>Do I understand you correctly?
>>
>>I found it so intertwined I could not think other wise.
>
>I assume that means "yes"? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
>
>Then, if the evidence for religion being the base of the school is that
>religion lessons are given, following the same logic the same must apply
>to any other subject in which lessons are given.
mckay says: I'll say it again, "caving and mathmatics" are _not_ religion.
As I think Suzanne said "it's apples and oranges". This country believes
very strongly in separation in church and state. And no you may not
"assume" it means yes. ( besides, I'm sure you must know what assuming
leads to, it makes an _ass_ out of _u_ and _me_!).
Yours, David McKay
>--
>Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.9 ---------------
From: WaldorfEdu aol.com
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 21:39:52 -0500
That is a real problem but these are very early days for public
Waldorf-inspired programs. One part of the problem would be solved if all
teachers had to possess a state credential. It would exclude many Waldorf
trained teachers because a great number of them do not wish to study for such
a credential.
I have always believed that any Waldorf course should either be part of an
accredited degree course or be part of in-service work. In that context
teachers would receive a perspective on Steiner's writings just as they do on
any other educator and the choice of whether to use the approach would,
initially, be made at an individual level. When enough parents want their
children to be taught by the approach and there existed staff with
appropriate qualifications the program could be established.
Sincerely,
David Mollet
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n165.10 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:36:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dr. Mollet:
That is a real problem but these are very early days for public
>Waldorf-inspired programs. One part of the problem would be solved if all
>teachers had to possess a state credential.
Snell says,
1) I wonder how many parents make assumptions about the content of the
Anthroposophical Teacher training. Many families are shocked when I give
them a copy of the course study from Rudolf Steiner college.
I think, in the case of public Waldorf teachers, they should have to
disclose that their teaching degree is in Anthroposophy - not education.
2) Charter law purposely left out the requirement that teachers' must hold
state cedentials. This bypass, along with bypassing of the teacher unions,
has public school teachers concerned about job security, benefits, etc.
Many public school teachers do not support Charter schools, as evidenced in
the lawsuit filed by the CTA (their union) in San Diego, California.
However, each school district *may* require state credentials, but charter
law gives control to the local level of governments (i.e.local school
boards).
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n165 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n166 --------------
001 - snell oro.net - Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
002 - WaldorfEdu aol.com - Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
003 - WaldorfEdu aol.com - Adoption
004 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: Goethean Science -- Examples
005 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Learning Styles
006 - Stephen Tonkin They (exit interviews) are of some value, but I find it far more valuable
>to (to give a
>recent example) do something like come in at a weekend to help repair
>the parent-room roof and, during the conversation that generally ensues
>either up the roof or over a few beers afterwards, I can respond to the
>"Hey, Steve, why do..." questions and also get a feel for what, if any,
>are burgeoning concerns.
Steve, Does your school send surveys out to parents ? Our *public* school
[in our area] sends questionaires annually, in late spring. We rate them on
all aspects of parent satisfaction; curriculum (including the arts and
specialty subjects), administration, teacher-parent rapport, teacher-child
rapport, parent counsel, site counsel, budget, you name it. The district
asks *what* we, as parents, would like to see changed and/or improved. We
are encouraged to write in detail and do *not* have to sign our names. The
results are tallied, comments recorded, and sent out to every family in the
school. Then mid-year (of the following year), parents get an update on
*what* as a result of the survey, they are working on. It is an effective
approach. Parents are committed to their children's school, and it is easy
to see why.
Our particular county scored second place for academic achievement in our
state. I wonder if this approach has anything to do with this score ?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.2 ---------------
From: WaldorfEdu aol.com
Subject: Re: truth in advertising (was: Religious bigotry)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:58:22 -0500
1 Nov 1996
Why should people who want to use the name Waldorf and who also want to use
it in the way Steiner indicated not use the name, when people who use the
name Waldorf and who are not using it in the way Steiner indicated are
allowed to use it. The latter will go to any length to stop the former (who
want to use the name Waldorf and who also want to use it in the way Steiner
indicated) from using it.
Case in point. I received letters from solicitors acting on behalf of the
SSF in the UK informing me that the SSF had sole right of use of the name,
that I must hand over to the solicitors any material bearing the name Waldorf
within one week otherwise I would be sued and taken to court.
Unfortunately the letters from the solicitors are in another country but Mr.
Tonkin, if he so wishes, can easily check that the above is accurate. Modern
anthroposophy in action!! Please do not tell me that such people are acting
in accordance with Steiner's indications - they are doing exactly the
opposite. As I have said previously they do not care how they act or what
they do along as they retain their power base.
Sincerely,
Dr. David Mollet
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.3 ---------------
From: WaldorfEdu aol.com
Subject: Adoption
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:58:25 -0500
1 Nov 1996
Deby,
We have been blessed with two children - we adopted them, at different times,
from Bangladesh. We have never looked upon them in any other way as children
who wanted to come to us except they didn't choose the usual route!
There is a story behind the adoptions which I am happy to share but all the
things that happened were, as far as we are concerned, for a number of
reasons and bit by bit we obtain an understanding of those reasons (one
situation is certainly in the miracle category). Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
David
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Goethean Science -- Examples
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 23:44:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>You then had a conversation with Lee related to whether it is appropriate to
>judge an approach to science on the basis of its products. I basically agree
>with his view that science (a way of knowing nature) does not need to have
>utility to be valuable, but I would like to try to respond to your request
>for a few examples.
Thanks for taking the time to list a few examples.
The reason I have stressed evaluating ideas based on their "usefulness" is
that it enables me to judge them for myself.
For example, over the years I have heard of many developments in
alternative medicine. I listen to the explanations as to why they are
supposed to work, try to read about them, and then I make a decision based
on the "evidence" as I see it.
When I first heard about acupuncture, it was quite a foreign concept. But
as more people in America began to try it and reported that it worked and
when more conventional medical practitioners tried it and reported that it
worked, I decided that it had some legitimacy. And the explanations as to
why it worked (electrical signals and all that) seemed to make sense, so it
became a legitimate, if still a somewhat unconventional, therapy to me. I
have never tried it and don't know that I will, but it strikes me as a
"useful" concept.
Now there are other alternative treatments I have yet to accept because (1)
they haven't been tested to my satisfaction and (2) the explanations as to
why they work don't satisfy me either. I'd put homeopathy in this category.
In my understanding of the world, if you dilute a substance to such an
extent that it is essentially water, then it shouldn't have an effect. (And
the thinking seems to be the exact opposite of other types of alternative
medicine which suggest you should take megadoses of vitamins and minerals
to be healthy.)
So whenever I am presented with a new idea, I consider it, compare it to
what I already know about the world, look to see what kind of research has
been done with it, and decide if it is "useful." If the idea is too
abstract or if I have no basis of evaluating it, then I might think about
it, but it is not "useful" to me in advancing my knowledge of the world.
I think the pursuit of pure science is great. But for me personally, I
think I'd rather know about baking bread than to understand subatomic
particles. I mean, my bookshelf does include titles such as the Tao of
Physics, but I'm really more focused on what I need to know to live a
meaningful life on a day-to-day basis.
Speaking of the pursuit of knowledge, I took several years of Great Books
instruction in college. I read books by a number of the major
thinkers/philosophers over the ages. But I always found myself questioning
them. They would start out with a premise, and then explore the
ramifications of the premise. But you had to accept the premise to follow
the logic. And was never sure I did accept that initial premise. It's like,
"How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?" Well, does it really
matter?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.5 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Learning Styles
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:04:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I think I must have a more mundane bent than some of the folks on this
list. Whenever I studied science and math, I wanted to know the practical
applications. I mean I really enjoyed them, but I wanted to know why I was
studying what I was studying and how it related to my life. Unfortunately,
I rarely saw the connection. I think more kids would be drawn into studying
if they understood the relevance of what they were studying.
I remember thinking when I took high school chemistry that I still didn't
know much about the chemistry of everyday life--cooking, washing clothes,
and so on. (The closest I came to seeing chemistry in action was knowing
that if you combined an acid and a base, you'd get a chemical reaction so
you'd had better be careful when mixing bathroom cleaning products. Still,
it took me years to know that this was the principle behind baking soda and
baking powder.)
I enjoy browsing in the science section of the bookstore and I always read
the science articles in the New York Times, but much of what I learned in
school never comes into play.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Who determines school policy; fads; change; funding; State control
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:55:43 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>
> I might
>question whether a responsible person ought not say something when he
>finds his pupils being dosed with highly specious and untested
>nostrums, and not pass it off on the ground that there's another
>profession which deals with that.
I think you are referring here to homoeopathic remedies. Well, despite
the efforts of many skeptics, there is still a large number of people
who believe that they work. (Homoeopathy is (and has been for decades)
available on the National Health Service in this country). Yes, I
accept that the evidence for homoeopathy is empiricism.
However, the skeptics allege that homoeopathic remedies are devoid of
any effect, so it is hard to see how the act of taking such a remedy is,
in itself, harmful. What the skeptics may argue is that it may permit a
condition to develop into one that is more serious than it need have
been.
Whilst I would _never_ presume to tell people what form of medicine they
should take, I have been known to suggest to a parent that it might be a
good idea to take a child to see a doctor. As a fully qualified First
Aider who is also the school's First Aid Officer (a legal requirement in
this country for organisations of over 25 _employees_ -- horrendously,
the number of _children_ in a school is not taken into account -- you
could have 24 staff and 400 pupils and not need a qualified First Aid
Officer!), I suggest I have a responsibility to do this -- I am pleased
that parents generally heed my suggestion.
>If we are to discuss subject-matter pedagogy, I'd much rather consider
>why it seems that real mathematics (rather than arithmetical
>calculating tricks and facility with calculation) seems to be totally
>avoided or given minimal lip-service until the secondary-school plane
>geometry class...in many, many of BOTH Waldorf and state schools.
Hmm -- if that were the case, it _would_ bother me. I have been berated
for (flippantly) dismissing "arithmetical calculating tricks and
facility with calculation" as "shopkeeper's arithmetic". For me, maths
has an elegance found nowhere else and it is wonderful to be able to
awaken childen to that -- often a charge laid against us is that we
don't do enough "shopkeeper's arithmetic".
>You would "abuse my trust" if you -DIDN'T- try to cover
>ideas and opinions that you consider important. Either you think
>Steiner is important enough to discuss, or you don't.
At what age would you consider it appropriate to discuss this?
>Might you not discuss Plato's philosophy versus that of the Sophists,
>and try to find interesting and useful ideas in both? To look at the
>intellectual climate in which these ideas appeared? I'm not trying to
>put you in a double-bind here (politically if you include Steiner's
>claims, intellectually if you exclude them); it seems you're already
>in one.
Absolutely -- and as long as it is an agreed tenet of Waldorf schools
that we do not teach anthroposophy, we remain in one. However, I agree
with that tenet, so yes, I effectively support the double bind in which
I find myself. I find it more acceptable than the alternatives.
>Among other things, I'd
>like to see the State take their standardized tests and stuff them
>where the sun doesn't shine...
This view would be wholeheartedly supported by a majority of teachers in
this country. Not only do we have SATs, but the government then uses
these SATs to draw up league tables of schools which take no account of
how far a school has moved a child, but is based merely on absolute
scores. Unsurprisingly schools in well off semi-rural areas tend to be
higher up the league table than those in deprived inner-city areas --
hardly a revelation.
Since we're not obliged to do SATs, we don't -- Waldorf schools get
league-tabled at GCSE (16+) level.
> > That is not my position and I find it difficult to see how you could
> > arrive at that interpretation from what I said.
>
>I'm not just trying to respond to you, tit for tat. In my next lines
>(retained below) I suggest an alternative which seems to me more
>reasonable. Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to frame you into a
>false position.
Seems like I misinterpreted you -- sorry.
> Over here there's a deafening squawk from so-called "conservatives"
>to the effect that -they- (often some of the most affluent members of
>society) are being double-charged and forced to subsidize the
>schooling of some child other than their own, this to the
>accompaniment of much flag-waving and oratory about "family" and
>parents' rights. Obviously I don't think that "parent" carries, or
>should carry, any particular honor or responsibility that the rest of
>us don't share. Rather I think we pool our resources and disburse
>them with a goal of equal educational opportunity...probably -not-
>through a system of state-administered schools.
A number of UK Waldorf Schools founded in the 1970s (this one included)
tried to get parents to fund the school on a very similar basis -- the
underlying principle was that we would not refuse education to any child
for financial reasons alone. We tried to imbue parents with the idea
that they should contribute what they could afford; not to purchase
their own child's education but to contribute in order to make Waldorf
education possible.
Nice ideals, but 20 years later almost every one of those schools has
moved away from such a "free contribution" system to varying levels of
"contribution guidelines" or "minimum and target contributions".
Economically, we were unable to get the "nice idea" to work.
> Then you offer the even more unbelievable: "I know from experience
>that when there has been a dispute about which way to go and I have
>given in to the parent's wishes, I usually regretted it later." To
>the outsider, this says no more than: "When there's a disagreement, it
>usually turns out the I'm right." It isn't very convincing, since
>-all- of us feel that way from time to time.
That is a very good point and one to which I have no answer, except in
those cases where the parent has _later_ agreed that I was right. You
are correct to suggest that I may be conveniently forgetting the counter
examples -- I have not "kept score". Thank you for pointing out this
fallacious argument which I perpetrated.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Heart v. "Pump and Plumbing" (was: Informing potential Waldorf parents)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:45:25 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>MICHAEL KOPP
>>> "The
>>>heart is not a pump" is an example my kids have brought home.
>
>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>This old chestnut is wheeled out with monotonous regularity. Can't we
>>just lay it to rest for once and for all. What Mr Kopp (and his
>>numerous predecessors on this boring topic) most conspicuously _doesn't_
>>say is what children are taught that the heart *is*.
[snip]
>
>In your dreams, Stephen.
You may have somehting there -- as you yourself have once indicated, no
amount of evidence or logic will convince a true believer.
I also notice that, like Mr Kopp, you fail to assert what it is that you
allege that we say the heart *is*.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Steiner and Piaget (was:Things I wish they'd told me)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:02:01 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>Try reading Steiner and someone like Piaget -- the correspondences are
>>legion.
>
>And so are the differences.
Really? Then, I assume, you would have no difficulty in citing three
differences. (Remember, the context of my comment was the stages of
cognitive development, not what underlies these stages)
>The assertion that Waldorf is in harmony with
>modern child development theory is often seen in Waldorf literature. I
>think it is deceptive.
Then I am sure it would be in line with PLANS's aims to publish, here,
some _specific_ documented details of this alleged deception.
I'm sure you wouldn't make unfounded assertions like the above, so I
assume you have the relevant evidence to hand (or easily available).
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Exit Polls/Leaving Interviews (was:Informing potential Waldorf parents)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:44:24 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
mckay oro.net writes
>We're not talking about your school, we're talking about all the schools
>here or anywhere that don't do this. Again I've met many that have stated
>so, as well as was not my experience.
Fine -- I just wanted to make it clear that lack of exit polls is not a
universal trait of Waldorf Schools.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n166.10 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Goethean Science -- Examples
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:04:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>
> When I first heard about acupuncture, it was quite a foreign concept. But
> as more people in America began to try it and reported that it worked and
> when more conventional medical practitioners tried it and reported that it
> worked, I decided that it had some legitimacy. And the explanations as to
> why it worked (electrical signals and all that) seemed to make sense, so it
> became a legitimate, if still a somewhat unconventional, therapy to me. I
> have never tried it and don't know that I will, but it strikes me as a
> "useful" concept.
I find this all very interesting. Allow me to point out a couple of
things.
The number of "conventional medical practitioners" who support the use
of acupuncture is, at least in the US, vanishingly small, probably not
vastly greater than the number of medical practitioners who support
the use of anthroposophically extended medicine or homeopathy.
There are a number of hypotheses as to how acupuncture works (_if_ it
works; there's not clear agreement on that point, either). None of
them has been demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction. Certainly
there's nothing to lead one to believe that there are any "electrical
signals" involved. The _only_ application for which there is as much
as a shred of scientific support regarding acupuncture is in pain
reduction, and it has _never_ been shown to have an efficacy even
equal to aspirin.
The classic explanation within Chinese medicine postulates a so-far
completely unmeasurable and indiscernable force called _ch'i_, which
travels in indetectable passages in the body called meridians which
are somehow associated with particular organs in the body, some of
which (the "Triple Warmer" is one example) are completely unknown to
medical science. Sometimes the ch'i gets blocked, and the use of
acupuncture can restore its proper "flow".
It doesn't seem to me that there's any more reason to believe that
acupuncture is a reasonable treatment, scientifically speaking, than
to feel the same way about homeopathy, or many other alternative
therapies. Lots of people have used homeopathy and reported that it
worked. Some conventional medical practitioners support the use of
homeopathy. The only distinction here seems to rest on the fact that
of the various hypotheses for the efficacy of these practices, you
view the "explanation" of acupuncture as being more plausible (even
though there's no greater body of evidence to support it) and the
"explanations" of homeopathy as being less convincing.
It seems to boil down to a question of simply liking, or feeling
better, about one versus the other. So what's the difference between
your acceptance of acupuncture and someone else's acceptance of
homeopathy, or flower remedies, or whatever?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n166 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n167 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:15:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
snell oro.net writes
>>They (exit interviews) are of some value,
[snip]
>
>Steve, Does your school send surveys out to parents ?
Only in order to guage specific things, eg demand for afternoon care in
KG; the formation and role of the PTFA. It is a British phenomenon that
forms and surveys tend to be binned by the recipient (typically fewer
than half are returned) -- we seem to prefer to say things than to write
them.
There is, however, an annual reinterview conducted by members of the
school finance group -- those who do these interviews say that the
financial aspect is usually dealt with fairly quickly and that the rest
of the interview (which is more of a chat than a formal interview in
most cases) deals with the parents' perception of the school, pro and
con -- our parents don't seem to be as reticent about criticising as
seems to be the case evidenced elsewhere. The parent is asked what, if
any, of what they have said has been said in confidence.
Any feedback to the school is given initially to the Council of
Management.
However, your description of the annual survey has certain attractions -
- I'll suggest it to a council member and see waht the Council makes of
it.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: reply to Thandi
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 01:33:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[copy to waldorf-critics list]
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:30:28
>To: plans dandugan.com
>Subject: your page about waldorf.
>To whom it may concern,
>I am utterly amazed that you would put a page onto the internet that
>makes Waldorf Education to be part of a cult. You obviously are not well
>informed on the actual teaching methods in Waldorf schools.
>Anthroposophy is the philosophy behind Rudolph Steiner but it is NOT
>taught to the children who attend Waldorf schools. I would appreciate a
>reply from somebody who was involved in this web page and can tell me
>what led you to have such a negative stance on Waldorf! and why do you
>consider it a cult.
>
>--
>Thandi Gross
>
>tgross sympatico.ca
Dear Thandi,
My negative stance on Waldorf began while I was a Waldorf parent, as soon
as I saw how weird Steiner's writings were, and how much of his crackpot
doctrine leaked into the curriculum.
Anthroposophy was a cult while Steiner was alive, but I think it is best
described as a cult-like religious sect today. The Anthroposophical Society
in America describes Waldorf education as one of the "initiatives" of
Anthroposphy.
I am well informed about the actual teaching methods in Waldorf schools.
Besides being a parent for a year and a half, I have visited five other
schools, some more than once. I have read the WALDORF mailing list for
years and am in contact with many former Waldorf parents. I have a
collection of lesson books, the three books on the curriculum and the wall
chart, a large Steiner library, a comprehensive collection of teaching
handbooks, and many other books about Anthroposophy and Waldorf.
There is a lot of Anthroposophy in the Waldorf curriculum. For example:
teaching fairy tales, legends, and myths as facts; the botany lesson about
the plant being like a man upside down; the "twelve senses" lesson; the
three systems of the body lessons; Goethean vs Newtonian color theory; "the
festivals"; and the theosophical framework for ancient history.
I describe Anthroposophy as "cult-like" because I have seen many cult-like
behaviors in my relationships with Waldorf teachers and Anthroposophists,
and seen them evidenced in Anthroposophical publications. These behaviors
include: clinging to rejected knowledge (e.g. numerology, alchemy, the four
humors theory of psychology), requiring teachers to be committed to
Anthroposophy for full status (college of teachers), keeping core doctrines
secret (first class), graded revelation of doctrines depending on the level
of committment, a closed system of information that refers almost
exclusively to its own publications, deceptive redefinition of common terms
(e.g. child development, freedom), exclusivity (e.g. good teaching can
result only from knowledge of Anthroposophy), deceptive recruiting,
scripture-based stasis (e.g. almost no new ideas since Steiner,
contemporary writing interprets Steiner's writings), lack of critical
dialogue, and suppression of dissent.
When a person is inside a cult, it doesn't look like a cult, it looks like
an important movement to save the world.
Sincerely yours, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 02:34:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin, you quoted me, Dan Dugan,
>>Believers in all kinds of quackery claim "empirical" evidence.
and commented,
>Of course, but I am sure that you wouldn't have the intellectual naivity
>to interpret this to imply that empiricicism is sufficient evidence of
>quackery. (see Coker's list #18)
No. There's plenty of evidence of quackery in Waldorf education. The naive
empiricism or lack of feedback (displayed in endless self-congratulation)
keeps the movement from evolving and maintains Waldorf quackery.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:45:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
I wrote:
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
Sorry -- a bug in my mailer software (some may argue that it's an AI
facility) sometimes deletes everything except the sig.
What was intended was:
Dan Dugan writes
>Zajonc says:
>
>"Light is the pure body of the Word, of the Logos. The very same light that
>illumines our world is the most perfect image of God's creative song."
> [Zajonc, Arthur. Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and
>Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 220.]
>
>That's pure Anthroposophy.
Yes, it is. However, it is hardly surprising that an accurate precis of
something Steiner said on the subject is rendered as "pure
Anthroposophy".
Similarly, you could have carefully selected a quote from pp. 232ff and
commented, "That's pure Quantum Mechanics".
For a book that says in the cover blurb that it is about "virtually
everything that human beings have thought about light and seeing in the
last three thousand years", it would be strange if mention wasn't made
of Goethe or Steiner -- in fact the reason I mentioned the book in this
mailing list was for precisely that reason.
Actually, Zajonc makes far more extensive use of quotes from (amongst
others) Einstein than he does from Steiner. I suppose I should have
jumped to the conclusion that it was subliminal propaganda for
relativistic views of light, but somehow I just couldn't bring myself to
such a ridiculous non-sequitur...
> The capsule bio on the cover doesn't mention
>that Zajonc is a former editor of The Journal for Anthroposohy.
Well, for those who don't have the OUP 1993 edition, the "capsule bio on
the cover" consists of precicely twelve words. There's quite a lot it
doesn't say but, given its length, I wasn't unduly surprised by this.
(I assume "capsule bio" is a neologism for "brief biographical
statement"?)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.5 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery)
Subject: Re: parent's role in education
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:26:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This has appeared in several places on the list, of late:
>>Mr. Tonkin's post makes a very big assumption. That the majority of Waldorf
>>teachers have received a professional training and are therefore
>>"professionals". There is no way that the teacher training courses at Emerson
>>or Rudolf Steiner College would ever obtain proper accreditation for a
>>variety of reasons viz. course outlines would be far too limited and
>>sectarian etc. etc.
Sunbridge College, which is an anthroposophical center for higher education
near New York City, offers a Master's degree program as part of its waldorf
teacher training course. The MSEd component is fully accredited by the New
York State Board of Regents, and is taught and administered by Douglas
Sloan, who is a full professor of education at Columbia University. The
standard teacher training coursework forms the majority of credits within
this program.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.6 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery)
Subject: Re: The Unique Aspect of Twin Ridges
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:52:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Briefly, what is to stop someone using aspects of Waldorf education and
>>calling it something else? Then what is tried can be judged on its own
>>merits and the judgement is less likely to be predjudiced either way by
>>an association with "Waldorf" or "Steiner".
>
>mckay says: This local public Waldorf school WANTS that exact association
>with "Waldorf/Steiner", afterall anything less wouldn't be _Waldorf_
>according to them.
For the sake of clarity, something needs to be said about the unique nature
of the Twin Ridges school. A few years back, a young, struggling waldorf
school known as Mariposa was located in Grass Valley, California. This
school folded, for a number of reasons. A significant number of that
school's faculty and parents resurfaced in the Twin Ridges initiative
shortly thereafter.
So, to some extent, a private waldorf school has been transformed into a
public waldorf school.
Now, there are any number of people on this list who know a lot more about
this situation than I do. I would love to hear corrections,
clarifications, or elaborations to what I just posted.
I would especially appreciate it if someone would be willing to say how the
issues which led to the shutdown at Mariposa have been carried into Twin
Ridges.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.7 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery)
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:57:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>And no you may not
>"assume" it means yes. ( besides, I'm sure you must know what assuming
>leads to, it makes an _ass_ out of _u_ and _me_!).
>
>Yours, David McKay
Has anyone ever seen David McKay and Michael Kopp in the same place at the
same time?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.8 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert E. Flannery)
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:26:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dr. Mollett writes:
>That is a real problem but these are very early days for public
>Waldorf-inspired programs. One part of the problem would be solved if all
>teachers had to possess a state credential. It would exclude many Waldorf
>trained teachers because a great number of them do not wish to study for such
>a credential.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think almost anything which serves to
clarify the distinction between public and private waldorf schooling will
be useful. Much of the criticism on this list stems from experiences at
public waldorf schools. The proportion will only increase as time goes on,
I suspect.
Dan Dugan started this list out of dissatisfaction with his experience at a
private school, but the majority of critical postings of late have been
from state-waldorf people. My limited experience with public waldorf
schools (forgive the following generalization) tells me they are rushed
into charter status and suffer from that haste. Parents who join them
looking for an alternative for their children are later disillusioned.
I think the criticisms we are hearing now are only the beginning. The
growth of the public waldorf movement will bring many more people into
contact with something which will be called waldorf schooling, but is
really only the grafting of some waldorf techniques onto a hodgpodge of
"something elses". I worry that this is what will be recognized as
"waldorf education" at some point in the near future.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 01:25:16 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quotes Rebecca MAST:
>> I do not disagree with you that this METHOD OF TEACHING is one of the
>>best. Just because
>> Steiner has an area of excillence it does not mean that his whole being
>>and/or all his
>> ideas are excillent. I think this is the main reason for this list.
>>Everyone does not
>> accept ALL aspects of Steiner. All of his ideas should not be placed in
>>the schools.
And SCHWAB replies:
>No one ever said that ALL of Steiner's ideas should be placed in the
>schools. I would be one of the first to object this. In fact, and this
>has been told over and over, Anthroposophy is _no_ part of the official
>Waldorf curriculum.
KOPP says:
Weasel words.
So, Anthroposophy is not part of the "official Waldorf curriculum"*?
A mere technicality.
>From my experience, you can be sure that many of the things found in
Anthroposophy to which rationalists object _ARE_ most certainly found in
the curriculum.
Not as Anthroposophy, per se, but as "alternative possibilities" studied
for their "scientific interest", or just dropped in where opportune.
Examples are such things as fringe colours and the relationship between the
Platonic year and 1) human physiology (the number of breaths in a day being
equal to the number of Earth years in a Platonic year), 2) of all things,
poetry.
* By the way, what is this "official Waldorf curriculum"? We've heard over
and over that there is no international conspiracy of
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy which sets the tune to which individual
schools are to march. Now we hear there IS an "official Waldorf
curriculum".
I, for one, as a parent in a Steiner school whose curriculum is set by the
state, except for the "special character" of the school, never having seen
any such "official Waldorf curriculum" from the school itself, am all ears.
>
>And even among anthroposophic circles I have not yet met someone who
>believes ALL of Steiner's work.
>
>+peter+
>
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n167.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 01:25:20 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quotes Michael KOPP on the dilemma of parents torn between
occult religious Steiner education and bad public education:
>> On the one hand, Anthroposophy and its cracked science and mystical stuff,
>> and unchanged views of child development, but loving, caring, respectful
>> and respectable (by the kids) teachers, and a social millieu which fosters
>> community and thoughtfulness and self-knowledge .... or
>>
>> on the other hand, Western Judeo-Christian culture (which is tolerable),
>> rationalist-based science (which I prefer), but mechanistic, utilitarian
>> educational philosophy and curriculum, and teachers who usually don't have
>> the same attributes as above, and a social millieu which fosters
>> competitive advantage at all costs and maximisation of selfishness.
>>
>> It's a tough life, eh?
>>
And SCHWAB gets off the usual flip Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical* taunt
heard ad nauseum by critics:
>Not at all: find a couple of people who share your opinions and found
>your own school. Take the best of both sides and call it the
>"Michael-Kopp-School".
Well, there IS home schooling. Even my kids are coming to prefer my views
to some of the crackpot things they hear at school.
(To save bandwidth, I'll post here the usual rejoinders from the defenders
of the faith:
1. You're destroying your children's education by disagreeing with what they
learn at school; you're destroying the teachers' authority; your're
creating dissension and putting the children in an untenable position
of having to choose between teacher and home.
Answer: Rubbish. All life's like that. Kid's are more robust than we give
them credit for and make such choices all the time, from the earliest age.
My kids are free to reject my ideas about life, the universe and everything.
2. You signed up for this education, you should live with it or go elsewhere.
Answer: Rubbish. I didn't join a cult, I sent my kids to a state-integrated
school which has legal responsibilities to cater to parents' expressions
of their needs and desires and problems -- including with the curriculum.
I certainly wouldn't ever found a school: that would put me in the same
mould as all other gurus who have founded a faith -- like Rudolf Steiner,
for instance.
As a home-schooler, I could give my children a much wider take on the
world, using an unbiased, non-sectarian database of information, including
the _critical_ thinking of people who haven't given themselves over to
religious dogma, of whatever stripe, be it major organised religion or
"Anthrosophy".
>Call me it when you open the swiss subsidary, I'll send a bottle of
>wine for the celebration.
Nah, don't think so. There must be something about the thin atmosphere way
up high in Switzerland that leads to airy-fairy thinking. I'll stick to sea
level.
*(sorry, folks, I'm not allowed to use the acronym I invented to save space
-- guess I'll have to invent a macro to type the long-form)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n167 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n168 --------------
001 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
002 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
003 - Stephen Tonkin > I've talked to people who were institutionized who have developed rather
>> elaborate theories about the universe. I've also talked to people who were
>> stoned who felt they had figured everything out. LSD was embraced as a
>> quick trip into the mind.
>>
And SCHWAB replies:
>And here we go again: now we are compared to "institutionized people"
>and LSD-addicts.
>
>I'm going to offer a bottle of best regional (swiss) champagne for the best
>"anthro-insult" of the year.
>
KOPP says:
See my reply to you about founding my own school for my first entry in the
contest.
And don't the Swiss have any respect for the regional trademark rights of
Champagne? Here in Godzone, the wine makers have been prevented from using
the word "Champagne" on their labels; instead, they have to use "methode
champenoise".
>For now I have to get my daily dose...
Of what, vintage cult?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.2 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 01:25:27 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB, needing to put on his thinking cap and glasses, continues
misreading, after quoting an anonymous corrector of his (Schwab's) original
interpretation of a post of KOPP's (the anonymous corrector also needs
help), says:
>> I would recommend that Peter read Michael's message more closely. He
>> appears to have read Michael (as I did originally) as complaining about the
>> *conclusions* of that discussion. In fact, Michael is expressing his
>> dismay that such a discussion should take place at all. He is stating that
>> he would have had serious qualms about having his children educated by
>> people for whom "children incarnating with the wrong parents" is a concept
>> worthy of being entertained at all. (My interpretation and paraphrase,
>> obviously; Michael, please correct me if I have misrepresented you.)
And SCHWAB says:
>I stand corrected, in fact, I should stop answering email after
>midnight.
>
>But then, this is even worse! If this time I get the picture right,
>Mr. Kopp wants to say that people _concerned about Anthroposophy_
>do not have the right, on an _anthroposophic list_ to hold an
>discussion about a deeply _anthroposophic_ subject.
>
> "Imagine, Emily, they even _speak_ about _reincarnation_!
>Igitti-Bah..."
>
>Mr. Kopp,
>
>we just passed the period of "Kopp's NewSpeak"! We
>definitly do not need any of "Kopp's MindKontrolle and
>DiscussionZensur".
>
>If you feel unhappy with the concept of reincarnation, that's your
>business. But respect the intellectual dignity of those who do not
>share your point of view.
>
>I do not think you would have been removed from the Steiner list for
>saying there: "I do not believe in reincarnation". But of course, you
>would have had to cope with the answers....
>
>"Silence is Discussion" .... or did I again get something wrong?
And KOPP says:
Sorry, 'fraid so.
If I _had_ said "silence discussion", you'd be right on track, matey.
But you have misread it twice*, so I'll spell it out again:
I don't care what people _discuss_ on a mailing list. (The corrector got
that part wrong: I never said I was dismayed that such discussions
happened.)
I don't care what people choose to believe privately.
I *DO* care if those private discussions have repercussions for my
childrens' educations.
I believe the private discussions of Anthroposophy I quoted *DO* have
serious negative repercussions for my children.
All I said was I don't want my kids taught by people who believe in what I
think is mumbo-jumbo if their teaching is based on that mumbo-jumbo.
That is, I do *NOT believe my children should be educated by people who
believe my kids are reincarnated OR incarnated (in stages, no less) OR that
they may have chosen the wrong parents, AND whose educational dogma acts on
those beliefs.
(And nor would they have been if there had been sufficient information
available to me before I enrolled my kids ...
(sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes most
parents want, and something less than a full course in Anthroposophy.
(A simple statement like: "we believe in reincarnation, and our child-
development model is based on this belief and the belief that children are
incarnated as people in stages, and this belief is the basis for our staged
curriculum".)
Mr Schwab has previously accused me of insulting the memory of Rudolf
Steiner. Others have called me a religious bigot and made other references
to me as being in kind with Nazis and fascists. Now he uses Nazi-type
appellations in pseudo-German to characterise me in his mistaken belief
that I have called for non-discussion of Anthroposophy.
To the contrary, I think that there should be more discussion of it, in the
context of the renascence of this phenomenon in modern educational
trendiness.
*I am refraining from characterising your replies as anything else, because
the vitriol poured on my head for suggesting improper motives and character
traits in others on this list has scalded my scalp.
Perhaps the defenders of the faith should live, act and be judged by the
standard they judge others by?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 14:10:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>I sent my kids to a state-integrated
> school which has legal responsibilities to cater to parents' expressions
> of their needs and desires and problems -- including with the curriculum.
Please could you quote, verbatim, the part of your school's charter
which states that it has this responsibility.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Acronyms and Contractions (was:Things I wish they'd told me)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 14:55:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>(sorry, folks, I'm not allowed to use the acronym I invented to save space
Oh -- did you invent an acronym as _well_ as that rather clumsy attempt
at a contraction? Very creative!
I must have missed it during my recent mail problems.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.5 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: 2 Nov 96 09:13:05 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Peter Schwab writes
> But then, this is even worse! If this time I get the picture right,
> Mr. Kopp wants to say that people _concerned about Anthroposophy_
> do not have the right, on an _anthroposophic list_ to hold an
> discussion about a deeply _anthroposophic_ subject.
Peter,
I fear that you still do not get the picture right. There is an
immeasurable difference between saying "I regard subject X as raw
superstition; I hold a low opinion of anyone who can take it seriously; I
would prefer that my children not be taught by such people" and saying
"people should not be allowed to discuss X."
I believe that Michael Kopp has said the first. He has not said the
second; I have not said the second; and I cannot imagine where you could
have gotten the impression that he said the second.
There is plenty of true disagreement on this list, without going out of
one's way to find false disagreements to be incensed about.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.6 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: 2 Nov 96 10:07:33 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David McKay writes:
> mckay says: I'll say it again, "caving and mathmatics" are _not_
religion.
> As I think Suzanne said "it's apples and oranges". This country believes
> very strongly in separation in church and state. And no you may not
> "assume" it means yes. ( besides, I'm sure you must know what assuming
> leads to, it makes an _ass_ out of _u_ and _me_!).
Well, once again I am lost.
David McKay and Rebecca Mast have been claiming that religion is the base
of tht Waldorf School. Furthermore, they have written several messages
which appear to argue that Stephen's statement that religion lessons are
taught in his school is tantamount to an admission of their claim. (At
least, their messages read like that to me, and apparently to Stephen as
well. For example, Rebecca Mast: "How is this NOT having religion as the
base of the school?"; David McKay: "You're right, it is having religion as
the base of the Waldorf school. ")
Stephen has attempted to point out that he teaches *lots* of lessons at his
school. He has asked, if religion lessons make religion the base of the
school, why don't mathematics, writing, or caving lessons make mathematics,
writing, or caving the base of the school?
So far, so good. But at this point, the whole thing falls apart. David
McKay's reply is very simple: "But caving and mathmatics aren't RELIGION!"
and Rebecca Mast says essentially the same thing: "The subjects of math,
writting, and religion are not comparable for the nature of religion is not
the same as the nature of math and writing." So their answer would appear
to be a simple "because".
Striving to be clear, Stephen asks one last time: "You appear to be saying
that the evidence for religion being the base of the school is that
religion lessons are given. Do I understand you correctly?" And David
McKay, rather than answering yes or no, offers the oblique "I found it so
intertwined I could not think other wise."
Now that certainly reads like a rhetorical "yes" to me, and it apparently
did to Stephen as well, but carefully crossing the last "t", he asks "I
assume that means "yes"? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)" and David McKay
comes back with this gem: "And no you may not "assume" it means yes.
(besides, I'm sure you must know what assuming leads to, it makes an _ass_
out of _u_ and _me_!)."
So I'm afraid that at this point I'm as baffled as Stephen, and I also have
to ask David McKay:
(1) If "I could not think otherwise" does not mean "Yes", what does it
mean?
(2) Precisely what is the difference between religion and other
subjects that allows religion lessons to interpreted as an evidence for
religion being the base of the school, but doesn't allow math lessons to be
interpreted as math being the base of the school. ("They're different" is
not an answer!)
(3) Do you really believe that a private school's offering of religion
lessons, in a country in which every public school is legally obliged to
teach religion lessons, make a dramatic statement about that school's
orientation? Or does it, perhaps, simply suggest that private schools --
even Waldorf schools -- simply tend to mirror the cultural educational
environment around them except where they have made a conscious decision to
be different?
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.7 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: 2 Nov 96 10:27:27 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Deby Snell wrote
> Steve, Does your school send surveys out to parents ? Our *public*
> school
> [in our area] sends questionaires annually, in late spring. We rate them
> on
> all aspects of parent satisfaction; curriculum (including the arts and
> specialty subjects), administration, teacher-parent rapport, teacher-
> child
> rapport, parent counsel, site counsel, budget, you name it. The district
> asks *what* we, as parents, would like to see changed and/or
> improved. We
> are encouraged to write in detail and do *not* have to sign our names.
> The
> results are tallied, comments recorded, and sent out to every family in
> the
> school. Then mid-year (of the following year), parents get an update on
> *what* as a result of the survey, they are working on. It is an effective
> approach. Parents are committed to their children's school, and it is
> easy
> to see why.
>
Deby,
I like that a lot. Our school has moved in recent years in the direction
of having regular parent surveys, but they are not nearly as detailed as
what you have described (nor is there the element of "The results are
tallied, comments recorded, and sent out to every family in the school."
With your permission, I will pass a copy of your message along to the
administration, along with my recommendation to move farther in this
direction.
Thanks,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.8 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: 2 Nov 96 10:47:00 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Discussing appropriate disclosure of the underlying belief system, Michael
Kopp comments:
> (sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes
> most parents want, and something less than a full course in
> Anthroposophy.
>
> (A simple statement like: "we believe in reincarnation, and our child-
> development model is based on this belief and the belief that children
> are
> incarnated as people in stages, and this belief is the basis for our
> staged
> curriculum".)
>
Here's an extract from the relevant passage in our school's new parent
handbook.
" According to this world view [anthroposophy], the nature of every human
being is comprisd of three parts: the body, soul, and spirit. The 'spirit'
in each person is our eternal self, which incarnates in repeated earth
lives. Through the course of these lives, the spirit gradually matures
until it achieves a realization of its true nature and becomes a free and
fully conscious participant in the further evolution of the world. The
'soul' is the vehicle of awareness and feeling through which the spirit
experiences the body and the world around it.
" At conception, the spirit and soul enter into the germ of the body which
then begins to develop. As the child matures after birth, its spirit and
sould gradually learn to use the body as their instrument, in willing,
feeling and thinking. By this means the child gradually comes to
understand and participate actively in the world. For this learning
process to occur properly, parents and teachers need to provide the
appropriate guidance. With their help, the child's spirit and soul are
able to incarnate in a healthy way and to continue the spirit's development
toward self-realization. "
This is followed by a length discussion of the developmental theory and its
realiztion in the curriculum.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.9 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Goethean Science -- Examples
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:06:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I find this all very interesting. Allow me to point out a couple of
>things.
>
>The number of "conventional medical practitioners" who support the use
>of acupuncture is, at least in the US, vanishingly small, probably not
>vastly greater than the number of medical practitioners who support
>the use of anthroposophically extended medicine or homeopathy.
Perhaps I have gotten a distorted view of this by being in Boulder. A
number of traditionally trained medical personnel seem to offer it.
>There are a number of hypotheses as to how acupuncture works (_if_ it
>works; there's not clear agreement on that point, either). None of
>them has been demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction. Certainly
>there's nothing to lead one to believe that there are any "electrical
>signals" involved. The _only_ application for which there is as much
>as a shred of scientific support regarding acupuncture is in pain
>reduction, and it has _never_ been shown to have an efficacy even
>equal to aspirin.
I was only thinking of its effectiveness on pain. And it was my
understanding that it blocked electrical signals to the brain. But since
you have pointed out that perhaps it hasn't been proven to work, maybe I
should rethink it.
What your argument has led me to see is not that I should accept homeopathy
but perhaps I should reject acupunture. Thanks for giving me something to
think about. Maybe it is good that I haven't spent any money on it.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n168.10 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:22:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>I think the criticisms we are hearing now are only the beginning. The
>growth of the public waldorf movement will bring many more people into
>contact with something which will be called waldorf schooling, but is
>really only the grafting of some waldorf techniques onto a hodgpodge of
>"something elses". I worry that this is what will be recognized as
>"waldorf education" at some point in the near future.
I think the exact opposite will occur. As more people petition for public
Waldrof schools, it will attract the attention of the Christian right. You
will have articles about the Occult ties that Waldorf has. In fact, if you
want to have a potent PR force against Waldorf, make sure your local
Christian conservatives see some of Steiner's writings. I expect they will
take it from there.
Plus, even Waldorf's Christian links will work against it. Because if
Waldorf, a school with religious underpinnings, can become a Charter
school, why not other schools with religious links?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n168 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n169 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin - Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
007 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 16:53:44 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Neil Faiman writes
>So I'm afraid that at this point I'm as baffled as Stephen,
I'm glad it's not just me -- I was beginning to suspect that age was
beginning to take its toll on the little grey cells...
>and I also have
>to ask David McKay:
>
> (1) If "I could not think otherwise" does not mean "Yes", what does it
>mean?
The only alternative to "yes" I could find which fitted the context was
"no" -- but that would render his argument as meaning that the existence
of religion lessons was *NOT* evidence for religion being the base of
the school. But this is contrary to his initial argument...it's not
unlike one of those paradoxical amusements like:
That statement is false ==> <== That statement is true
However, I'm sure David wouldn't resort to puerile games, so I keep
hoping that the flaw in my reasoning will dawn on me.
> (3) Do you really believe that a private school's offering of religion
>lessons, in a country in which every public school is legally obliged to
>teach religion lessons,
This may be construed as being picky, but I don't think that local
authority schools are obliged to give religion lessons (I may be wrong
about this) -- what I do know is that they are obliged to hold a daily
act of communal religious worship -- I think (again, I'm not certain) it
has to be Christian worship. This act of worship could consist of
singing a hymn and/or reciting a prayer and hence does not, IMHO,
necessarily qualify as a religion lesson.
On that subject (and I would welcome critical comment on this!), during
my religion lesson with class 8 yesterday, I had intended taking the
theme of freedom of belief and to illustrate it with the Oxford martyrs
(Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer) and to develop this over a few weeks to cover
the question of standing by one's principles, again taking Cranmer and
his recantation, etc as an historical illustration.
I began by asking the pupils for examples things they thought were
fundamental principles which no-one had a right to deny any human being,
intending (if necessary) to guide this towards the idea that freedom of
belief may be one of those things. I'm afraid that the animated
discussion which ensued all but excluded me from the rest of the lesson
and the Oxford martyrs didn't even get a look-in and my one attempt to
ask, "O.K. what about freedom of belief?" was met with a, "That's so
_obvious_, Steve!" before the mature but heated discussion on assisted
suicide (which I neither initiated nor encouraged) was rejoined. It
took ten minutes for me to actually bring this (still unresolved)
discussion to an end and the next lesson began very late.
Best religion lesson this year, so far.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 16:09:43 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>(sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes most
>parents want, and something less than a full course in Anthroposophy.
Could you perhaps be more specific?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 16:13:10 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Neil Faiman writes
>Here's an extract from the relevant passage in our school's new parent
>handbook.
Neil,
That looked to be well stated -- is there any way you could email me the
entire thing? -- we are at present updating our handbook and I am
unashamedly plagiarising good ideas from those of other schools (with
their permission, of course!)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.4 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:42:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dr. Mollett writes:
[snip].. It would exclude many Waldorf trained teachers because a great
number of them do not wish to study for such a credential.
Robert Flannery:
>I couldn't agree with you more. I think almost anything which serves to
>clarify the distinction between public and private waldorf schooling will
>be useful.
Deby says,
The problem, as I see it, is there is no difference at all between public
and private, except public Waldorf has *lots* more money, and they have
opened the door for valid public scrutiny. The Waldorf public schools
*insist* on hiring or training Anthroposophical Specialists and calling
them teachers.
Many families who are attracted to public Waldorf, but not private
Waldorf, come because they liked the methodology and the idea of teaching
in blocks, etc., but can't stomach the Anthroposophical doctrine and dogma
in private Waldorf. Laws, like charter schools *must* meet state
performance standards, that *all* charter schools must be non-sectarian,
offer some kind of "insurance" plan for their child(rens) education. Not to
mention the idea that parents *think* the public systems would *never*
sponsor a school of Anthroposophical nature.
BUT, they get to the school and find all the same dogma, IF NOT MORE, than
they found at the private Waldorf school. Why ?? Because, IMNSHO, in
private Waldorf schools, the teachers need to [somewhat] please the parents
or they do not get a paycheck. Money is tied to enrollment. Customer
service *must* be important. Not so in public schools. The pay is
guarenteed.They do not *care* if you pull your child out. About 60 families
left our public Waldorf school last year. Unfortunately, new people come to
replace them. They may not stay long, but they stay long enough to secure
funding from the school district that sponsors the school.
Fortunately, there are checks and balances in most tax funded programs.
When the training cintent is properly exposed, I truely believe mainstream
America will *not* want to fund deceptive educational institutions.
This is why I maintain: Every private Waldorf school *should* be concerned
with Waldorf going public. This *will* be exposed, and *is* being exposed.
It *may* affect private Waldorf enrollment, and the general populations
view of what Waldorf is. Call it a revelation on my part, call it a threat.
Call it a warning. I do not care. Waldorf schools in America, who think
this does not affect them, should think again. Most parents of Waldorf
students do not know just how limited the teacher training is. When they
find out, they will not be pleased. The teacher training content is a best
kept secret.
Much of the criticism on this list stems from experiences at
>public waldorf schools. The proportion will only increase as time goes on,
>I suspect.
In part, in private schools, the old
if-you-don't-like-it-you-can-leave-mentality has a valid place. Supporting
private Waldorf schools is a personal choice. Supporting public Waldorf
schools is not. Our community has a Catholic private school with an
impeccable reputation for producing scholars. They, like many private
schools, struggle for funding. But, because *they* are honest about what
they do, they *know* they do not qualify for charter funding, therefor have
not pursued public funding. I admire their honesty. I think
Anthroposophical schools *need* to look deep inside themselves, and do the
right thing. Pull out of the public schools.
I do not judge Anthroposophical beliefs. I do not judge *any* spiritual
belief system. I judge dishonesty. I judge deception.
Deby Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 17:30:02 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Suzanne Lainson writes
>Because if
>Waldorf, a school with religious underpinnings, can become a Charter
>school, why not other schools with religious links?
Whilst I do not concede your premise that Waldorf schools have religious
underpinnings, I too ask why should religious schools not become Charter
schools. I understood that the rationale for the separation of church
and state in the realm of education was to ensure that the state was not
seen to be favouring or endorsing a particular religion -- if it funded
_all_ schooling (religious, secular, Waldorf, small, free, home,
Mollett, Kopp, etc) equitably, that too would not be endorsing any
particular belief system and would, in addition, remove the economic
barrier to freedom of choice.
However, the cynic in me suggests that the *real* reason is not so much
one of principle, but one of economics and politics -- I don't think
there is a government in any western country which could fund the
education of _all_ children without taking the politically suicidal
route of increasing taxes. That is, I contend, the main reason that the
UK Labour Party did not carry out its pledge to abolish private
education when it was in power and why that pledge will not appear on
its next manifesto.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.6 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 12:30:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Dr. Mollet:
> That is a real problem but these are very early days for public
> >Waldorf-inspired programs. One part of the problem would be solved if all
> >teachers had to possess a state credential.
Dear Dr. Mollet,
I'd like to make a quick comment here, although I agree to a
certain extent with your ideal of understanding other methods I would also
like to add that the system for receiving state credentials is not all
it's creaked up to be. Many state teachers are walking out with a 5th
grade reading level, (meaning they can read a news paper). This system need
revamping in many ways itself.
I would like to say further that the state professors in each class
have their own favorite discipline and ideology. I would not say that
state schools have a very balanced agenda.
In my methods class we were taught to teach, purely out of text books.
I found this limiting with very little creativity and thought behind the
concepts. I do see value to brushing up on methodology, but as you
yourself know the Waldorf Curriculum is far more creative to the teacher
and the student on many different levels.
> Snell says,
> 1) I wonder how many parents make assumptions about the content of the
> Anthroposophical Teacher training. Many families are shocked when I give
> them a copy of the course study from Rudolf Steiner college.
> I think, in the case of public Waldorf teachers, they should have to
> disclose that their teaching degree is in Anthroposophy - not education.
Dear Snell,
I must take issue here with you. At the Steiner College students
are required to have two years of college before entering the program.
Most have four and come from many different areas full of live experiences.
These are not high school students entering the foundation year.
Like the University, there is a one year study on the philosophy of
different types of education (undergrad), at the college it is limited to
the writings of Rudolf Steiner, (much like a masters program). The second
year focuses on the methods and approaches to educating the child. Part
of this is specialized to Child Education and the teaching of
Kindergarten, or the teaching of grades 1 through 8, or the teaching of high
school with specialized subjects. Although I would agree that 1 year of
Waldorf methodology is not enough, even in this format, but there is
constant on going education for each grade with mentors available for
consultation. What other educational approach even offers or requires
this on going education? I would like to know.
In many state schools only one year of methodology is required so
if you choose not to continue educating yourself, with your own funds,
you could in actuality finish your education for life and still be hired
and certified as a teacher.
I am aware, however, of a few on going solution to get teachers back
into the universities and continue their education, but I am sorry to say
that it is money driven, rather than improving the self, and in some
cases job security is threatened.
I realize this is a moral and value issue, but I personally wouldn't want
a teacher who is more concerned about money than my child's education.
I say this only because I have met a few state teachers who hate what
they are doing, but the money is good.
I am not against teachers making a good living, we all know how
hard Waldorf teachers work, and it is not for the money. I am for a
balance though, perhaps there should be more requirements for Waldorf
teachers to have documentation of their skills on a broad area of subjects.
This might well be a requirement, but I also feel that maybe there needs
to be a Waldorf teachers union, so that they receive the amount of money
that would enable them to live and support their families as those
who are able to send their children to a Waldorf School.
One issue that has come up many times is that giving Waldorf teachers
more money few parents would be able to afford the education. Thus it
would become an elites education. I must add that as some Waldorf Schools
already are. It is a matter of priorities now and has become a double
edge sword.
I see many benefits to Waldorf Education in public schools, I do not
believe techers need to take up Anthroposophy as a life style in order to be
successful in the classroom, but I do believe, as in all approaches to
education, teachers need to be open minded and want to know why they
are teaching what they are teaching and understand the foundation of the
philosophy. I will add also that the schools themselves have an
obligation to tell the parents what is behind this education and that the
parents must be required to attend these meetings. Many of the disputes
in life and on the this list, I believe are due to lack of communication
and understanding. I believe we are all good people wanting what is best
for our children.
Best Wishes Always,
-El
P.S. I wasn't sure if "Snell" is Deby 's last name, so if you please Dear
Snell then should be Dear Deby,. :)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.7 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 22:19:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> >For now I have to get my daily dose...
>
> Of what?
>
> David Mckay
>
Adrenalin intoxication from reading the posts on the waldorf-critics
list.
Seriously folks, I couldn't live anymore without the kicks you
provide me.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.8 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject:
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 13:40:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
So.., Peter. If you like this so much, wouldn't it be great for all list
members to meet at Dan Dugan's house for his annual B-Day celebration next
September. We could choose the top four debaters (from each side) and have
a throughly lively debate. We could serve wine and share food from many
parts of the globe, if everyone showed up. Dan, are we invited ?
-Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.9 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 13:41:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Seriously folks, I couldn't live anymore without the kicks you
>provide me.
>
>+peter+
So..why don't we plan The First Annual International Anthroposophical
Debate ? We could hold it at Dan Dugan's house (he has a conveniently
located airport..) next September at his annual Birthday open house.
(Dan, could you think of a better B-Day present?)
Just think...., we could vote for the top four debaters from each
side,....share wine and food from *many* parts of the globe,...I will
volunteer to decorate....Steve Tonkin, when *does* your school start?
Deby
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n169.10 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:45:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> See my reply to you about founding my own school for my first entry in the
> contest.
Noted and archived.
>
> And don't the Swiss have any respect for the regional trademark rights of
> Champagne? Here in Godzone, the wine makers have been prevented from using
> the word "Champagne" on their labels; instead, they have to use "methode
> champenoise".
>
Officially they call it "sparkling vine" of course. Even the
"methode champenoise" label is now forbidden in Europe by EU
legislation (which the Swiss share ... sometimes!).
> >For now I have to get my daily dose...
>
> Of what, vintage cult?
>
No, Michael Kopp email posts to keep my adrenaline level high....
See you
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n169 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n170 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:45:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> * By the way, what is this "official Waldorf curriculum"? We've heard over
> and over that there is no international conspiracy of
> Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy which sets the tune to which individual
> schools are to march. Now we hear there IS an "official Waldorf
> curriculum".
>
> I, for one, as a parent in a Steiner school whose curriculum is set by the
> state, except for the "special character" of the school, never having seen
> any such "official Waldorf curriculum" from the school itself, am all ears.
>
>
Caroline von Heydebrand: "Vom Lehrplan der Freien Waldorfschule /
bearbeitet von Caroline von Heydebrand". Editor: Freie Waldorfschule
Stuttgart - 10. Auflage - Stuttgart: Verlag freies Geistesleben, 1996.
ISBN: 3-7725-0200-8
Sometimes you have to go back to the roots, where it all began...
This book explains in detail the progress children should make at
each stage of their school career.
I do not know if an english translation exists, you'll have to
search...
Good luck
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.2 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:45:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> And KOPP says:
>
> I *DO* care if those private discussions have repercussions for my
> childrens' educations.
>
> I believe the private discussions of Anthroposophy I quoted *DO* have
> serious negative repercussions for my children.
>
> All I said was I don't want my kids taught by people who believe in what I
> think is mumbo-jumbo if their teaching is based on that mumbo-jumbo.
>
> That is, I do *NOT believe my children should be educated by people who
> believe my kids are reincarnated OR incarnated (in stages, no less) OR that
> they may have chosen the wrong parents, AND whose educational dogma acts on
> those beliefs.
>
In brief, you do not want those who are elected to teach your kids to
believe in or even discuss such matters. This is, in some more polite
words, I agree, what I told in my post.
>
> Mr Schwab has previously accused me of insulting the memory of Rudolf
> Steiner. Others have called me a religious bigot and made other references
> to me as being in kind with Nazis and fascists. Now he uses Nazi-type
> appellations in pseudo-German to characterise me in his mistaken belief
> that I have called for non-discussion of Anthroposophy.
>
As I have told recently on this list I do not believe hat you
deserve the illustrous company of Uncle Adolf & Co. Nobody does, by
the way. By using some German bits, I was rather making a reference
towards George Orwell and Franz Kafka. But then, there is such a
thing as cultural background...
I find it interesting however that you make the direct assumption:
German language = Nazis. Do you not think that you are shooting to
quickly here.
> To the contrary, I think that there should be more discussion of it, in the
> context of the renascence of this phenomenon in modern educational
> trendiness.
>
I think you are confusing "discussion" and "destruction"...
> *I am refraining from characterising your replies as anything else, because
> the vitriol poured on my head for suggesting improper motives and character
> traits in others on this list has scalded my scalp.
>
Weleda Calendula cream, applied three times a day. Works wonders!
> Perhaps the defenders of the faith should live, act and be judged by the
> standard they judge others by?
>
But those dwelling in glass-houses should refrain from casting stones...
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.3 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: reply to Thandi
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:45:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
And here we got it again, the complete Dan Dugan show:
Just one important question remains unanswered:
What do you to achive with all those efforts???
Curiously yours
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:45:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Peter SCHWAB quotes Michael KOPP on the dilemma of parents torn between
> occult religious Steiner education and bad public education:
>
> [...]
>
> And SCHWAB gets off the usual flip Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical* taunt
> heard ad nauseum by critics:
>
Etc. etc. don't you get the slight impression we are running round in
circles?
>
> Answer: Rubbish. I didn't join a cult, I sent my kids to a state-integrated
> school which has legal responsibilities to cater to parents' expressions
> of their needs and desires and problems -- including with the curriculum.
>
Well, I send my kids to a private school which does not receive one
single cent state money (besides, no swiss waldorf school does
receive state money). So every month I am in the comfortable
situation to say: "You want my money and my fundraising help? Then at
least _listen_ what I want to say you!"
You always get what you pay for, my friend!
> I certainly wouldn't ever found a school: that would put me in the same
> mould as all other gurus who have founded a faith -- like Rudolf Steiner,
> for instance.
>
> As a home-schooler, I could give my children a much wider take on the
> world, using an unbiased, non-sectarian database of information, including
> the _critical_ thinking of people who haven't given themselves over to
> religious dogma, of whatever stripe, be it major organised religion or
> "Anthrosophy".
>
Then, for whoever's sake, do home-school them! But you can't have the
best from _both_ worlds.
>
> There must be something about the thin atmosphere way
> up high in Switzerland that leads to airy-fairy thinking. I'll stick to sea
> level.
>
Air is thick enough here, thank you.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.5 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: The Unique Aspect of Twin Ridges
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 14:52:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>For the sake of clarity, something needs to be said about the unique nature
>of the Twin Ridges school. A few years back, a young, struggling waldorf
>school known as Mariposa was located in Grass Valley, California. This
>school folded, for a number of reasons. A significant number of that
>school's faculty and parents resurfaced in the Twin Ridges initiative
>shortly thereafter.
>
>So, to some extent, a private waldorf school has been transformed into a
>public waldorf school.
>I would especially appreciate it if someone would be willing to say how the
>issues which led to the shutdown at Mariposa have been carried into Twin
>Ridges.
Robert,
I served on the board of directors of Mariposa Waldorf School during its
last breaths; one and one half years.
Several issues contributed to its closure.
1) Lack of enrollment of "full pay" tuition. (We operated 54% tuition
assistance, with those families paying $85.00 per month).
2.) Lack of teacher training in Administrative issues, such as budgeting,
etc. Yet the faculty *demanded* that the school be faculty-led.
3.) lack of ability to communicate with parents in a way that encouraged
parental committment. No structure in place, i.e., no parent hand book, no
committee structure. When the board implimented committees, only "selected"
members of the committee would be called [by teachers] for the meetings.
Hurt feelings arose.
4) Lack of honesty between the faculty and board. Administrator and book
keeper did not inform the board that Federal and State payroll taxes *had
not been paid* until the school's bank accounts were levied, and payroll
checks bounced. The book keeper had not balanced the check book in 7
months. (This was discovered in the first 6 weeks of when *I* got on the
board.)
5) After the faculty consulted with AWSNA about its' financial problems the
year *before* its closure, AWSNA recommended that the school close. The
faculty decided to expand instead. So..., they didn't tell the parents that
AWSNA recommended closure, they held a lovely meeting for *all* the
parents, shoved gobble-dee-goop down our throats, and convinced the parents
that the school was on its way out of financial ruin. They asked us to
guarentee loans totaling $60,000.
toward the expansion of the school. (Three weeks into the school, our
family. completely enamoured,and not yet on the board, co-signed for the
second largest part of "this much needed loan".)
By the time the $42,000.(that was all the school could come up with in the
way of guarentors) loan came, we used it to pay the IRS and State for back
payroll taxes. Meanwhile, we had taken over another rented house on the
property, had *no* money for advertising-or-remodeling, and the class that
had moved in to the *new and improved* expanded part of our school was "red
tagged" by the county for leaking sewage in the bathtub, etc.
Suddenly, when all of these faculty led problems began to arise, the
faculty stopped coming to board meetings, etc. The faculty went into a
"comatose" state. No ideas, just demands. (WE want our paychecks).
The board layed off the administrator in February to help save money (who
*refused* to leave and threatened to sue the Board *if* we looked through
the school records that, by California non-profit law, are to be opened for
any member of the public).The board ran the schoolfrom February to June of
that year to insure our children could complete the year. Because the board
was told that the school was operating 25% tuition assistance, verses the
54% that we were *truely* at, and not to mention the "fantasy budget" that
reflected only what the faculty wanted it to look like, in order for the
budget to be passed, I decided that either someone was embezzeling funds or
the budget was not accurate. (My husband and I went through every contract
in the school to determine what the *real* income was.
When the board asked for the faculty budget committee to give us an
accurate budget that reflected the true income, every single faculty member
on that committee resigned.
Needless to say, the Rudolf Steiner Institute that loaned us the money was
throughly anngry when they learned that AWSNA had recommended closure of
the school, and the faculty went for a loan from them instead. Ironically,
every parent that co-signed for that loan paid. The faculty that went in on
the loan has yet to pay what they committed. (Anne Stahl, from the RSI,
called me a few months back to say that one teacher she had contacted at
Twin Ridges regarding her debt put her on hold and *never* came back.) They
were considering sueing.
Well, there is *lots* more to this story, but to answer your question about
the new Public Waldorf School.....six out of eight teachers at Twin Ridges
School were employed by Mariposa.
To this day, one faculty member (that did not go on to work for Twin
Ridges) has asked about the $32,000. payroll taxes that the board got stuck
dealing with.
Deby Snell, past Mariposa board member
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.6 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Goethean Science -- Examples
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 18:50:11 -0500
Suzanne, I promised you one more example of applied Goethean science and this
post will provide it. I will lead into it by picking up on something you
said in your reply, relative to homeopathy: "In my understanding of the
world, if you dilute a substance to such an extent that it is essentially
water, then it shouldn't have an effect." This reflects a conventional image
of water as an inert substance.
Quite a different view of water can be found "Sensitive Chaos, The Creation
of Flowing Forms in Water and Air," in which Theodor Schwenk reports on a
considerable amount of experimental observation and related information.
This book was originally published in Germany in 1962, with several editions
since then. The latest is a revised second edition published in 1996 by
Rudolf Steiner Press (London). It has a foreword by Jacques Cousteau and I
have lately seen it endorsed in non-anthroposophical science writings, but
Schwenk makes very clear how his investigations have been guided by the
indications of Steiner.
It is difficult to classify this book, because it has content ranging from
information that you are likely to regard as factual, interesting and to be
accepted without doubt, to interpretations that are philosophical and
mystical. However, I can't imagine a rationalist objecting to the latter due
to the beauty of diagrams and photographs, and the information they convey
about the nature of flow forms in water and air. "Flow form" isn't anything
esoteric. An example would be a standing wave created in a mountain stream
rushing through boulders--a form that persists even though its "substance"
(water) rapidly changes. An even simpler example is the vortex that forms as
the water in a sink or tub gets close to running out.
The first section of the book, "Archetypal Movements of Water," is devoted to
reports of careful observation of natural flow patterns. Here is an example:
"Research on canalized rivers ... revealed decades ago that the natural
course of water is a rhythmical meandering. Even between straightened banks
the river tries, with what remaining strength it has, to realize this form of
movement by flowing in a meandering rhythm between the straight banks. Not
even the strongest walled banks can hold out indefinitely against this 'will'
of the water and wherever they offer a chance they will be torn down. The
river tries to turn the unnatural, straight course into its own natural one."
Much of the presentation describes the interaction of water with its
environment--this is where the "sensitive" part of the label "sensitive
chaos" comes into play. This includes how creatures living within water
reflect the nature of water in their structure and movement; and how
creatures that have water within them (which they all do, of course) have
their internal structure and function shaped by the nature of water.
Since Waldorf critics are always concerned about whether or not the heart is
a pump, I will mention that there is a section on the heart (also the ear and
the intestines). Essentially, what Schwenk says is that once you come to
understand the usual patterns of fluid flow (and by this point in the book
you have had many examples presented to you), you will see those patterns in
the structure of the heart. The muscle fibers, for example, follow a vortex
pattern. In this perspective, says Schwenk, there is no need to imagine the
heart as a pump. "In the human heart, form and movement are interrelated,
uniting space and time in a rhythmical process. The organ, a form in space,
is simultaneously a movement in time." (Whether or not this puts him in the
"is a pump" or the "is not a pump" category I will leave to those who are
limited to bivalent classifications.)
But there is even more interesting material to be found in the section
"Water, Nature's Sense Organ," which begins with "The formative boundary
surfaces in flowing movement prove to be areas of sensitivity." For example,
when a container of water is shaken, says Schwenk, "It is interwoven with
countless sensitive membranes that are prepared to perceive everything taking
place in the surrounding." And even though "this may seem an exceedingly
bold statement," he says that experiments show that "water is capable of
reacting to the delicate influences resulting from changes in the cosmos."
He then describes an experiment performed during total eclipse of the sun (a
substantive "change in the cosmos"), in which every 15 minutes during the day
one of a series of identical containers of water is shaken. The shaking
creates the "countless sensitive membranes" to come into existence for a
brief time and they react to (in some sense, record) the constellation of the
Earth, Moon and Sun (not to mention planets) at that particular point in
time. When the days is over, then, there is a series of water containers
representing the history of the day, before, during, and after the eclipse.
The varying imprints of the water containers can be made visible by
germinating grains of wheat in each container, starting at the same time and
under the same external conditions. "During the same span of time the blade
in the water of one vessel will grow better than that in another. The
lengths of the different blades in the different vessels will depict the
course of the eclipse." A graph depicting about a 20% reduction in growth
during the time of the total eclipse is presented and Schwenk states that the
difference is statistically significant.
Leaving Schwenk for a moment, this is the point of relevance to homeopathy,
which also is based on the principle of imprinting on water. The medicinal
substance is placed in water, the water is shaken to open its "sensitive
membranes," then the water is diluted and the process repeated. Under the
theory of homeopathy, these steps can be repeated until little or none of the
original substance remains in the portion of water retained. What matters is
the imprinting on the water itself, not the medicinal substance.
(Let me clarify that in offering this explanation I am neither endorsing nor
refuting homeopathy per se. I would also observe that imprinting of water
might be a valid phenomenon, as Schwenk has reported it, without that in
itself validating homeopathy.)
Returning to Schwenk, here we have an example of a Goethean approach to a
field of study that has produced new fundamental understanding of flow
patterns and their significance, that has numerous practical applications,
and that has offered up experimental evidence that is susceptible to
replication. It seems to be that this is fully worthy of the label
"science."
At this point, Suzanne, I was going to ask you how you would evaluate these
examples of Goethean science I have provided--how you would decide whether
they represent science or pseudoscience or just pure foolishness. Chances
are you aren't going to try replicating the total eclipse experiment. But
then how would you draw conclusions about the validity of these ideas?
You have cleverly already anticipated that question in your reply to my first
set of examples. And as far as I am concerned your pragmatic, down-to-earth
position is completely reasonable. But the next time you are baking bread
you might try a little experiment, just for the fun of it. Make one loaf
with water that has been shaken just before being added, and another loaf
with water that has been allowed to sit for a day. Who knows?
By the way, the "angels on the head of a pin" thing, as silly as it sounds,
actually had a serious side, which had to do with the extent to which the
spiritual world is bound to the laws of the material world. I also see a
close analog with the "multiple universes" explanation of quantum phenomena,
but let's not go there. A pin is better used to test whether the bread is
done.
Best wishes,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.7 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Goethean Science -- Examples
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 18:14:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks for the info. Sounds interesting. It lets me know there's a lot
about water I don't know.
>At this point, Suzanne, I was going to ask you how you would evaluate these
>examples of Goethean science I have provided--how you would decide whether
>they represent science or pseudoscience or just pure foolishness.
I don't know how I would evaluate it. I suppose I wouldn't make a
judgement. I'm not all that quick to reject ideas. I'm just rather cautious
about embracing them. Take reincarnation, for example. I haven't ruled it
out. But I've decided that I'll live my life as if I have only one, so I'm
pretty much unaware of any impact that reincarnation might have had on me.
But the next time you are baking bread
>you might try a little experiment, just for the fun of it. Make one loaf
>with water that has been shaken just before being added, and another loaf
>with water that has been allowed to sit for a day. Who knows?
Sounds interesting. I haven't baked bread for years (I did it every Sunday
when my children were small, but they're both grown now), so it's possible
I might forget to try the experiment the next time I do bake bread. But
maybe I'll remember.
>By the way, the "angels on the head of a pin" thing, as silly as it sounds,
>actually had a serious side, which had to do with the extent to which the
>spiritual world is bound to the laws of the material world. I also see a
>close analog with the "multiple universes" explanation of quantum phenomena,
>but let's not go there. A pin is better used to test whether the bread is
>done.
Glad to see some humor here. It can be fun to ponder the nature of the
universe. I think I just lose patience with arguing about it.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Acronyms and Contractions (was:Things I wish they'd told me)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:25:03 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Michael Kopp writes
>>(sorry, folks, I'm not allowed to use the acronym I invented to save space
>
>Oh -- did you invent an acronym as _well_ as that rather clumsy attempt
>at a contraction? Very creative!
>
>I must have missed it during my recent mail problems.
Only mail problem you seem to have is that your emailer continues spewing
them out at a great rate, despite the waffle you put in them. Emailers need
to develop AI, perhaps, for folks like you.
Yes, you _all_ missed my new acronym (as opposed to my old _contraction_,
to which I was not referring) for Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy.
I'm so afraid one of you might tell on me, I won't even publish it.
Now I even have to be afraid of being sent back to school over minor
matters of usage (despite the fact that I have not misused anything in the
present case).
Are you as didactic (see meaning 2) in your teaching, Tonkin?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:25:07 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Michael Kopp writes
>>(sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes most
>>parents want, and something less than a full course in Anthroposophy.
>
>Could you perhaps be more specific?
I was, several messages back. Is your emailer broken for reading, too, or
only stuck on send, send, send, send, send ......?
I said:
A simple statement like: "we believe in reincarnation, and our child-
development model is based on this belief and the belief that children
are incarnated as people in stages, and this belief is the basis for our
staged curriculum".
What Neil Faiman has posted from his school's new parent handbook would
have been useful to me four years ago. It didn't exist, and I would have
had to read Dan Dugan's seven-foot library shelf in advance of signing up
to find it.
I think I did more than most parents to find out what I was getting into.
Nobody told me it was cult-like, based on occult/mystical mumbo-jumbo, and
included weird science. Not even professional educators mentioned these
aspects.
(I had been active in journalism and educational affairs for several years
at that time, including being involved in New Zealand's educational reform
in the 1980's that gave parents more say in their children's educations,
politically, and was elected by my community to one of the first citizen
boards of trustees of schools (each of the 5,000 schools in NZ have one).
Some professional educators mentioned Anthroposophy, but when I told them I
had been told it wasn't in the classroom, they didn't demurr. And several
had praise for some of the Steiner pedagogy, and especially the development
of the self and what it means to be human.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n170.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:25:10 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Neil Faiman writes
>>Here's an extract from the relevant passage in our school's new parent
>>handbook.
>
Stephen Tonkin answers:
>Neil,
>
>That looked to be well stated -- is there any way you could email me the
>entire thing? -- we are at present updating our handbook and I am
>unashamedly plagiarising good ideas from those of other schools (with
>their permission, of course!)
KOPP says:
Tonkin, if you get permission, it's not plagiarism.
(Just being as pedantic about words with you as you are with me, chum.)
As to Mr Faiman's school handbook,
I think something like this would be useful for all of us on this list.
Depending on it length, could it be posted here in its entirety?
If not, I would appreciate an email copy, as well.
(And before any snide one jumps in with reference to my belief in quoting
anything that moves, let me say that I haven't and I won't. I just defend
the openness of intellectual ideas.)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n170 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n171 --------------
001 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Copyright information.
002 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
003 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they to
004 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
005 - snell oro.net - Re: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
006 - snell oro.net - Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they to
007 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Water Memory (was Re: Goethean Science)
008 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they to
009 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Who pays calls the tune? (Was Re: Things I wish they'd told me
010 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.1 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Copyright information.
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:25:17 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In the wake of my stoush with Lefty over the copyright laws in regard to
the new era of on-line communication, I have done what Lefty seemed
uninterested in doing -- I have looked at some of the latest references on
the subject online.
(Lefty, you may remember, wanted to rely only on two things:
1. a citation of a 20-year-old major literary figure's suit over use of his
personal letters in an unauthorised biography; and
2. a repeated attempt to belittle me for knowing nothing about copyright,
a charge that did not stand up then and still doesn't.
I've compiled a compendium of bits and pieces (with some comment as to how
it refers to our particular instances) and URLs for sites of interest.
It's not scholarship, it's not definitive, but it's perhaps useful.
If anyone wants a copy, I'll be pleased to send it to you via private
email. It's 22K.
Cheers,
Michael Kopp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.2 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:25:20 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Could the person who posts (recently -- I don't remember them from too far
back in the year I've been on this list) as:
"From: {~_~} "
and signs their posts:
>-El
please consider a fuller identification?
I'm told by Lefty, Tonkin and others that anonymity is cowardly.
While I don't agree, and support anonymous posting where the poster
believes it is indicated (love that word, eh?), if one goes halfway, with
an email address and (incomplete) signature, I feel a desire to know who
they are.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.3 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:25:27 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
KOPP said:
>> * By the way, what is this "official Waldorf curriculum"? We've heard over
>> and over that there is no international conspiracy of
>> Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy which sets the tune to which individual
>> schools are to march. Now we hear there IS an "official Waldorf
>> curriculum".
>>
>> I, for one, as a parent in a Steiner school whose curriculum is set by the
>> state, except for the "special character" of the school, never having seen
>> any such "official Waldorf curriculum" from the school itself, am all ears.
And SCHWAB replied:
>Caroline von Heydebrand: "Vom Lehrplan der Freien Waldorfschule /
>bearbeitet von Caroline von Heydebrand". Editor: Freie Waldorfschule
>Stuttgart - 10. Auflage - Stuttgart: Verlag freies Geistesleben, 1996.
>ISBN: 3-7725-0200-8
>
>Sometimes you have to go back to the roots, where it all began...
>
>This book explains in detail the progress children should make at
>each stage of their school career.
>
>I do not know if an english translation exists, you'll have to
>search...
>
>Good luck
Well, this seems to encapsulate the problem for non-Anthroposophist (is
that -ist okay with you, Peter, or am I treading on toes again?) parents.
An obscure book that may or may not be available in English.
No clear view of what they're getting into given in plain English.
And an attitude from the people they want to know more about before
associating with that says the parents are on their own!
(And yes, I know Peter really means he wishes me success in finding the
material, because he wants me to know. I'm not so sure about the motives of
Steiner school people who don't tell enough up front. His is a personal
wish; the one I characterise in my last paragraph above seems an
institutional one.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.4 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:25:24 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quoted himself:
>> >For now I have to get my daily dose...
>>
And SCHWAB quoted Michael KOPP's rejoinder
>> Of what, vintage cult?
And SCHWAB says:
>No, Michael Kopp email posts to keep my adrenaline level high....
Now KOPP, trying to have the last word in this badinage, says:
So happy to be able to help keep your "heart-that-isn't-a-pump" doing
whatever it does with the adrenaline supply to give you a higher state of
consciousness, or whatever.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.5 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 19:11:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Could the person who posts (recently -- I don't remember them from too far
>back in the year I've been on this list) as:
>
>"From: {~_~} "
>
>and signs their posts:
>
>>-El
>
>please consider a fuller identification?
>
>I'm told by Lefty, Tonkin and others that anonymity is cowardly.
>
>While I don't agree, and support anonymous posting where the poster
>believes it is indicated (love that word, eh?), if one goes halfway, with
>an email address and (incomplete) signature, I feel a desire to know who
>they are.
I agree. If not a name, etc., how about an introduction or *something*.
Where are you from ?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.6 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 19:11:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>KOPP said:
>>> * By the way, what is this "official Waldorf curriculum"? We've heard over
>>> and over that there is no international conspiracy of
>>> Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy which sets the tune to which individual
>>> schools are to march. Now we hear there IS an "official Waldorf
>>> curriculum".
>>>
>>> I, for one, as a parent in a Steiner school whose curriculum is set by the
>>> state, except for the "special character" of the school, never having seen
>>> any such "official Waldorf curriculum" from the school itself, am all ears.
>
>And SCHWAB replied:
>
>>Caroline von Heydebrand: "Vom Lehrplan der Freien Waldorfschule /
>>bearbeitet von Caroline von Heydebrand". Editor: Freie Waldorfschule
>>Stuttgart - 10. Auflage - Stuttgart: Verlag freies Geistesleben, 1996.
>>ISBN: 3-7725-0200-8
>>
>>Sometimes you have to go back to the roots, where it all began...
>>
>>This book explains in detail the progress children should make at
>>each stage of their school career.
>>
>>I do not know if an english translation exists, you'll have to
>>search...
>>
>>Good luck
>Kopp responds,
>Well, this seems to encapsulate the problem for non-Anthroposophist
> [snip]
>An obscure book that may or may not be available in English.
>
>No clear view of what they're getting into given in plain English.
>
Oh..., come on Michael. What kind of a parent are you ? I am sure you could
find *someone* to teach you German. Let us see some old fashioned
committment here. After all, they *did* tell us these schools originated in
Germany. There you go again...,looking completely unreasonable.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Water Memory (was Re: Goethean Science)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:03:37 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
RigbyL aol.com said:
>Suzanne, I promised you one more example of applied Goethean science and this
>post will provide it. I will lead into it by picking up on something you
>said in your reply, relative to homeopathy: "In my understanding of the
>world, if you dilute a substance to such an extent that it is essentially
>water, then it shouldn't have an effect." This reflects a conventional image
>of water as an inert substance.
>
>Quite a different view of water can be found "Sensitive Chaos, The Creation
>of Flowing Forms in Water and Air," in which Theodor Schwenk reports on a
>considerable amount of experimental observation and related information.
[snip esoterica]
>Returning to Schwenk, here we have an example of a Goethean approach to a
>field of study that has produced new fundamental understanding of flow
>patterns and their significance, that has numerous practical applications,
>and that has offered up experimental evidence that is susceptible to
>replication. It seems to be that this is fully worthy of the label
>"science."
I see no new understanding of anything in the realm of physical science
about water. I see no hypothesis as to how this works, according to the
laws of physics as we know them or as they might evolve.
What I see is more mystical mumbo-jumbo about some apparently-spriritual
"memory" that water can have.
Water memory has been thoroughly rubbished by the science in which I
believe -- and which about 99.999 percent of the world's scientists believe
in.
We have here observations of phenomena coupled with some attempt at a
super- or para-normal explanation. I believe the "researchers" into such
phenomenology are looking not for science but something mystical (or at the
least metaphysical).
Goethe science doesn't provide answers and proof, it provides mystical
things for people who need mystical things to believe in.
I prefer to have mysteries of the universe explained to me by the science
that has proved itself time and time again. I don't need mysticism to
believe in.
I have good reason to take it for granted that the science I know will
eventually be able to answer all the mysteries of the universe with
consistent and explainable physical laws. They may, by the time all the
answers are in, not seem like anything we know as science today -- but I
doubt they will seem at all like the pseudo-science (or spiritual science,
or Goethian science, if you prefer) of water memory and cosmic eclipse
effects.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:03:40 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby Snell said:
>Oh..., come on Michael. What kind of a parent are you ? I am sure you could
>find *someone* to teach you German. Let us see some old fashioned
>committment here. After all, they *did* tell us these schools originated in
>Germany. There you go again...,looking completely unreasonable.
>Deby
Kopp says:
Yeah, I'm a real failure, all right. Took German a couple of quarters in
college and only learned to say "Das telefon ist links um de ecke" -- I
_think_ that means something like "go fly a kite, mate".
My German forebears are certainly rolling in their graves (or wherever,
some other astral plane perhaps, waiting to be reincarnated and worrying
about the possiblity of picking the wrong parents).
Thanks for keeping me humble, Deby. Next time I'll pick a school that's
within my intellectual grasp.
>>KOPP said:
>>>> * By the way, what is this "official Waldorf curriculum"? We've heard over
>>>> and over that there is no international conspiracy of
>>>> Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy which sets the tune to which individual
>>>> schools are to march. Now we hear there IS an "official Waldorf
>>>> curriculum".
>>>>
>>>> I, for one, as a parent in a Steiner school whose curriculum is set by the
>>>> state, except for the "special character" of the school, never having seen
>>>> any such "official Waldorf curriculum" from the school itself, am all ears.
>>
>>And SCHWAB replied:
>>
>>>Caroline von Heydebrand: "Vom Lehrplan der Freien Waldorfschule /
>>>bearbeitet von Caroline von Heydebrand". Editor: Freie Waldorfschule
>>>Stuttgart - 10. Auflage - Stuttgart: Verlag freies Geistesleben, 1996.
>>>ISBN: 3-7725-0200-8
>>>
>>>Sometimes you have to go back to the roots, where it all began...
>>>
>>>This book explains in detail the progress children should make at
>>>each stage of their school career.
>>>
>>>I do not know if an english translation exists, you'll have to
>>>search...
>>>
>>>Good luck
>
>>Kopp responds,
>>Well, this seems to encapsulate the problem for non-Anthroposophist
>> [snip]
>>An obscure book that may or may not be available in English.
>>
>>No clear view of what they're getting into given in plain English.
>>
>
>
>
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Who pays calls the tune? (Was Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:10:05 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quotes his quote of my quote of his quote of my quote ...
>> Peter SCHWAB quotes Michael KOPP on the dilemma of parents torn between
>> occult religious Steiner education and bad public education:
>>
>> And SCHWAB gets off the usual flip Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical* taunt
>> heard ad nauseum by critics:
And SCHWAB says:
>Etc. etc. don't you get the slight impression we are running round in
>circles?
KOPP says:
No. You post repeated mistakes about my posts that need correcting. I have
to keep correcting them. It's dirty work, but hey, someone has to do it.
SCHWAB (quoting Kopp:)
>> Answer: Rubbish. I didn't join a cult, I sent my kids to a
>>state-integrated
>> school which has legal responsibilities to cater to parents' expressions
>> of their needs and desires and problems -- including with the curriculum.
And SCHWAB says:
>Well, I send my kids to a private school which does not receive one
>single cent state money (besides, no swiss waldorf school does
>receive state money). So every month I am in the comfortable
>situation to say: "You want my money and my fundraising help? Then at
>least _listen_ what I want to say you!"
>
>You always get what you pay for, my friend!
KOPP says:
But, as pointed out by a number of people, this is a major problem with the
injection of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy into public schools.
My school is publicly funded. So I pay twice: once through taxes and once
through "school fees" and "special character donations" which are
_expected_ of me even though they can't be compelled by law.
Surely I'm entitled to say how I want my tax _and private_ dollars spent?
SCHWAB (quoting Kopp again):
>> I certainly wouldn't ever found a school: that would put me in the same
>> mould as all other gurus who have founded a faith -- like Rudolf Steiner,
>> for instance.
>>
>> As a home-schooler, I could give my children a much wider take on the
>> world, using an unbiased, non-sectarian database of information, including
>> the _critical_ thinking of people who haven't given themselves over to
>> religious dogma, of whatever stripe, be it major organised religion or
>> "Anthrosophy".
And SCHWAB says:
>Then, for whoever's sake, do home-school them! But you can't have the
>best from _both_ worlds.
KOPP says:
Well, maybe you can. Maybe there's some way to combine Waldorf teaching
with my teaching. There certainly would be if we were in regualar public
schools, because there is more openness on the part of teachers to parent
involvement, even if it's not consonent with the formal curriculum. And
there's little objection to parents taking their kids further at home than
they go at school -- even if that means in a different direction.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n171.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:10:01 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quotes:
>> And KOPP says:
>>
>> I *DO* care if those private discussions have repercussions for my
>> childrens' educations.
>>
>> I believe the private discussions of Anthroposophy I quoted *DO* have
>> serious negative repercussions for my children.
>>
>> All I said was I don't want my kids taught by people who believe in what I
>> think is mumbo-jumbo if their teaching is based on that mumbo-jumbo.
>>
>> That is, I do *NOT believe my children should be educated by people who
>> believe my kids are reincarnated OR incarnated (in stages, no less) OR that
>> they may have chosen the wrong parents, AND whose educational dogma acts on
>> those beliefs.
And SCHWAB comments:
>In brief, you do not want those who are elected to teach your kids to
>believe in or even discuss such matters. This is, in some more polite
>words, I agree, what I told in my post.
And KOPP replies:
No. You're still twisting my words. (I'll ignore the idea of "elected"
teachers for the moment.)
I'm saying I don't want such people teaching my kids, and basing their
teaching on that philosophy.
You have the cart before the horse. You're (STILL) saying I'm trying to gag
my children's teachers!
I was told nothing of these beliefs before I enrolled us in the Steiner school.
There was nothing in the literature along the lines of what I said (here on
this list, not then) I would have wanted to see, nor was I told anything
like this verbally.
We saw nothing in a fair bit of reading material, and there was nothing in
the school handbook, anywhere near as revealing of Anthroposophy as what
Neil Faiman has quoted in another post from his school's *NEW* (my
emphasis) handbook for parents.
If I had been aware of these things, in the detail and extent which is now
being discussed as desirable, and quoted (Neil Faiman), we would not have
enrolled.
If my kids went to a public school, and I suddenly found that a group of
teachers, including the teachers of my children, had started discussing
occult and mystic ideas such as reincarnation and incarnation in stages --
*and basing their teaching and curriculum on those ideas* -- I would also
be upset and would make strong objections.
If I suddenly found that our Steiner teachers had started to privately
discuss some other weird cult -- let's say a doomsday cult that says the
world is going to end in 2000 and we have to prepare for it by having
children inculcated with some method of becoming transfigured through the
fire to come -- I would be worried, and look into why they were interested
in this, and what they planned to do about it.
But I wouldn't have a moral, ethical or legal leg to stand on in trying to
prevent them from discussing these ideas privately. And I would not attempt
to do so. In fact I might want to join them so I could argue against such
tripe.
On the other hand, if their private discussions suddenly started happening
at school (in, say, College of Teachers meetings, or other staff meetings),
and *they started to act on those discussions by using those ideas as
official beliefs in the running of the school and the teaching of my
children* THEN I would have a legitimate moral, ethical and probably legal
reason to intervene -- _even in a charter school like our Steiner one_ --
because they would be exceeding the charter special character.
What people do in their private lives is none of my business, as long as
it's not illegal. When their private lives cross over into my children's
lives, then I have an unalienable right to be concerned and take action.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n171 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n172 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 06:11:40 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>An obscure book that may or may not be available in English.
>
>No clear view of what they're getting into given in plain English.
>
>And an attitude from the people they want to know more about before
>associating with that says the parents are on their own!
See my other post on curriculum documents -- all the ones I mentioned
are in English.
You could also try Steiner's lectures directly, eg _Discussions with
Teachers_ -- ask your school to recommend a list of what is available in
NZ on the curriculum. However, you should find that your school has
prepared a comprehensive curriculum document of its own -- it ought to
be publicly available.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 05:33:08 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Stephen Tonkin answers:
>>That looked to be well stated -- is there any way you could email me the
>>entire thing? -- we are at present updating our handbook and I am
>>unashamedly plagiarising good ideas from those of other schools (with
>>their permission, of course!)
>
>KOPP says:
>
>Tonkin, if you get permission, it's not plagiarism.
>(Just being as pedantic about words with you as you are with me, chum.)
I have no problem with your pedantry, as long as it is appropriate.
However, I don't quite see what you are adding to the discussion.
BTW, I don't seem to have seen the relevant bit of the charter statement
-- is it my mail problems or have you not yet posted it?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 05:42:26 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>I said:
>
>A simple statement like: "we believe in reincarnation, and our child-
>development model is based on this belief and the belief that children
>are incarnated as people in stages, and this belief is the basis for our
>staged curriculum".
No problem with that -- but do you think that that is sufficient? It is
certainly no more than I think parents need to know and your original
statement:
>sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes
>most
>parents want, and something less than a full course in Anthroposophy.
Would therefore suggest that there is more that you would like them to
know. I'd still like to hear what it is -- if it is truthful, relevant
and doesn't duplicate what we already send out, I'll suggest to those
who send out blurb to prospective parents.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 06:06:21 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Could the person who posts (recently -- I don't remember them from too far
>back in the year I've been on this list) as:
>
>"From: {~_~} "
>
>and signs their posts:
>
>>-El
>
>please consider a fuller identification?
>
>I'm told by Lefty, Tonkin and others that anonymity is cowardly.
I don't think {~_~} has used anonymity to post personal insults.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 05:56:20 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Peter Schwab writes
>Caroline von Heydebrand: "Vom Lehrplan der Freien Waldorfschule /
>
>I do not know if an english translation exists, you'll have to
>search...
I believe it does -- I prefer to use Karl Stockmeyer's _Rudolf Steiner's
Curriculum for Waldorf Schools_ -- it is less prescriptive and it forces
you to really think about what you're doing - things like "Why does
Steiner indicate that; what underlies that indication; is it relevant in
Ringwood in 1996; what would be an appropriate way of doing it?"
I think the confusion arises from different interpretations of the word
"curriculum". In the sense of a prescriptive curriculum like, say, our
NAtional Curriculum, there is no official Waldorf curriculum. There
are, however, distilled indications from Steiner's education lectures --
they require a lot of work to "translate" them into "what I am going to
do at 11am next Wednesday". For this reason, some people have developed
these indications in order to make them easier for, in particular new
inexperienced teachers, to use. (eg Dorothy Harrer; von Mackensen; von
Barravalle (sp?); Wilkinson)
The existence of such things has led some people to believe that these
are "official" curriculum documents and some people _have_ latched onto
them somewhat dogmatically. That was not the intention, I believe, of
the authors.
A newer phenomenon is the "official" curriculum documents which some
schools have had to prepare for government authorities -- I have seen
some Australian and New Zealander examples of this.
However, none of these are "official Waldorf" documents that apply to
_all_ Walldorf schools and you will likely find that differences occur.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.6 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Exit Polls/Leaving Interviews (was:Informing potential Waldorf parents)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>mckay oro.net writes
>>We're not talking about your school, we're talking about all the schools
>>here or anywhere that don't do this. Again I've met many that have stated
>>so, as well as was not my experience.
>
>Fine -- I just wanted to make it clear that lack of exit polls is not a
>universal trait of Waldorf Schools.
True, but when you're different from all the rest it's a good idea to be
ahead of the game so questions like me and so many others have of "the bad
apples"they don't make the rest look bad. It's the lack of clearity that
hurts Waldorf schools the most.
>--
>Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
>
>
>*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>And no you may not
>>"assume" it means yes. ( besides, I'm sure you must know what assuming
>>leads to, it makes an _ass_ out of _u_ and _me_!).
>>
>>Yours, David McKay
>
>
>Has anyone ever seen David McKay and Michael Kopp in the same place at the
>same time?
>
>Robert Flannery
>New York
>litvas icu.com
mckay says: Unfortunately there are probably countless more like us that
have had almost identical questions and experiences from our involvement
with Waldorf Schools, and yet until this list knew nothing of each other,
as well as being from different parts of the world. Paints a real sad
picture of Waldorf doesn't it. Too bad.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dr. Mollett writes:
>
>>That is a real problem but these are very early days for public
>>Waldorf-inspired programs. One part of the problem would be solved if all
>>teachers had to possess a state credential. It would exclude many Waldorf
>>trained teachers because a great number of them do not wish to study for such
>>a credential.
>
>I couldn't agree with you more. I think almost anything which serves to
>clarify the distinction between public and private waldorf schooling will
>be useful. Much of the criticism on this list stems from experiences at
>public waldorf schools. The proportion will only increase as time goes on,
>I suspect.
>
>Dan Dugan started this list out of dissatisfaction with his experience at a
>private school, but the majority of critical postings of late have been
>from state-waldorf people. My limited experience with public waldorf
>schools (forgive the following generalization) tells me they are rushed
>into charter status and suffer from that haste. Parents who join them
>looking for an alternative for their children are later disillusioned.
>
>I think the criticisms we are hearing now are only the beginning. The
>growth of the public waldorf movement will bring many more people into
>contact with something which will be called waldorf schooling, but is
>really only the grafting of some waldorf techniques onto a hodgpodge of
>"something elses". I worry that this is what will be recognized as
>"waldorf education" at some point in the near future.
>
>Robert Flannery
>New York
>litvas icu.com
mckay says: yes your experience is limited. Our "private Waldorf School"
closed due to it's own bad karma from the "trained" Waldorf teachers. The
"public Waldorf School" has the same staff. The difference is it couldn't
survive as a typical "faculty lead" private Waldorf school, put with public
funding the shame can continue (for now).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.9 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Discussing appropriate disclosure of the underlying belief system, Michael
>Kopp comments:
>
>> (sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes
>> most parents want, and something less than a full course in
>> Anthroposophy.
>>
>> (A simple statement like: "we believe in reincarnation, and our child-
>> development model is based on this belief and the belief that children
>> are
>> incarnated as people in stages, and this belief is the basis for our
>> staged
>> curriculum".)
>>
>
>Here's an extract from the relevant passage in our school's new parent
>handbook.
>
>" According to this world view [anthroposophy], the nature of every human
>being is comprisd of three parts: the body, soul, and spirit. The 'spirit'
>in each person is our eternal self, which incarnates in repeated earth
>lives. Through the course of these lives, the spirit gradually matures
>until it achieves a realization of its true nature and becomes a free and
>fully conscious participant in the further evolution of the world. The
>'soul' is the vehicle of awareness and feeling through which the spirit
>experiences the body and the world around it.
>
>" At conception, the spirit and soul enter into the germ of the body which
>then begins to develop. As the child matures after birth, its spirit and
>sould gradually learn to use the body as their instrument, in willing,
>feeling and thinking. By this means the child gradually comes to
>understand and participate actively in the world. For this learning
>process to occur properly, parents and teachers need to provide the
>appropriate guidance. With their help, the child's spirit and soul are
>able to incarnate in a healthy way and to continue the spirit's development
>toward self-realization. "
>
>This is followed by a length discussion of the developmental theory and its
>realiztion in the curriculum.
>
>Regards,
>
> Neil Faiman
mckay says: if this bunch of huie had been given to me in _anything_ when
our family got involved with Waldorf education, we never would have
participated. I also think that the school new that and is why so many
people in this area feel that they were decieved, some have felt it was
false advertising for not being forthright about what you just stated
above.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n172.10 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>David McKay writes:
>
>> mckay says: I'll say it again, "caving and mathmatics" are _not_
>religion.
>> As I think Suzanne said "it's apples and oranges". This country believes
>> very strongly in separation in church and state. And no you may not
>> "assume" it means yes. ( besides, I'm sure you must know what assuming
>> leads to, it makes an _ass_ out of _u_ and _me_!).
>
>Well, once again I am lost.
>
>David McKay and Rebecca Mast have been claiming that religion is the base
>of tht Waldorf School. Furthermore, they have written several messages
>which appear to argue that Stephen's statement that religion lessons are
>taught in his school is tantamount to an admission of their claim. (At
>least, their messages read like that to me, and apparently to Stephen as
>well. For example, Rebecca Mast: "How is this NOT having religion as the
>base of the school?"; David McKay: "You're right, it is having religion as
>the base of the Waldorf school. ")
>
>Stephen has attempted to point out that he teaches *lots* of lessons at his
>school. He has asked, if religion lessons make religion the base of the
>school, why don't mathematics, writing, or caving lessons make mathematics,
>writing, or caving the base of the school?
>
>So far, so good. But at this point, the whole thing falls apart. David
>McKay's reply is very simple: "But caving and mathmatics aren't RELIGION!"
>and Rebecca Mast says essentially the same thing: "The subjects of math,
>writting, and religion are not comparable for the nature of religion is not
>the same as the nature of math and writing." So their answer would appear
>to be a simple "because".
mckay says: is my answer to simple? The methods with which I've seen _all_
subjects taught at our Waldorf schools (not Stephens) give me no doubt that
the schools curriculum have a religious base, so your answer to (1) below
must be yes.
>Striving to be clear, Stephen asks one last time: "You appear to be saying
>that the evidence for religion being the base of the school is that
>religion lessons are given. Do I understand you correctly?" And David
>McKay, rather than answering yes or no, offers the oblique "I found it so
>intertwined I could not think other wise."
mckay says: No you don"t, but maybe my explanation above will help you
understand.
>Now that certainly reads like a rhetorical "yes" to me, and it apparently
>did to Stephen as well, but carefully crossing the last "t", he asks "I
>assume that means "yes"? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)" and David McKay
>comes back with this gem: "And no you may not "assume" it means yes.
>(besides, I'm sure you must know what assuming leads to, it makes an _ass_
>out of _u_ and _me_!)."
>
>So I'm afraid that at this point I'm as baffled as Stephen, and I also have
>to ask David McKay:
>
> (1) If "I could not think otherwise" does not mean "Yes", what does it
>mean?
>
> (2) Precisely what is the difference between religion and other
>subjects that allows religion lessons to interpreted as an evidence for
>religion being the base of the school, but doesn't allow math lessons to be
>interpreted as math being the base of the school. ("They're different" is
>not an answer!)
mckay says: seems to be a cultural difference, in this country, if all the
curriculum in a public school were built around a religious philosophy as
they are in a Waldorf school, _that_ is in direct conflict with "church and
state" laws.
> (3) Do you really believe that a private school's offering of religion
>lessons, in a country in which every public school is legally obliged to
>teach religion lessons, make a dramatic statement about that school's
>orientation? Or does it, perhaps, simply suggest that private schools --
>even Waldorf schools -- simply tend to mirror the cultural educational
>environment around them except where they have made a conscious decision to
>be different?
mckay says: What country are you talking about? Could you rephrase this
question?
>Regards,
>
> Neil Faiman
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n172 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n173 --------------
001 - mckay oro.net - Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
002 - mckay oro.net - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
003 - mckay oro.net - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
004 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Whole Language/Phonetics
005 - {~_~} -
006 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Phonics, not Phonetics
007 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Defects of religion, materialism?
008 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
009 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Legal support for anonymity
010 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.1 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>>I think the criticisms we are hearing now are only the beginning. The
>>growth of the public waldorf movement will bring many more people into
>>contact with something which will be called waldorf schooling, but is
>>really only the grafting of some waldorf techniques onto a hodgpodge of
>>"something elses". I worry that this is what will be recognized as
>>"waldorf education" at some point in the near future.
>
>I think the exact opposite will occur. As more people petition for public
>Waldrof schools, it will attract the attention of the Christian right. You
>will have articles about the Occult ties that Waldorf has. In fact, if you
>want to have a potent PR force against Waldorf, make sure your local
>Christian conservatives see some of Steiner's writings. I expect they will
>take it from there.
>
>Plus, even Waldorf's Christian links will work against it. Because if
>Waldorf, a school with religious underpinnings, can become a Charter
>school, why not other schools with religious links?
>
>Suzanne
>
>Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
>slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
>303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
>For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
MCKAY SAYS: Thankyou Suzanne! Now if only Neil, Stephen, Lefty, Peter and
any others I may have missed could understand your plain english as I
do.... but then there would'nt be any need for this list(which would be OK
by me).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.2 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> >For now I have to get my daily dose...
>>
>> Of what?
>>
>> David Mckay
>>
>
>Adrenalin intoxication from reading the posts on the waldorf-critics
>list.
>
>Seriously folks, I couldn't live anymore without the kicks you
>provide me.
>
>+peter+
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
mckay says: nice to see some humor! But seriously folks, stop trying to put
Waldorf in our public schools.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.3 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:04:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> Peter SCHWAB quotes Michael KOPP on the dilemma of parents torn between
>> occult religious Steiner education and bad public education:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> And SCHWAB gets off the usual flip Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical* taunt
>> heard ad nauseum by critics:
>>
>
>Etc. etc. don't you get the slight impression we are running round in
>circles?
>
>>
>> Answer: Rubbish. I didn't join a cult, I sent my kids to a
>>state-integrated
>> school which has legal responsibilities to cater to parents' expressions
>> of their needs and desires and problems -- including with the curriculum.
>>
>
>Well, I send my kids to a private school which does not receive one
>single cent state money (besides, no swiss waldorf school does
>receive state money). So every month I am in the comfortable
>situation to say: "You want my money and my fundraising help? Then at
>least _listen_ what I want to say you!"
>
>You always get what you pay for, my friend!
MCKAY SAYS: Not always! And besides _TAXES_ are also paying for it!
>
>> I certainly wouldn't ever found a school: that would put me in the same
>> mould as all other gurus who have founded a faith -- like Rudolf Steiner,
>> for instance.
>>
>> As a home-schooler, I could give my children a much wider take on the
>> world, using an unbiased, non-sectarian database of information, including
>> the _critical_ thinking of people who haven't given themselves over to
>> religious dogma, of whatever stripe, be it major organised religion or
>> "Anthrosophy".
>>
>
>Then, for whoever's sake, do home-school them! But you can't have the
>best from _both_ worlds.
>
>>
>> There must be something about the thin atmosphere way
>> up high in Switzerland that leads to airy-fairy thinking. I'll stick to sea
>> level.
>>
>
>Air is thick enough here, thank you.
>
>+peter+
>
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Whole Language/Phonetics
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:20:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I was just reading an article in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal about the
battle between the phonetics supporters and the whole language supporters.
It said that it had become a huge battle among teachers and parents and
politicians. Evidently if you support phonetics, you are perceived as a
political conservative and if you support whole language, you are perceived
as a liberal.
The phonetics supporters say that today's kids can't read or spell, and the
whole lanaguage supporters say that phonetics is so rigid that children
lose interest in reading.
I guess most teachers, when left to themselves, use a combination of the two.
Since I learned to read phonetically, I have always assumed that it was a
logical way to approach reading. Teach a child to sound out words.
But with all this debate going on, it makes me wonder--where are the
studies that explain how children learn to read? Surely there have been
some.
What do you all know about the subject?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.5 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject:
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:36:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >Could the person who posts (recently -- I don't remember them from too far
> >back in the year I've been on this list) as:
> >"From: {~_~} "
> >and signs their posts:
> >>-El
> >please consider a fuller identification?
> >I'm told by Lefty, Tonkin and others that anonymity is cowardly.
> >While I don't agree, and support anonymous posting where the poster
> >believes it is indicated (love that word, eh?), if one goes halfway, with
> >an email address and (incomplete) signature, I feel a desire to know who
> >they are.
> I agree. If not a name, etc., how about an introduction or *something*.
> Where are you from ?
> Deby
Oh my, isn't this a pretty pickle... now look what you've done Stanly!
Mr. Dugan, What say you?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.6 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Phonics, not Phonetics
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:58:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I just wanted to correct myself before someone else did. I said "phonetics"
but what I should have written was "phonics."
Also the WSJ article said this:
"So divisive is the issue in academia that some teacher-training
colleges are unable to fill faculty posts for those who teach reading
methods. The reasons: Candidates are often considered to be either too
'pro-phonics' or two 'pro-whole language,' depending on the bent of the
selection committee."
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Defects of religion, materialism?
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:16:41 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story writes:
>Michael Kopp writes:
> > It's a dilemma:
[snip discussion of dilemma of choice between weird (cq) but warm Steiner
schools and weird, cold, but culturally normal public schools
(oversimplified picture)]
STORY says:
>
>Let's take these in the opposite order.
>
[snip erudite discussion with difficult-to-grasp points]
>
>So are we between rock and hard place as Michael Kopp says? I really
>don't think so. The solution to the "source of morals" question is to
>view such ideas partly historically: the indoctrination of culture
>(which may include churches, but also family, friends, schools, books
>and other media), and partly as pure invention (reinvention) by
>individuals who have a need for "social compacts", and also internal,
>personal control, that circumvents the great hazard to survival posed
>by inter-human violence. Some of these people are the "loving,
>caring" individuals found in Waldorf schools, but they exist within
>and without just about any organization. No "God-given rules" are
>needed, right? So why should we try to sell such a peculiar idea to
>our children? --lee
And KOPP says:
I'm not sure what Lee's point is in relation to my dilemma.
It's a practical dilemma, not a philosophic one.
Neither of the philosophical underpinnings of the two educational systems
are ideal; both have utility and worth; both have undesirable religious
undertones.
The Judeo-Christian culture that is New Zealand is only tolerable in that
most of the basic "rules" of society are utilitarian in avoiding the human
conflict Lee mentions.
The fact that many people in the society do a poor job of living by those
rules, and that the society's educational system teaches attitudes and
skills contrary to the supposed moral code, is what keeps journalists in
business (and cops, and judges, and social workers ... etc., etc.). In
fact, it might be said that a perfect society would be a boring one.
Lee's solution also seems short of the need for parents to hand their
children to others for education. If the educational system (Steiner or
Public) stuck to what Lee advocates (historic analysis and ... what?) it
might be, because it would show the flaws in both, inculcate questioning of
everything, and allow the individual maximum liberty to find its own path.
Steiner says this can only be done by a spiritual method taught by a guru,
and requiring "initiation". Western education says it can only be done by
following rationalism. I'll take the rationalism any day.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:16:45 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin says:
>BTW, I don't seem to have seen the relevant bit of the charter statement
>-- is it my mail problems or have you not yet posted it?
And KOPP answers:
Neither.
What's the hurry?
You sure are a pushy fellow, Tonkin. Like most defenders of the faith, you
deman proof up the wazoo anytime someone says something that might hit
home.
But I could post a list of questions, challenges and comments to which you
have not supplied "proof".
One comes to mind: you quoted some apparently laudatory comments from some
rating agency for schools in Britain. But when asked for more detail, you
refused, saying the questioner could go to the rating agency and get it
themselves.
How about I tell you to go to my school, and the Government Print Shop
here, to get copies of the things you are _demanding_ of me for proof.?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:16:49 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin quotes:
>Michael Kopp writes
>>Could the person who posts (recently -- I don't remember them from too far
>>back in the year I've been on this list) as:
>>
>>"From: {~_~} "
>>
>>and signs their posts:
>>
>>>-El
>>
>>please consider a fuller identification?
>>
>>I'm told by Lefty, Tonkin and others that anonymity is cowardly.
>
And Tonkin takes another swipe at Kopp:
>I don't think {~_~} has used anonymity to post personal insults.
Kopp says:
Neither Lefty nor you confined your opprobrium for anonymous posters to the
insult category. It was a wide-band condemnation.
I have not used anonymity to post personal insults either.
And I have openly admitted I made a private comment which was later
published here anonymously with my agreement.
I still stand by my comments on anonymity. Here's another authority that
agrees with me: (this is a repost of something I posted on 29/10 but which
I haven't seen on the list or bounced from a postmaster or mailbot -- don't
know what happened to it)
"I just ran across this interesting bit from Canadian law regarding anonymity:
From: cyber1 io.org (Cyber City)
Date: Wed Jun 01 17:14:09 EDT 1994
Subject: Canadian law supporting right to anonymity
On the subject of legal actions by pseudonymous entities, while I am
regrettably ignorant of U.S. copyright laws, readers here might find it
interesting that the new Canadian Copyright Act guarantees the right of
an author to write under a pseudonym. For example:
Section 14.1. Moral Rights
(1) The author of a work has, subject to section 28.2, the right
to the integrity of the work and, in connection with an act
mentioned in section 3, the right, where reasonable in the
circumstances, to be associated with the work as its author
by name or under a pseudonym and the right to remain
anonymous. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
I wonder if Stephen Tonkin and Lefty and the others who have ridiculed and
abused our anonymous posters, accusing them of cowardice, among other
things, and calling them despicable, have any idea at all how out of step
they are with with the liberties granted to people by basic human rights --
and law.
I haven't researched the U.S. situation,* but it seems your Canadian
neighbours have a perhaps higher moral standard than Tonkin and Lefty. "
Perhaps Tonkin will cease making the snide remarks that began this whole
stoush in the first place?"
*I have now. See my post on copyright law.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n173.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:16:52 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin writes:
>Michael Kopp writes
>>I said:
>>
>>A simple statement like: "we believe in reincarnation, and our child-
>>development model is based on this belief and the belief that children
>>are incarnated as people in stages, and this belief is the basis for our
>>staged curriculum".
>
(Tonkin:)
>No problem with that -- but do you think that that is sufficient? It is
>certainly no more than I think parents need to know and your original
>statement:
>
(Kopp)
>>sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes
>>most
>>parents want, and something less than a full course in Anthroposophy.
>
(Tonkin)
>Would therefore suggest that there is more that you would like them to
>know. I'd still like to hear what it is -- if it is truthful, relevant
>and doesn't duplicate what we already send out, I'll suggest to those
>who send out blurb to prospective parents.
And KOPP says:
You said you thought most people were just in a hurry to get their kids
signed up and didn't care that much to hear any details. This was before
you and Neil Faiman quoted from your school handbooks.
As I have said elsewhere, what Faiman quotes from his handbook would be
quite satisfactory _for me in my situation_.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n173 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n174 --------------
001 - Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 02:47:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> Kopp says:
>
> Neither Lefty nor you confined your opprobrium for anonymous posters to the
> insult category. It was a wide-band condemnation.
>
> I have not used anonymity to post personal insults either.
>
> And I have openly admitted I made a private comment which was later
> published here anonymously with my agreement.
THat's a pretty fine distinction. You agreed to allow Dan to post
your insults anonymously _and_ publicly. That seems pretty clear.
For the record, I have no particular problem with people posting
anonymously if there is a discernable reason for it. In your case,
there doesn't seem to be one: you posted messages critical of Waldorf
schooling under your own name, so you can't seem to have been worried
about your school's discovering that you held these critical
attitudes; the messages that _were_ posted anonymously contained
nothing of substance, other than your "snide prick" comment, which Dan
found so humorous.
> On the subject of legal actions by pseudonymous entities, while I am
> regrettably ignorant of U.S. copyright laws, readers here might find it
> interesting that the new Canadian Copyright Act guarantees the right of
> an author to write under a pseudonym. For example:
>
> Section 14.1. Moral Rights
>
> (1) The author of a work has, subject to section 28.2, the right
> to the integrity of the work and, in connection with an act
> mentioned in section 3, the right, where reasonable in the
> circumstances, to be associated with the work as its author
> by name or under a pseudonym and the right to remain
> anonymous. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> I wonder if Stephen Tonkin and Lefty and the others who have ridiculed and
> abused our anonymous posters, accusing them of cowardice, among other
> things, and calling them despicable, have any idea at all how out of step
> they are with with the liberties granted to people by basic human rights --
> and law.
This is complete and utter nonsense, Mr. Kopp. Surely you must
remember that the issues of copyright related to the status of the
WALDORF list archives and had nothing (nada, zip, zilch) to do with
anonymity. I have never claimed that anonymous or pseudonymous
writings were not entitled to copyright protection, as you seem to be
suggesting here. You're frankly not making a lot of sense here.
> I haven't researched the U.S. situation,* but it seems your Canadian
> neighbours have a perhaps higher moral standard than Tonkin and Lefty. "
I have never, nor would I ever, dispute that your anonymously-posted
screeds enjoyed full copyright protection. However, that doesn't make
you any less of a coward for hiding behind anonymity _solely_ for the
purpose of calling names. The section cited above does not guarantee
you the right not to be called a coward; sorry. Given your propensity
to completely and grossly misrepresent others' statements (e.g.,
Stephen Tonkin's "admission" that anthroposophy was "immune to
logic"), I can't take your attempts to stake out a moral high ground
too terribly seriously.
> *I have now. See my post on copyright law.
I'd be fascinated to see this research of yours. I hope it's less
confused than the above. Please fell free to post it or email me a
copy. I'm very thrilled by the idea that there is some magic quality
inherent to the Internet that obviates 200 or more years or
well-established precedent in copyright law, for instance by requiring
a copyright notice to assert copyright to an original work.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.2 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:18:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> Well, this seems to encapsulate the problem for non-Anthroposophist (is
> that -ist okay with you, Peter, or am I treading on toes again?) parents.
It does?
> An obscure book that may or may not be available in English.
Well, this particular book may or may not be available in English (we
have a book caled _Childhood_ by von Heydebrand, but I don't think
it's the same one), but there are certainly a lot of books available
in English which give a raft of detail on typical practice in Waldorf
schools. Several are mentioned in the Waldorf Education FAQ.
> No clear view of what they're getting into given in plain English.
Again, the information is certainly readily available. When we first
visited the school to which our daughter now goes, we were given a
pretty detailed overview of the school's curriculum by the teachers we
spoke to. We stopped in at the school's shop before we left and
bought _Education of the Child_ and _Kingdom of Childhood_ by Steiner,
_The Way of a Child_ by Harwood, and _Teaching as a Lively Art_ by
Spock. A two-volume set, _The Waldorf School_, which goes over
typical curricula in some detail, was also available, but we didn't
get that until a little later.
It would certainly be nice if parents would all make a fifty dollar
investment in investigating the much larger investment they're
considering making in their child's education. I invest that much in
deciding whether to buy a used car. I don't see any way to force
people to do so, however. I certainly don't see any support for the
idea that there's some sort of institutional deception going on.
> And an attitude from the people they want to know more about before
> associating with that says the parents are on their own!
Huh? This seems singularly unmotivated. How did you manage to drag
this out of anything that's been written here?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.3 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:42:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Kopp says:
>
> Yeah, I'm a real failure, all right. Took German a couple of quarters in
> college and only learned to say "Das telefon ist links um de ecke" -- I
> _think_ that means something like "go fly a kite, mate".
>
I actually means: "The telephone is around the left corner."
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:42:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> And KOPP replies:
>
> No. You're still twisting my words.
>
> [...]
>
> What people do in their private lives is none of my business, as long as
> it's not illegal. When their private lives cross over into my children's
> lives, then I have an unalienable right to be concerned and take action.
>
>
OK, I finally got it: I you would have known that anthroposophs
discuss this kind of things you would never have send your children
to a waldorf school. Right?
But you did (in ignorance of the situation). Now I am just curious
what kind of action you plan to take, exept relieving your
frustration here on the waldorf-critics list.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.5 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Who pays calls the tune? (Was Re: Things I wish they'd told
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:42:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> KOPP says:
> No. You post repeated mistakes about my posts that need correcting. I have
> to keep correcting them. It's dirty work, but hey, someone has to do it.
>
I could dispute the word "correction", but hen again, let us find an
end...
>
> KOPP says:
> But, as pointed out by a number of people, this is a major problem with the
> injection of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy into public schools.
>
> My school is publicly funded. So I pay twice: once through taxes and once
> through "school fees" and "special character donations" which are
> _expected_ of me even though they can't be compelled by law.
>
Here I do not understand. If our school would receive the same amount
of money for every attending child as this child would cost the state
in a public school, we would make a huge benefit! It has been proven
that private schools operate much more cost-efficiant that the public
ones. So why you have to pay school feed etc. is a mystery to me. I
would strongly object paying anything under this conditions.
> Surely I'm entitled to say how I want my tax _and private_ dollars spent?
>
This is the reason I am very happy that the swiss state keeps his
money and nose out of our Rudolf Steiner schools (as waldorf schools
are called here). All I would like is some tax refund because my kids
do not use any public funding for their education. The general
education voucher seems to be a good idea for this.
> And SCHWAB says:
> >Then, for whoever's sake, do home-school them! But you can't have the
> >best from _both_ worlds.
>
> KOPP says:
> Well, maybe you can. Maybe there's some way to combine Waldorf teaching
> with my teaching. There certainly would be if we were in regualar public
> schools, because there is more openness on the part of teachers to parent
> involvement, even if it's not consonent with the formal curriculum. And
> there's little objection to parents taking their kids further at home than
> they go at school -- even if that means in a different direction.
>
This is your decision and you are fully entitled to it.
Blessings to all
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.6 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:42:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> KOPP said:
>
> Well, this seems to encapsulate the problem for non-Anthroposophist (is
> that -ist okay with you, Peter, or am I treading on toes again?) parents.
My toes signal nothing, so ...
>
> An obscure book that may or may not be available in English.
How can you treat something as "obscur" without knowing it?
>
> No clear view of what they're getting into given in plain English.
Sorry, but we already have _four_ official languages here in
Switzerland, English is not (yet ) part of those.
I feel that you or Dan Dugan are in a much better position to check
what translations are available than I am.
>
> And an attitude from the people they want to know more about before
> associating with that says the parents are on their own!
This is unfortunaly often true.
>
> (And yes, I know Peter really means he wishes me success in finding the
> material, because he wants me to know. I'm not so sure about the motives of
> Steiner school people who don't tell enough up front. His is a personal
> wish; the one I characterise in my last paragraph above seems an
> institutional one.)
>
Thanks for seperating me from the "institution". But also
"institutions" are made of living people and living people sometimes
fail...
The problem is then admitting the failure and I must confess that
anthroposopists do _not_ excell in this dicipline .
Best wishes
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.7 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:42:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> MCKAY SAYS: Thankyou Suzanne! Now if only Neil, Stephen, Lefty, Peter and
> any others I may have missed could understand your plain english as I
> do.... but then there would'nt be any need for this list(which would be OK
> by me).
>
>
To put my point of view clear:
1) A _real_ waldorf school ist not state funded. It is self financed
or financed by education vouchers which allow parents to freely
choose the educational system for their children.
A waldorf school is not inteded to be trageted at an exclusively
anthroposophic public, it has never inteded to be (the original
school in Stuttgart/Germany was for the worker's children of a
cigarette manufacturer, Waldorf-Astoria, this is where the name came
from, so even the name has nothing anthroposophic).
While anthroposopy is the spiritual basis of the school, it is _not_
part of the curriculum.
2) If anyone wants to use elements from waldorf education to take
them into exisiting (public) school systems or to create a new kind
of school, they may be free to do so. Those schools may then be
anything, but _not_ waldorf schools. They should not even use the
designation in their name.
I hope this puts things into perspective again.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.8 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Exit Polls/Leaving Interviews (was:Informing potential
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:42:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> mckay oro.net writes
>
> It's the lack of clearity that
> hurts Waldorf schools the most.
>
For once we agree 100%.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.9 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:42:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> mckay says: yes your experience is limited. Our "private Waldorf School"
> closed due to it's own bad karma from the "trained" Waldorf teachers. The
> "public Waldorf School" has the same staff. The difference is it couldn't
> survive as a typical "faculty lead" private Waldorf school, put with public
> funding the shame can continue (for now).
>
This why I think that the only _real_ waldorf school is the privatly
funded one. Either they are able to adress the needs and concerns of
non-anthroposophic parents (no school could survive counting only on
the antroposophic ones in their region) or it will have to close.
State money should only be paied combined with state supervison and
then it is no longer a waldorf school!
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n174.10 ---------------
From: downeast pathcom.com
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 09:55:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
{~_~} wrote:
> Oh my, isn't this a pretty pickle... now look what you've done Stanly!
> Mr. Dugan, What say you?
Could it be:
{~_~} The Anthroposophist Formally Known As ;-)
Submitted in good humour by:
Charlie Capstick
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n174 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n175 --------------
001 - "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: 3 Nov 96 12:20:42 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stephen Tonkin:
> >Would therefore suggest that there is more that you would like them to
> >know. I'd still like to hear what it is -- if it is truthful, relevant
> >and doesn't duplicate what we already send out, I'll suggest to those
> >who send out blurb to prospective parents.
Michael Kopp:
> You said you thought most people were just in a hurry to get their kids
> signed up and didn't care that much to hear any details. This was before
> you and Neil Faiman quoted from your school handbooks.
Taking Stephen's comments in their context, it is clear that he has always
felt that parents should be as informed as possible about what they're
getting into; that he has been concerned that it is difficult to get that
information to prospective parents; and that he welcomes suggestions on how
better to accomplish that.
Michael Kopp has said that his experience has been with schools that show
no evidence of wanting their parents to be fully informed.
Stephen and Michael agree that Waldorf school parents should be well
informed about their schools before they enroll their students there, and
that, for whatever reasons, that is not always the case today. They agree
that the language in our school's parent handbook is an appropriate part of
such a disclosure.
Neil Faiman says:
Good grief, do you two have to argue with each other, even about the things
you agree on?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.2 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: religion in school
Date: 3 Nov 96 13:15:06 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ok, I think maybe I finally understand. David McKay appears to be saying
that his assertion that the Waldorf school curriculum has a religious base
is founded in his personal experience, and that he is *not* claiming the
presence of religion lessons in Stephen Tonkin's school as evidence for
this. The confusion may have arisen because David McKay made this claim in
direct response to and, apparently, support of Rebecca Mast's posting in
which she *did* seem to draw such a connection.
> mckay says: is my answer to simple? The methods with which I've seen
> _all_
> subjects taught at our Waldorf schools (not Stephens) give me no doubt
> that
> the schools curriculum have a religious base, so your answer to (1)
> below
> must be yes.
I'm afraid the answer is *not* too simple. When David McKay wrote "I found
it so intertwined I could not think other wise" and Stephen Tonkin asked
"May I assume that means 'yes'?" David McKay replied "And no you may not
'assume' it means yes."
Yet when I asked "(1) If 'I could not think otherwise' does not mean 'Yes',
what does it mean?" David McKay replied "so your answer to (1) below must
be yes."
I guess I'll just have to give up on trying to understand this one. It is
clear that what is simple and obvious to David McKay is not so to me.
> mckay says: [...] The methods with which I've seen _all_ subjects taught
> at our Waldorf schools (not Stephens) give me no doubt that the schools
> curriculum have a religious base [...]
and
> mckay says: seems to be a cultural difference, in this country, if all
the
> curriculum in a public school were built around a religious philosophy as
> they are in a Waldorf school, _that_ is in direct conflict with "church
> and state" laws.
The language here admits of exactly the ambiguity that I warned of earlier
in response to one of Stephen Tonkin's messages. The statement that "the
schools curriculum have a religious base" could mean (a) "the theoretical
principles underlying the curriculum are derived from particular religious
beliefs", or (b) "the content of the curriculum is religious."
If interpretation (a) is David McKay's intention, then I believe that his
understanding of the law is incorrect. My understanding is that the
principle of separation of church and state, as it applies to the schools,
is a concern certainly about the *content* of the education (teaching
religious doctrine is definitely not allowed); possibly about *control* of
the school (but I believe that the latest rulings allow partial state
subsidies to Catholic parochial schools, provided that there is no support
for the schools' religion classes); but not, in any case, about the
theoretical principles underlying the approach to the education.
But David McKay refers specifically to "_all_ subjects" (his emphasis) and
"all the curriculum;" so if interpretation (b) is his intent, then he is
asserting that the teaching of reading and writing, of geography, of
arithmetic, of algebra, of the history of the Civil War, of music, wood
carving, basketball, and perspective drawing in a Waldorf school, all are
essentially religious. Even allowing for considerable rhetorical
exaggeration, if this is his intention, then either his experience or his
interpretations differ dramatically from my own!
Finally, I asked
> > (3) Do you really believe that a private school's offering of
religion
> >lessons, in a country in which every public school is legally obliged to
> >teach religion lessons, make a dramatic statement about that school's
> >orientation? Or does it, perhaps, simply suggest that private schools -
> -
> >even Waldorf schools -- simply tend to mirror the cultural educational
> >environment around them except where they have made a conscious
> decision to
> >be different?
and David McKay asked
> mckay says: What country are you talking about? Could you rephrase this
> question?
Since David McKay now appears to be saying that he is *not* basing his
argument on Stephen Tonkin's statements about his own teaching, the
question is probably moot; but I was referring to England, where Stephen's
school is located.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Informing potential Waldorf parents
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:01:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story, you quoted me, Dan Dugan,
> > Any Anthroposophical book catalog will tell you that there are -four- basic
> > books, including "An Outline of Occult Science." Read it before you go on
> > thinking Steiner is so rational...
and replied,
>C'mon, Dan, I don't think Steiner is (on the whole) "so rational".
>What I wrote was in the context of recommended reading for prospective
>Waldorf parents, and there were two reasons I didn't include
>_Outline..._. One, I haven't gotten through it myself. Two, I think
>_Theosophy_ and _How to Know..._ are sufficient introduction to the
>esoteric/occult side of Steiner; surely there's no need for a parent
>of a prospective student to read RS's complete works.
I'd suggest that parents get "The Essential Steiner" for tastes of
Steiner's writing, and read Gilbert Childs' "Steiner Education" and Lois
Cusick's "Waldorf Parenting Handbook."
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.4 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Water Memory (Sub-Thread of Goethean Science)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 16:13:18 -0500
Michael Kopp, you answered the question I posed to Suzanne Lainson after I
provided her with several examples of experimentation that followed Goethe's
principles of observation. My last example was Theodor Schwenk's work, as
documented in his book "Sensitive Chaos." My question to Suzanne was to the
effect, "How are you going to decide what to make of all this stuff?"
Suzanne's answer, in essence, was that she was not going to try to decide;
she would just let the ideas sit there until they made some practical
difference in her life. Using reincarnation as an example, she said (again I
paraphrase) that she has no difficulty in entertaining unverifiable
propositions without having to decide their truth value.
Your answer, on the other hand, was more definitive: " I see no new
understanding of anything in the realm of physical science about water. I see
no hypothesis as to how this works, according to the laws of physics as we
know them or as they might evolve. What I see is more mystical mumbo-jumbo
about some apparently-spiritual 'memory' that water can have."
>From the perspective of logical argument, I could rejoin that you can't
justify your position without replicating Schwenk's experiment, but I see
little point in following that tack. After all, if I consider my own beliefs
I have to recognize that they are nearly all based on an intellectual
assimilation of what I have read and heard, not on what I have experienced
directly. I don't plan to replicate Schwenk's experiment, so how could I
expect you to do so?
It is interesting to me, however, how some people have the freedom of mind to
consider new and unusual ideas without needing to have them proved or
disproved, while others seem to have a compulsion immediately to stamp out
anything that doesn't fit with the belief system they have learned. Not that
you necessarily belong in the latter class, of course.
I was pleased to see your response, because I think it probably represents a
more common one than Suzanne's, particularly among Waldorf critics. And it
gives us a few things to chew on.
Here's one: " Water memory has been thoroughly rubbished by the science in
which I believe -- and which about 99.999 percent of the world's scientists
believe in."
Reality by vote? More people have seen angels than have seen electrons, but
I doubt that conventional wisdom would give angels the edge on reality.
>From what I have read recently, the science in which the majority of the
world's scientists believe is showing signs of fraying around the edges. I
refer to material which may be found in various books on chaos and complexity
theory, which have many examples from many fields of phenomena that cannot be
"captured" by classical methods. The search for consensus on the meaning of
quantum phenomena is an obvious example. One physicist referred to it as "an
epistemological crisis." I have noticed Dan Dugan refer to these topics as
"buzzwords" and he has also referred to "the stench" of the "science of the
90's," but my sense is that there is a real shift starting to occur in the
world of science.
However, I would be interested in a reference to experiments that disprove
the possibility of water memory, particularly if they did in some fashion
replicate Schwenk's work.
You also said: " What I see is more mystical mumbo-jumbo about some
apparently-spiritual "memory" that water can have."
Surely you are not suggesting that the concept of memory at the molecular
level is "mystical mumbo-jumbo"? IBM and other developers of technology for
computer memory would be very disappointed by this news. The difficult issue
seems to be not in storing information but reading it out again. Schwenk,
clever fellow, used wheat seeds to get his read-out. It would make for a
rather slow computer, but there is no need to imagine that something mystical
or spiritual is involved.
Or perhaps you were speaking from the perspective that ultimately the
dividing line between physical and metaphysical is arbitrary, an invention of
human consciousness? No, probably not.
You also said: " Goethe science doesn't provide answers and proof, it
provides mystical things for people who need mystical things to believe in."
I could not have asked for a better expression of the classical reaction to
Goethean science. First, it clearly states the favorite grounds for
dismissal--mysticism. But more importantly it illustrates the failure to
follow, even to a small degree, the Goethean principle of looking at
phenomena without prejudice, to understand them in their own right. (This is
not just Goethean, in my judgment, it is a principle of any valid approach to
science.) In this case, the "phenomena" are the research activities actually
carried out by people interested in the Goethean approach.
Schwenk described an experiment and presented "answers and proof" to the same
degree as I have seen in non-Goethean research. His experiment is
replicable. In my first post to Suzanne I gave several examples of other
research inspired by Goethe's principles, and in every instance the intent is
to develop evidence supporting an hypothesis--evidence that could be
corroborated by others performing the same experiment.
Schwenk may have falsified his data, although I have no reason to believe
that he did. The others might not have good research designs or their
experiments may fail for other reasons. This certainly happens in
conventional science. People interested in Goethean science may indeed have
more interest in spirituality than scientists who prefer to restrict their
consciousness to more materialistic belief systems. But none of these
possibilities justifies your conclusion.
In the discussion here of the Goethean approach to science compared to the
approach more familiar to most of us, the differences between the two tend to
be overdrawn. As I see the situation, both approaches call for observations
that minimize distortion due to the nature of the observer and the
observation method, experiments that replicate nature as closely as possible,
repetition of experiments by the same observer in order to clarify
understanding of what is being seen, and replication of experiments by other
observers in order to verify that findings do in fact represent an underlying
lawfulness of nature rather than purely subjective interpretation.
In time--probably another 20 years or so--I would expect the phrase "Goethean
science" to have dropped out of usage. This will be due either to failure to
find value in its concepts or to the assimilation of what we now call the
Goethean approach into the way science is done, so that it just becomes
"science." My bet is on the latter. Others in this forum would not only bet
on the former but will do their best to make it happen.
Chances are in 20 years we will still be able to argue whether "Goethean
science" did have an impact on the way in which science is done. In the
meantime, now that the Flat Earth Society has disappeared, I appreciate the
opportunity to argue with those who cling to the conventional approach to
science. (I guess I better add a here.)
Best regards,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:38:32 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> Kopp says:
>>
>> Yeah, I'm a real failure, all right. Took German a couple of quarters in
>> college and only learned to say "Das telefon ist links um de ecke" -- I
>> _think_ that means something like "go fly a kite, mate".
>>
>
>I actually means: "The telephone is around the left corner."
>
>+peter+
>
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
Kopp says:
Peter, I think you may have missed something in my translation, above.
Maybe that's why I kept getting suspended from school for punching people
who said it to me?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.6 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Solving parent dilemmas (Was Re: Things I wish they'd told me)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:38:38 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quotes:
>> And KOPP replies:
>>
>> No. You're still twisting my words.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> What people do in their private lives is none of my business, as long as
>> it's not illegal. When their private lives cross over into my children's
>> lives, then I have an unalienable right to be concerned and take action.
And SCHWAB replies:
>OK, I finally got it: I you would have known that anthroposophs
>discuss this kind of things you would never have send your children
>to a waldorf school. Right?
Kopp says:
This is getting nauseating, but as long as people go on misrepresenting
what I say, then they have to be answered.
No, only if the "anthroposophs" (clever, that construction) take their
mystic musings into the classroom and use them to teach my kids stuff I
disapprove of.
And SCHWAB continues:
>But you did (in ignorance of the situation). Now I am just curious
>what kind of action you plan to take, exept relieving your
>frustration here on the waldorf-critics list.
KOPP says:
I have written elsewhere about the dilemma of having to make a decision at
this point about staying or going, and which would be more harmful to the
kids (since either course involves harm). Maybe you haven't noticed.
Certainly the defenders of the faith are quick to point out, as have you,
that if one doesn't like the play, one should leave by the nearest exit,
quickly.
Nobody has seen fit to discuss the problem, which must occur to many
parents who discover that their original "ignorance" -- whether caused by
their own neglect to hire a detective agency to discover the _real_ truth
of their prospective school, or because the school dissembles.
It would seem to me to be a fruitful area for other readers of this list
who have doubts but who also have qualms about a change.
As to whether I am staying in order to vent my spleen on this list: this
comment shows just about as much charity and real concern for people's
differences and problems as other defenders of the faith statements like
"like it or lump it" or "like it or leave".
It appears from what I read here that the warm fuzzies of Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthropsosphy don't extend to _helping_ doubters in their decision, much
less their actual exit. How like the critical picture I've seen painted
here of the cult-like attitudes of the faith.
Others of the defenders have made haste to attack me for having an agenda
that has nothing to do with my kids, saying arguing means more to me than
anything.
Perhaps that's true, in the sense that seems to be foreign to the faith:
argument is how we rationalists arrive at knowledge and conclusions about
our world so that we can make decisions, instead of relying on received
wisdom to do it for us.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:38:42 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quotes:
>> KOPP said:
>> An obscure book that may or may not be available in English.
And SCHWAB says:
>How can you treat something as "obscur" without knowing it?
And KOPP says:
Translation problem again, I think. Obscure means (among other things) note
easily seen. I didn't mean to characterise the content as obscure, just the
book itself. If no-one told me about it, and I couldn't easily find it when
looking for Steiner references, it's not easily seen -- it's obscure.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Who pays calls the tune? (Was Re: Things I wish they'd told
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:38:45 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter SCHWAB quotes:
>> KOPP says:
>> But, as pointed out by a number of people, this is a major problem with the
>> injection of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy into public schools.
>>
>> My school is publicly funded. So I pay twice: once through taxes and once
>> through "school fees" and "special character donations" which are
>> _expected_ of me even though they can't be compelled by law.
And SCHWAB says:
>Here I do not understand. If our school would receive the same amount
>of money for every attending child as this child would cost the state
>in a public school, we would make a huge benefit! It has been proven
>that private schools operate much more cost-efficiant that the public
>ones. So why you have to pay school feed etc. is a mystery to me. I
>would strongly object paying anything under this conditions.
The situation in Kiwiland is certainly more muddled. The state schools get
buildings built for them and funding for salaries and operations. (It's
never enough -- when I was a board of trustee member of one, we used to
have to raise privately something like $50-75,000 a year over and above our
state funding, just to stay afloat. And that means business, not bake
sales. The state wouldn't expand our bulging buildings, so we did it
ourselves -- and had to "give" the buildings to the state, to boot!).
Most integrated ("charter") schools with "special character" -- like our
Steiner school -- are "bulk funded": that is, they get a single funding
figure for all purposes for a year at a time (except for special character
maintenance). The government doesn't build any buildings for them. So
integrated schools must decide how much of their bulk grant to spend on
buldings, salaries and operations. Usually,, even with a top up from parent
fees (whatever you call them, they're fees) there's not enough, and
something suffers, like not having a comprehensive or quantitatively
adequate library, or after-school extra-curricular activities, or enough
textbooks, or enough laboratory equipment, etc.
So I pay taxes for building _state_ schools and taxes for my kids' Waldorf
teachers and taxes for some of the operating costs of the school -- but
still have to pay additional fees to top that up.
In effect, I'm paying more than I would at a public school.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:38:49 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faiman quotes Stephen Tonkin and Michael Kopp:
[...]
>Stephen and Michael agree that Waldorf school parents should be well
>informed about their schools before they enroll their students there, and
>that, for whatever reasons, that is not always the case today. They agree
>that the language in our school's parent handbook is an appropriate part of
>such a disclosure.
>
>Neil Faiman says:
>
>Good grief, do you two have to argue with each other, even about the things
>you agree on?
KOPP says:
Ask Tonkin. I've never seen him agree with anything I said, even when I
agree with him. He's the one who keeps coming back with the carping, not
me. I just respond with clarifications.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n175.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 21:49:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>How about I tell you to go to my school, and the Government Print Shop
>here, to get copies of the things you are _demanding_ of me for proof.?
No problem -- can you post the addresses/phone numbers, please?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n175 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n176 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:29:46 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Stephen Tonkin answers:
>we are at present updating our handbook and I am
>>unashamedly plagiarising good ideas from those of other schools (with
>>their permission, of course!)
>
>KOPP says:
>
>Tonkin, if you get permission, it's not plagiarism.
I'd like to publicly thank Michael for attempting to ensure that I am
not tarnished with the charge of plagiarism. In view of the recent ill-
feeling between us, I find this to be an act of true generosity. Thank
you, Michael.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:21:45 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Perhaps Tonkin will cease making the snide remarks that began this whole
>stoush in the first place?"
What snide remarks are those?
I think I must be working on a different definition of "snide" to the
one you use. My definition is "counterfeit" -- yours appears to be
"displaying the stunning insight and profound wisdom granted to a mere
handful of the most gifted human beings" -- what definition _do_ you
use?
Just in case my analysis is in error, perhaps you could quote an example
or six to justify your contention that I have made "snide" remarks.
Then again, perhaps you couldn't...
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.3 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 14:58:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, RigbyL aol.com wrote >
>It should help those who seem to be stuck in the metaphor "the heart is a pump"
>to see how much can be missed by refusing to think more freely.
The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
let alone medicine. Understanding this basic fact does not limit anyone
from appreciating the beauty and complexity of the body.
>Somewhere in Steiner's lectures published as "Man as Symphony of the Creative
>Word" (I think) he made reference to man learning to think with his body. It
>was presented as having literal, not figurative, meaning. As with his "heart
>is not a pump" statements, my initial reaction was "What could he possibly
>mean by that?" I was interested, then, in Capra's quotation of Pert,
>relative to the discovery that endorphins (one class of peptides), formerly
>thought to be produced only in the brain, are also produced in various other
>parts of the body: "I can no longer make a strong distinction between the
>brain and the body." Seems like any subdivision of the body into systems is
>ultimately rather arbitrary and potentially misleading in terms of
>understanding the whole.
Talk about stuck.
And on Sat, 2 Nov 1996 Rigby continues >
>It is difficult to classify this book [Theodor Schwenk's Sensitive Chaos,
>The Creation of Flowing Forms in Water and Air], because it has content
>ranging from information that you are likely to regard as factual, interesting
>and to be accepted without doubt, to interpretations that are philosophical and
>mystical. However, I can't imagine a rationalist objecting to the latter due
>to the beauty of diagrams and photographs, and the information they convey
>about the nature of flow forms in water and air. "Flow form" isn't anything
>esoteric. An example would be a standing wave created in a mountain stream
>rushing through boulders--a form that persists even though its "substance"
>(water) rapidly changes.
A form that persists because of the rocks !
>An even simpler example is the vortex that forms as
>the water in a sink or tub gets close to running out.
Let's not forget the ceramic and metal of the tub.
On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, RigbyL aol.com continues >
>The second example is the drop-picture method of evaluating water quality.
> In the drop-picture method the water sample to be evaluated is contained in
>a thin layer in round glass bowl. A drop of distilled water is allowed to
>fall into the water sample and the pattern of vortices formed in reaction to
>the drop is photographed. This pattern may generally be described as a type
>of rosette, but the features of the pattern vary depending on the quality of
>the water in the sample. The book in which this method is
>described--"Water--The Element of Life", by Theodor and Wolfram Schwenk
>(Anthroposophic Press, 1989)--has photographs of natural spring water,
>treated drinking water, Rhine river water, polluted drinking water and other
>samples, all showing distinctively different patterns.
No problem, I like art books.
>It also has photographs of water used for homeopathic remedies, showing
>>differences between remedies for intestinal illness, for heart and
>circulatory
>illness and for skin and nerve illness.
Now this is serious nonsense.
>This is an example of research findings that are reproducible, that may be
>correlated with other (e.g.: chemical) analysis of the same phenomena, that
>have no reliance on mathematics, and that have very practical application.
Please tell us of any report where this "research" has been reproduced. It
is not our responsibility to disprove this nonsense.
And on Sun, 3 Nov 1996 Rigby continues >
>It is interesting to me, however, how some people have the freedom of mind to
>consider new and unusual ideas without needing to have them proved or
>disproved, while others seem to have a compulsion immediately to stamp out
>anything that doesn't fit with the belief system they have learned. Not that
>you necessarily belong in the latter class, of course.
<[...]
>However, I would be interested in a reference to experiments that disprove
>the possibility of water memory, particularly if they did in some fashion
>replicate Schwenk's work.
Lots of talk about feedom of mind and being stuck. Not that you (Rigby)
necessarily belong in that class, of course. It is your responsibility
(you are the claimant) to report to us any would-be replications of this
so-called "work."
>[...]
>Schwenk described an experiment and presented "answers and proof" to the same
>degree as I have seen in non-Goethean research. His experiment is
>replicable. In my first post to Suzanne I gave several examples of other
>research inspired by Goethe's principles, and in every instance the intent is
>to develop evidence supporting an hypothesis--evidence that could be
>corroborated by others performing the same experiment.
>[...]
Yep, "could be corroborated." Go ahead, let us know what you find.
And finally, Rigby concludes >
>In time--probably another 20 years or so--I would expect the phrase "Goethean
>science" to have dropped out of usage. This will be due either to failure to
>find value in its concepts or to the assimilation of what we now call the
>Goethean approach into the way science is done, so that it just becomes
>"science."
History has already passed it's judgement.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
-----------
Daniel Sabsay, webmaster
www.softwareforum.org Macintosh Consultant
www.dandugan.com/ebss Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.4 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:30:41 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Michael Kopp writes
>>How about I tell you to go to my school, and the Government Print Shop
>>here, to get copies of the things you are _demanding_ of me for proof.?
>
>No problem -- can you post the addresses/phone numbers, please?
No. I'll send them to you in email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.5 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: How to know when to leave a mailing list
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 16:44:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
McKay says: Neil Faiman wrote:
>The allusion to "flights of fancy" refers to the fact that some of the
>claims critical of Waldorf Education that have been made over the lifetime
>of this list have been, to my mind, just plain silly -- "flights of fancy".
> Exposure of such foolishness is, I believe, just as much a part of what
>this list is about as is exposure of what some critics may regard as
>foolishness within the Waldorf system.
mckay says: maybe so, but from what I've seen posted on this list about
peoples "real time" bad experiences with Waldorf education and their
legitimate concerns, the only "flights of fancy" I've seen on this list are
of those whom still are under the Waldorf Spell ( or maybe they had their
brains sucked out and will never "get it"!).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.6 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:09:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Just in case my analysis is in error, perhaps you could quote an example
>or six to justify your contention that I have made "snide" remarks.
>
Oh - PLEASE spare us. - Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:00:22 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin baits Michael Kopp:
>>Just in case my analysis is in error, perhaps you could quote an example
>>or six to justify your contention that I have made "snide" remarks.
>>
>
>Oh - PLEASE spare us. - Deby
I'm not about to refresh Tonkin's memory. He'll just use them over again.
Tonkin's a bull baiter, not a de-bater.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.8 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 21:27:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> Stephen Tonkin baits Michael Kopp:
>
> >>Just in case my analysis is in error, perhaps you could quote an example
> >>or six to justify your contention that I have made "snide" remarks.
> >
> >Oh - PLEASE spare us. - Deby
>
> I'm not about to refresh Tonkin's memory. He'll just use them over again.
A translation from the Kopp-tic: "I can't support my assertions, and
I'm hoping people will fall for this obvious effort to sidestep the
issue."
> Tonkin's a bull baiter, not a de-bater.
More name-calling, eh? Well, I guess one falls back on what one is
capable of.
Eschew obfuscation, Mr. Kopp. You don't show much of a flair for it.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 05:53:47 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>>Michael Kopp writes
>>>How about I tell you to go to my school, and the Government Print Shop
>>>here, to get copies of the things you are _demanding_ of me for proof.?
>>
>>No problem -- can you post the addresses/phone numbers, please?
>
>No. I'll send them to you in email.
Thank you ... although you didn't send the title of the charter
document. I realise I didn't specifically ask for this information, but
I'm sure you will accept that it could be extremely long winded to order
a document from half-way around the world if I don't actually know the
title of the document I want. Could you let me have this information,
here or by email, please.
However, it does surprise me that you are reticent to quote the
(presumably short) passage from the charter document that would support
your allegation that the school has contravened it in the manner you
described.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n176.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 06:20:36 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lefty Redux writes
>On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>> Tonkin's a bull baiter, not a de-bater.
>
>More name-calling, eh?
I have recently received an email from our illustrious list owner which
appeared to strongly indicate that this sort of thing was out of order
in this list.
However, I suppose we should all be grateful that Mr Dugan's directive
means that I cannot make the two obvious rejoinders to the above.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n176 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n177 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n176
004 - snell oro.net - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n176
005 - Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:02:23 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>But I could post a list of questions, challenges and comments to which you
>have not supplied "proof".
I'm curious to know how anyone could possibly provide proof of a
question or a challenge.
>
>One comes to mind: you quoted some apparently laudatory comments from some
>rating agency for schools in Britain. But when asked for more detail, you
>refused, saying the questioner could go to the rating agency and get it
>themselves.
Not a rating agency -- a government department -- I think the
distinction is important.
Allow me to try to explain, Michael.
I made some comments and posted some quotes (which I admitted then and
there were selected) which supported those comments.
You have made some allegations about how the school your children attend
has contravened its charter, but you appear (to me, at least) remarkably
reticent to quote the _selected_ bit of the charter which you allege the
school has contravened. This reticence strikes me as being odd because
I know you wouldn't want anyone to think that you were making bogus
allegations.
I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to see the difference.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 06:44:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
snell oro.net writes
>
>So..why don't we plan The First Annual International Anthroposophical
>Debate ? We could hold it at Dan Dugan's house (he has a conveniently
>located airport..) next September at his annual Birthday open house.
>(Dan, could you think of a better B-Day present?)
>Just think...., we could vote for the top four debaters from each
>side,....share wine and food from *many* parts of the globe,...I will
>volunteer to decorate....Steve Tonkin, when *does* your school start?
September -- but I theoretically finish in July '97.
However, I don't think I'll accept the invitation. I don't think it's
fair to go out of my way to ruin someone's birthday, even Dan's, and I
think I can probably just about survive without a diet of Swiss
Champagne, Californian Chardonnay, English Brie and New Zealand Cheddar.
I'll restrict my contribution to composing a birthday verse for Dan and
making suggestions of homoeopathic remedies for the head- and gut-ache
that would inevitably result from such gastronomic and intellectual
delights.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.3 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n176
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:16:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
> Please tell us of any report where this "research" has been reproduced. It
> is not our responsibility to disprove this nonsense.
Dear Daniel,
I always thought that if man can think it that the task of
Science was to prove or disprove...
I would also like to add that during my earlier University
studies I was constantly told over and over and over in all my science
classes that in Science there is no such thing as Fact. That in True
Science there is only test, hypotenuse, theory, test, hypotenuse,
theory, test, hypotenuse, theory etc...
Anything other than this is an educated guess at best. I must say that I
have also met a number of uneducated people with a lot of common sense.
Now Now Now... When I say *uneducated* I am speaking by the
standards that have been set through our socially accepted model of
education.
One thing I would love to read is a Scientific Study on common
sense.
Any suggestion?
Best Alway,
-El
**********************************************************************
"Human beings are not merely spectators of the world:
they are the worlds stage upon which great cosmic events continually
play themselves out."
**********************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.4 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n176
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:42:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
One thing I would love to read is a Scientific Study on common
>sense.
>Any suggestion?
>Best Alway,
>-El
-El,
I have recently heard of, and mean to investigate, a new book called
"Emotional Intelligence". I do *not* know who the author is, but heard part
of a review on KQED a short while back. I am sure *any*
book store in the states could help you out....if you live in the states.
Has anyone out there read this book ? Does it relate to common sense?
>
>**********************************************************************
>"Human beings are not merely spectators of the world:
>they are the worlds stage upon which great cosmic events continually
>play themselves out."
>**********************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.5 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:51:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
>
> The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
> counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
> let alone medicine. Understanding this basic fact does not limit anyone
> from appreciating the beauty and complexity of the body.
Proof by blunt assertion, I guess.
So, if the heart _is_ simply a pump, and can be completely abstracted
from the rest of the circulatory system so easily, why have the
efforts over the past twenty or thirty years to replace this pump with
another, artificial one had such poor results? Just curious.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.6 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n176
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:54:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>
> I have recently heard of, and mean to investigate, a new book called
> "Emotional Intelligence". I do *not* know who the author is, but heard part
> of a review on KQED a short while back. I am sure *any*
> book store in the states could help you out....if you live in the states.
> Has anyone out there read this book ? Does it relate to common sense?
I haven't read it yet, but the author is Daniel Goleman.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.7 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 00:37:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
>>
>> The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
>> counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
>> let alone medicine. [snip]
>Proof by blunt assertion, I guess.
>
Lefty:
>So, if the heart _is_ simply a pump, and can be completely abstracted
>from the rest of the circulatory system so easily, why have the
>efforts over the past twenty or thirty years to replace this pump with
>another, artificial one had such poor results? Just curious.
It seems curious to me that you put the "simply" word in Dan Sabsay's
post. Did you read *this* part of what he said ?
"Understanding this basic fact does not limit anyone
from appreciating the beauty and complexity of the body."
Deby Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:31:56 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jeez, these two guys (Tonkin and Redux) must plot these things.
Lefty can't even let poor ol' Stephie defend himself.
And lefty's epithets are ever more tired than Tonkin's.
>On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Tonkin baits Michael Kopp:
>>
>> >>Just in case my analysis is in error, perhaps you could quote an example
>> >>or six to justify your contention that I have made "snide" remarks.
>> >
>> >Oh - PLEASE spare us. - Deby
>>
>> I'm not about to refresh Tonkin's memory. He'll just use them over again.
>
Lefty Redux writes:
>A translation from the Kopp-tic: "I can't support my assertions, and
>I'm hoping people will fall for this obvious effort to sidestep the
>issue."
There's not an _issue_ to sidestep.
>> Tonkin's a bull baiter, not a de-bater.
Again, it's a description, not a moniker -- but since it fits, he can wear it.
>More name-calling, eh? Well, I guess one falls back on what one is
>capable of.
>
>Eschew obfuscation, Mr. Kopp. You don't show much of a flair for it.
I already have. That's why I talk plainly, instead of in the cult codes of
the defenders of the faith like Tonkin and Redux.
(What kind of a name is Redux, anyway? You sure you're an American?)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:31:59 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin says about Kopp:
>
>However, it does surprise me that you are reticent to quote the
>(presumably short) passage from the charter document that would support
>your allegation that the school has contravened it in the manner you
>described.
People don't have to answer your prosecutorial inquisition, Tonkin. You
would have done well in a star chamber, methinks.
There is no answer to your straw-man question, as I have said before when
you put words into my mouth. For those who came in late (and for those,
like you, who obviously can't take no for no) I will quote below the whole
message (the second and third paragraphs are the operative part):
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Why Stay? (was Re: Logic and consistency)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:52:06 +1200
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
>Michael Kopp writes
>>Our Steiner school had just
>>become an integrated, "charter" school under the state educational system,
>>where we could benefit from both its "special character" and the public
>>system's good points (read money).
>>
>>We also did not feel the need to investigate Anthroposophy because we were
>>told that while it underpinned the child development theories, the pedagogy
>>and the curriculum, it was not _in_ the curriculum. That seemed to satisfy
>>my personal preference for exclusion of undesirable _inculcation_ of
>>spiritual/religious _dogma_ whilst fostering the awakening of human
>>self-awareness, "spirit", and meaning of life, which was desirable.
>
>Since, in NZ, charter schools are responsible to the funding authority
>and have to prepare a _very_ comprehensive curriculum document (I have
>an example here which I use for reference), may one ask why, if you feel
>the school has contravened its charter or its stated curriculum, you do
>not make representations to the appropriate authority?
I have not said this. You are putting words in my mouth.
>OTOH, if you don't claim that the school has contravened what it said it
>was/would do/would not do, could you explain what the problem is?
As I said in my post, I will not discuss particulars of our specific
situation in this public forum whilst we are still involved in them.
You are trying to draw me into doing something I have said I would not do.
Please stop.
These questions are like the "have you stopped beating your wife" taunt,
designed to make someone look foolish whatever they say.
You also seem to have a great deal of knowledge of the New Zealand
structure, indicating that you have corresponded with people here
extensively.
I will say that I believe the New Zealand charter schools law, and the
bureaucracy surrounding it and general educational reform, have serious
flaws.
The Educational Review Office is an overworked bureaucracy which is easily
misled by schools and is unresponsive to parents -- and I say this from the
view of a public school board member who had experience in preparing and
negotiating our school's reports with the ERO.
The New Zealand educational reforms are also extremely wrong in their
mechanisation and fragmentation of the curriculum into "qualifications"
bits. But that's a very involved subject and off-topic for this list.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n177.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:32:08 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin carries on his smog campaign by quoting Kopp:
>Michael Kopp writes
[...]
And Tonkin goes on to restate a challenge long dead in the water, by yet
again putting words in my mouth:
>You have made some allegations about how the school your children attend
>has contravened its charter,
Rubbish. Show me the quote where I said this or anything like it. The quote
you posted in another message said nothing about contravening a charter.
>but you appear (to me, at least) remarkably
>reticent to quote the _selected_ bit of the charter which you allege the
>school has contravened. This reticence strikes me as being odd because
>I know you wouldn't want anyone to think that you were making bogus
>allegations.
You are the one making bogus allegations. As I did in response to your
other scurrilous attempt to keep this calumny alive, I repost the entire
original exchange between us below (the second and third paragraphs are the
relevant ones):
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Why Stay? (was Re: Logic and consistency)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:52:06 +1200
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
>Michael Kopp writes
>>Our Steiner school had just
>>become an integrated, "charter" school under the state educational system,
>>where we could benefit from both its "special character" and the public
>>system's good points (read money).
>>
>>We also did not feel the need to investigate Anthroposophy because we were
>>told that while it underpinned the child development theories, the pedagogy
>>and the curriculum, it was not _in_ the curriculum. That seemed to satisfy
>>my personal preference for exclusion of undesirable _inculcation_ of
>>spiritual/religious _dogma_ whilst fostering the awakening of human
>>self-awareness, "spirit", and meaning of life, which was desirable.
>
>Since, in NZ, charter schools are responsible to the funding authority
>and have to prepare a _very_ comprehensive curriculum document (I have
>an example here which I use for reference), may one ask why, if you feel
>the school has contravened its charter or its stated curriculum, you do
>not make representations to the appropriate authority?
I have not said this. You are putting words in my mouth.
>OTOH, if you don't claim that the school has contravened what it said it
>was/would do/would not do, could you explain what the problem is?
As I said in my post, I will not discuss particulars of our specific
situation in this public forum whilst we are still involved in them.
You are trying to draw me into doing something I have said I would not do.
Please stop.
These questions are like the "have you stopped beating your wife" taunt,
designed to make someone look foolish whatever they say.
You also seem to have a great deal of knowledge of the New Zealand
structure, indicating that you have corresponded with people here
extensively.
I will say that I believe the New Zealand charter schools law, and the
bureaucracy surrounding it and general educational reform, have serious
flaws.
The Educational Review Office is an overworked bureaucracy which is easily
misled by schools and is unresponsive to parents -- and I say this from the
view of a public school board member who had experience in preparing and
negotiating our school's reports with the ERO.
The New Zealand educational reforms are also extremely wrong in their
mechanisation and fragmentation of the curriculum into "qualifications"
bits. But that's a very involved subject and off-topic for this list.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n177 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n178 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re:
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Heart v. "Pump and Plumbing"
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Goethean Science -- Acupuncture
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Things I wish they'd told me
005 - DanielSabsay earthlink.ne - Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
006 - DanielSabsay earthlink.ne - Science is supposed to prove what man can think?
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Goethean Science -- Examples
008 - levy So.., Peter. If you like this so much, wouldn't it be great for all list
>members to meet at Dan Dugan's house for his annual B-Day celebration next
>September. We could choose the top four debaters (from each side) and have
>a throughly lively debate. We could serve wine and share food from many
>parts of the globe, if everyone showed up. Dan, are we invited ?
Sure, it's probably March 16 '97. We'll remove all sharp objects and check
weapons at the door.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Heart v. "Pump and Plumbing"
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:04:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>MICHAEL KOPP
>>>> "The
>>>>heart is not a pump" is an example my kids have brought home.
>>
>>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>>This old chestnut is wheeled out with monotonous regularity. Can't we
>>>just lay it to rest for once and for all. What Mr Kopp (and his
>>>numerous predecessors on this boring topic) most conspicuously _doesn't_
>>>say is what children are taught that the heart *is*.
>[snip]
>>
DAN DUGAN
>>In your dreams, Stephen.
>
STEPHEN TONKIN
>You may have something there -- as you yourself have once indicated, no
>amount of evidence or logic will convince a true believer.
>
>I also notice that, like Mr Kopp, you fail to assert what it is that you
>allege that we say the heart *is*.
My understanding is that in Anthroposophy the mechanical function of the
heart is as a regulator of the flow of the blood, the blood moving by
itself. It also has a spiritual, "etherising" function.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Goethean Science -- Acupuncture
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:04:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
SUZANNE LAINSON
>> When I first heard about acupuncture, it was quite a foreign concept. But
>> as more people in America began to try it and reported that it worked and
>> when more conventional medical practitioners tried it and reported that it
>> worked, I decided that it had some legitimacy. And the explanations as to
>> why it worked (electrical signals and all that) seemed to make sense, so it
>> became a legitimate, if still a somewhat unconventional, therapy to me. I
>> have never tried it and don't know that I will, but it strikes me as a
>> "useful" concept.
LEFTY
>I find this all very interesting. Allow me to point out a couple of
>things.
>
>The number of "conventional medical practitioners" who support the use
>of acupuncture is, at least in the US, vanishingly small, probably not
>vastly greater than the number of medical practitioners who support
>the use of anthroposophically extended medicine or homeopathy.
>
>There are a number of hypotheses as to how acupuncture works (_if_ it
>works; there's not clear agreement on that point, either). None of
>them has been demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction. Certainly
>there's nothing to lead one to believe that there are any "electrical
>signals" involved. The _only_ application for which there is as much
>as a shred of scientific support regarding acupuncture is in pain
>reduction, and it has _never_ been shown to have an efficacy even
>equal to aspirin.
>
>The classic explanation within Chinese medicine postulates a so-far
>completely unmeasurable and indiscernable force called _ch'i_, which
>travels in indetectable passages in the body called meridians which
>are somehow associated with particular organs in the body, some of
>which (the "Triple Warmer" is one example) are completely unknown to
>medical science. Sometimes the ch'i gets blocked, and the use of
>acupuncture can restore its proper "flow".
>
>It doesn't seem to me that there's any more reason to believe that
>acupuncture is a reasonable treatment, scientifically speaking, than
>to feel the same way about homeopathy, or many other alternative
>therapies. Lots of people have used homeopathy and reported that it
>worked. Some conventional medical practitioners support the use of
>homeopathy. The only distinction here seems to rest on the fact that
>of the various hypotheses for the efficacy of these practices, you
>view the "explanation" of acupuncture as being more plausible (even
>though there's no greater body of evidence to support it) and the
>"explanations" of homeopathy as being less convincing.
>
>It seems to boil down to a question of simply liking, or feeling
>better, about one versus the other. So what's the difference between
>your acceptance of acupuncture and someone else's acceptance of
>homeopathy, or flower remedies, or whatever?
DAN DUGAN
Lefty, I applaud your clear exposition of the nature of acupuncture. I'm
confident that when you know more about Anthroposophical medicine, you'll
form a similar opinion.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:04:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MICHAEL KOPP
>> (sufficient information being more than what Stephen Tonkin believes
>> most parents want, and something less than a full course in
>> Anthroposophy.
>>
>> (A simple statement like: "we believe in reincarnation, and our child-
>> development model is based on this belief and the belief that children
>> are
>> incarnated as people in stages, and this belief is the basis for our
>> staged
>> curriculum".)
NEIL FAIMAN
>Here's an extract from the relevant passage in our school's new parent
>handbook.
>
>" According to this world view [anthroposophy], the nature of every human
>being is comprisd of three parts: the body, soul, and spirit. The 'spirit'
>in each person is our eternal self, which incarnates in repeated earth
>lives. Through the course of these lives, the spirit gradually matures
>until it achieves a realization of its true nature and becomes a free and
>fully conscious participant in the further evolution of the world. The
>'soul' is the vehicle of awareness and feeling through which the spirit
>experiences the body and the world around it.
>
>" At conception, the spirit and soul enter into the germ of the body which
>then begins to develop. As the child matures after birth, its spirit and
>soul gradually learn to use the body as their instrument, in willing,
>feeling and thinking. By this means the child gradually comes to
>understand and participate actively in the world. For this learning
>process to occur properly, parents and teachers need to provide the
>appropriate guidance. With their help, the child's spirit and soul are
>able to incarnate in a healthy way and to continue the spirit's development
>toward self-realization. "
>
>This is followed by a length discussion of the developmental theory and its
>realiztion in the curriculum.
DAN DUGAN
Neil, this is very good. Can I buy a copy?
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.5 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:04:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D: > wrote >
>So, if the heart _is_ simply a pump, and can be completely abstracted
>from the rest of the circulatory system so easily, why have the
>efforts over the past twenty or thirty years to replace this pump with
>another, artificial one had such poor results? Just curious.
I am not a medical technologist, but I think artificial heart-lung machines
have been very successful, and saved many lives. They are used routinely
in most major hospitals.
My understanding is that small, implantable and portable substitutes are
still unacceptable for a number of reasons. I think some versions have
caused occasional clots or damage to blood cells over time. You might just
as well ask why artificial eyes, lungs or ears are not yet good enough for
prime time.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.6 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: Science is supposed to prove what man can think?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:04:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Sunday, November 3, El (allure netcom.com) wrote >
> I always thought that if man can think it that the task of
>Science was to prove or disprove...
Dear El,
If you care to think about Mickey Mouse, science isn't concerned with how
much common sense you are exhibiting. Nor am I.
If a large drug company sells a liquid that is supposed to act as an
antiseptic, or prevent gangrene, etc., then they are responsible (and
liable) for the scientific tests that give them reason to assert this. In
particular, they are responsible to test a sample of each manufactured
batch for safety and efficacy.
Purveyors of homeopathic "remedies" claim this is not necessary for their
product. Go figure.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Goethean Science -- Examples
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:04:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby, you said,
>First, however, it is really important to understand that we are not talking
>about attempting to prove classic physics wrong. Bortoft made that crystal
>clear in his lecture and does so in his book as well. I suppose there could
>be some avid proponents of Goethean science who would take that position, but
>I haven't come across any, and I would consider them to be foolish if I did.
You differ with many Anthroposophists, then, including Rudolf Steiner, who
was quite explicit about classical physics being wrong. So you and I would
agree that some of Steiner's positions on physics are "foolish."
"Of course, much now incorporated in the body of knowledge known as physics
will have to be discarded to make room for these ideas."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Warmth Course. (1920) Trans. George Adams, revised
by Alice Barton Wulsin and Gerald F. Karnow. Spring Valley: Mercury Press,
1988, p. 139.]
"Our stars, too--the external physical stars, the physical sun, the
physical moon we see out there in the universe--that too, is not the way
physicists see it. Physicists would be most surprised if they managed to
get up to the sun, ... We would not find what the physicists have
construed; we'd find nothing at all by way of a physical body. It merely
looks like that."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations.
(1914-15) Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987, p.
228.]
further on, you note that the Rudolf Steiner Foundation is funding:
>--conduct of plant experiments in an attempt to replicate previously reported
>observations of weight losses and gains of germinating seeds in an
>hermetically sealed environment (which would violate the law of conservation
>of mass).
Apparently an attempt to prove that "forces stream in from the cosmos"...
does violating conservation of mass sound likely to you?
>--search for a phenomenological basis for the study of weather, seen as a
>manifestation of planetary movement.
This would be Dennis Klocek's folly, no doubt. I have his book. His work is
a textbook example of pseudoscience.
>--attempts to confirm evidence that tree leaf buds change their shape
>rhythmically during the course of various planetary, lunar and solar
>geometric arrangements.
>
>I am sure most of this would be considered amateurish by the scientific
>establishment, and some even foolish,
You said it.
>but one point to note is that it is all
>work that will result in something testable by others, which was one of your
>criteria for acceptability.
Testable, perhaps, but no one will bother.
>I have a xerographic copy of an article titled "The Developing Heart:
> Pulsation as a Result of Form and Flow," produced in 1983 by Philip Kilner
>of the Flow Design Research Group, Emerson College, Forest Row, Sussex. From
>this source you might expect the content to relate not only to the Goethean
>approach but to Steiner's indications, and it does: "Experiments here
>presented, demonstrating how rhythmical pulsation can establish itself within
>specifically formed streams of water, may have bearing on Rudolf Steiner's
>assertion that the heart's activity is 'not a cause but an effect.'"
You sent me a copy of that, thanks. The fact that a stream of water can be
made to oscillate in no way proves or even suggests to me that the heart is
not the source of the motion of the blood.
>The second example is the drop-picture method of evaluating water quality.
> In the drop-picture method the water sample to be evaluated is contained in
>a thin layer in round glass bowl. A drop of distilled water is allowed to
>fall into the water sample and the pattern of vortices formed in reaction to
>the drop is photographed. This pattern may generally be described as a type
>of rosette, but the features of the pattern vary depending on the quality of
>the water in the sample. The book in which this method is
>described--"Water--The Element of Life", by Theodor and Wolfram Schwenk
>(Anthroposophic Press, 1989)--has photographs of natural spring water,
>treated drinking water, Rhine river water, polluted drinking water and other
>samples, all showing distinctively different patterns. It also has
>photographs of water used for homeopathic remedies, showing differences
>between remedies for intestinal illness, for heart and circulatory illness
>and for skin and nerve illness.
This kind of thing is like reading tea leaves, you see what you want to
see. I suspect the same kind of data selection that was used in the French
homeopathy debacle. They don't show you the photographs that didn't show
the "correct" results; of course, these would be "obviously bad runs" or
some such excuse.
>This is an example of research findings that are reproducible, that may be
>correlated with other (e.g.: chemical) analysis of the same phenomena, that
>have no reliance on mathematics, and that have very practical application.
Not worth the trouble, Rigby. Chemical analysis is objective, and definitive.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.8 ---------------
From: levy
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:23:33 +0000 (GMT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
It can mean that you perceived what Steiner did in as much as what Steiner
perceived can be perceived by ANYONE. What Steiner perceived did not
BELONG to him. By confirming his perception we confirm the existence of
something for ourselves. I have a friend who visited China and saw lots of
things there. If I go to China as well I may pereceive many similar things
thus confirming their existence for myself. I suppose I could conclude
that China only exists in my and my friend's brain, yet some inner
certainty tells my that China was pretty much there.
Paul
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>
> >
> >I now look forward to the hanging, drawing and quartering of this, a
> >well-intended message from a social scientist who has a healthy dislike of
> >anthroposophy but has left his body on too many occasions (follwing a very
> >sceptical month practising one of Steiner's exercises) to dismiss it
> >out of hand.
>
> Since I have experienced a few out-of-body sensations, I think there may be
> something to it. But I wonder, even if you have an out-of-body experience,
> does this mean you will perceive what Steiner did? Did you?
>
> Suzanne
>
> Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
> slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
> 303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
> For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
>
>
>
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.9 ---------------
From: atllaw mindspring.com (Stephen Wright)
Subject: Re: Goethean Science -- Acupuncture
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 09:14:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Replying to Lefty's discussion of acrupuncture, DAN DUGAN states
>Lefty, I applaud your clear exposition of the nature of acupuncture. I'm
>confident that when you know more about Anthroposophical medicine, you'll
>form a similar opinion.
>
>-Dan Dugan
>
>
Better yet, Dan, since you apparently know much about anthroposophical
medicine, why don't you yourself write such a clear exposition? I'm sure it
would benefit us all. If you don't, then it allows one to deduce that maybe
you don't know so much about it after all. If that's the case, too bad, I
was really looking forward to some genuine enlightenment for once.
Stephen L. Wright
atllaw mindspring.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n178.10 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Out-of-Body Experiences/Steiner
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:08:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>It can mean that you perceived what Steiner did in as much as what Steiner
>perceived can be perceived by ANYONE. What Steiner perceived did not
>BELONG to him. By confirming his perception we confirm the existence of
>something for ourselves.
What I wanted to know was if one has an out-of-body experience, does that
necessarily mean one will come to the same conclusions as Steiner?
Awhile back I picked up Robert Monroe's book "Journeys Out of the Body" at
a used bookstore. I read parts of it (until I decided it was too creepy for
late night reading). He seems to have written the most on out-of-body
experiences and seems to have attempted to do the most to "test" the
concept.
But I'm not sure that his experience with OOBE necessarily means he would
embrace Steiner's conclusions about the universe. I don't know.
You mentioned OOBEs as a reason why you are keeping an open minded about
Steiner. So I wanted to know more about your own experiences.
Does one have an OOBE and see the same things that Steiner did?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n178 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n179 --------------
001 - mckay oro.net - Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
002 - mckay oro.net - Re: Legal support for anonymity
003 - mckay oro.net - Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
004 - Lefty - Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
005 - Steve Premo >
>> mckay says: yes your experience is limited. Our "private Waldorf School"
>> closed due to it's own bad karma from the "trained" Waldorf teachers. The
>> "public Waldorf School" has the same staff. The difference is it couldn't
>> survive as a typical "faculty lead" private Waldorf school, put with public
>> funding the shame can continue (for now).
>>
>
>This why I think that the only _real_ waldorf school is the privatly
>funded one. Either they are able to adress the needs and concerns of
>non-anthroposophic parents (no school could survive counting only on
>the antroposophic ones in their region) or it will have to close.
>
>State money should only be paied combined with state supervison and
>then it is no longer a waldorf school!
>
>+peter+
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
McKay says: We're agreeing a lot these days! (oh no,whats happening to me!)
But really, I agree with your statement above 100%. See Deby Snell post on
"The Unique Aspect of Twin Ridges". Thanks, David
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.2 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Legal support for anonymity
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:30:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty says: However, that doesn't make
>you any less of a coward for hiding behind anonymity _solely_ for the
>purpose of calling names. The section cited above does not guarantee
>you the right not to be called a coward; sorry. Given your propensity
>to completely and grossly misrepresent others' statements (e.g.,
>Stephen Tonkin's "admission" that anthroposophy was "immune to
>logic"), I can't take your attempts to stake out a moral high ground
>too terribly seriously.
>Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Mckay says: When's all this name calling going to end?! Grow up or get lost!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.3 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:30:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> MCKAY SAYS: Thankyou Suzanne! Now if only Neil, Stephen, Lefty, Peter and
>> any others I may have missed could understand your plain english as I
>> do.... but then there would'nt be any need for this list(which would be OK
>> by me).
>>
>>
>
>To put my point of view clear:
>
>1) A _real_ waldorf school ist not state funded. It is self financed
>or financed by education vouchers which allow parents to freely
>choose the educational system for their children.
>A waldorf school is not inteded to be trageted at an exclusively
>anthroposophic public, it has never inteded to be (the original
>school in Stuttgart/Germany was for the worker's children of a
>cigarette manufacturer, Waldorf-Astoria, this is where the name came
>from, so even the name has nothing anthroposophic).
>
>While anthroposopy is the spiritual basis of the school, it is _not_
>part of the curriculum.
>
>2) If anyone wants to use elements from waldorf education to take
>them into exisiting (public) school systems or to create a new kind
>of school, they may be free to do so. Those schools may then be
>anything, but _not_ waldorf schools. They should not even use the
>designation in their name.
>
>I hope this puts things into perspective again.
>
>+peter+
>
>
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Schwab
>pschwab access.ch
>rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
>Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
McKay says: Thanks for your point of view Peter.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.4 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:45:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D: > wrote >
>
>>So, if the heart _is_ simply a pump, and can be completely abstracted
>>from the rest of the circulatory system so easily, why have the
>>efforts over the past twenty or thirty years to replace this pump with
>>another, artificial one had such poor results? Just curious.
>
>I am not a medical technologist, but I think artificial heart-lung machines
>have been very successful, and saved many lives. They are used routinely
>in most major hospitals.
Only in the very short-term. You cannot keep a person on a heart-lung
machine for any great length of time, and they certainly can't lead
anything remotely resembling a normal life while attached to one.
>My understanding is that small, implantable and portable substitutes are
>still unacceptable for a number of reasons. I think some versions have
>caused occasional clots or damage to blood cells over time. You might just
>as well ask why artificial eyes, lungs or ears are not yet good enough for
>prime time.
Yes, you might. Now, a pump is a fairly basic and well-understood
mechanism; they've been around for thousands of years in a variety of
forms. Again, if the heart is a pump, period, end of story, why is there
such difficulty in coming up with a workable solution for this application?
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.5 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 10:25:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 02:58 PM 11/3/96 -0800, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, RigbyL aol.com wrote >
>
>>It should help those who seem to be stuck in the metaphor "the heart is a
pump"
>>to see how much can be missed by refusing to think more freely.
>
>The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
>counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
>let alone medicine.
I'm confused. If the assertion is "the heart is much more than a pump,"
this may very well be true (although I'm a lawyer, not a doctor). The full
range of functions for any organ may be more than we know. New functions
for internal organs are being discovered all the time, including hormonal,
immunological, and neurological functions.
But if the assertion is "the heart is not a pump and does not move blood
through the body," this would appear completely contrary to the common
understanding of medical science (although again, I'm not a doctor and don't
pretend to fully understand how the heart works).
Which is it?
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:28:41 -0500
{~_~} writes:
> Like the University, there is a one year study on the philosophy of
> different types of education (undergrad), at the college it is limited to
> the writings of Rudolf Steiner, (much like a masters program).
This is extremely disingenuous! While it's certainly possible for a
university student to do a Masters on the educational theory Rousseau
or Dewey or Piaget, this would never be a _prerequisite_ for a
teaching program. It seems to me that what the Waldorf training
institutes are saying is something like "without a full year's
indoctrination in the opinions of Rudolf Steiner (so that our goals
become your goals), we won't admit you to the part of the program
which is concerned directly with education and teaching methods." --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they'd told me
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:14:24 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Rubbish. Show me the quote where I said this or anything like it. The quote
>you posted in another message said nothing about contravening a charter.
You are correct -- I obviously jumped to an unwarranted assumption for
which I unreservedly apologise.
What you stated was:
>I sent my kids to a state-integrated
> school which has legal responsibilities to cater to parents' expressions
> of their needs and desires and problems -- including with the curriculum.
I (obviously erroneously) assumed that these legal responsibilities were
embodied in the charter document. As I appear to have been wrong in
this assumption, could you please:
EITHER
Quote the piece of legislation or other official document which states
that the school your children attend has these responsibilities, giving
also the title and author of the document.
OR
Give the title of the document and an address (and a phone number?) from
where a copy may be obtained.
I am sure you realise that posting this information would enable any
doubt about the veracity of your allegation to be quashed.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:59:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
>>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D: > wrote >
>>
>>>So, if the heart _is_ simply a pump, and can be completely abstracted
>>>from the rest of the circulatory system so easily, why have the
>>>efforts over the past twenty or thirty years to replace this pump with
>>>another, artificial one had such poor results? Just curious.
Daniel said:
>>I am not a medical technologist, but I think artificial heart-lung machines
>>have been very successful, and saved many lives. They are used routinely
>>in most major hospitals.
Lefty said:
>Only in the very short-term. You cannot keep a person on a heart-lung
>machine for any great length of time, and they certainly can't lead
>anything remotely resembling a normal life while attached to one.
Daniel said:
>>My understanding is that small, implantable and portable substitutes are
>>still unacceptable for a number of reasons. I think some versions have
>>caused occasional clots or damage to blood cells over time. You might just
>>as well ask why artificial eyes, lungs or ears are not yet good enough for
>>prime time.
Lefty said:
>Yes, you might. Now, a pump is a fairly basic and well-understood
>mechanism; they've been around for thousands of years in a variety of
>forms. Again, if the heart is a pump, period, end of story, why is there
>such difficulty in coming up with a workable solution for this application?
McKay says: Stupid statement, You can't put a water pump made for a Honda
Civic in a Cadilac nor would you use either of these in a human! Our bodies
and body tissues are very specialized, they are very fussy about what's
put in them. The fact that the body rejects most artificial hearts put into
it _doesn't_ support any arguement that the heart is not a pump. If you
think that blood circulates thru the body on its own, then have yours
removed and see what happens!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.9 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:27:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mon, 04 Nov 1996, premo cruzio.com (Steve Premo) wrote >
(1)
>I'm confused. If the assertion is "the heart is much more than a pump,"
>this may very well be true (although I'm a lawyer, not a doctor). The full
>range of functions for any organ may be more than we know. New functions
>for internal organs are being discovered all the time, including hormonal,
>immunological, and neurological functions.
(2)
>But if the assertion is "the heart is not a pump and does not move blood
>through the body," this would appear completely contrary to the common
>understanding of medical science (although again, I'm not a doctor and don't
>pretend to fully understand how the heart works).
>
>Which is it?
I'm amazed that Anthroposophy staunchly maintains (2), and concerned that
it repeatedly turns up in Waldorf student workbooks.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n179.10 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:17:30 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>At 02:58 PM 11/3/96 -0800, Daniel Sabsay wrote: (Steve Premo's repost
>response)
>>On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, RigbyL aol.com wrote >
>>
>>>It should help those who seem to be stuck in the metaphor "the heart is a
>pump"
>>>to see how much can be missed by refusing to think more freely.
>>
>>The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
>>counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
>>let alone medicine.
Steve Premo said:
>I'm confused. If the assertion is "the heart is much more than a pump,"
>this may very well be true (although I'm a lawyer, not a doctor). The full
>range of functions for any organ may be more than we know. New functions
>for internal organs are being discovered all the time, including hormonal,
>immunological, and neurological functions.
>
>But if the assertion is "the heart is not a pump and does not move blood
>through the body," this would appear completely contrary to the common
>understanding of medical science (although again, I'm not a doctor and don't
>pretend to fully understand how the heart works).
>
>Which is it?
>
McKay asks; Steve could you clairify whom is making what "assertion" above?
You seem to imply that Daniel has made one or both of them, of which I have
seen neither made by Daniel in the way you have stated these assertions.
David McKay
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n179 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n180 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin - Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
006 - JoAnn Schwartz - Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
010 - Steve Premo
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:33:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>Sure, it's probably March 16 '97. We'll remove all sharp objects
[snip]
OK, kiwis, it's guessing time -- who's going to be allowed to keep his
wits?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:59:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Daniel Sabsay writes
> You might just
>as well ask why artificial eyes, lungs or ears are not yet good enough for
>prime time.
Well, that's a blatant non-sequitur -- unless you are subliminally
asserting that the eye is a camera, the lungs are sponge-filled balloons
and the ears are microphones -- all about as logical as the heart being
a pump.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.3 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert Flannery)
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 16:41:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Deby says,
>The problem, as I see it, is there is no difference at all between public
>and private, except public Waldorf has *lots* more money, and they have
>opened the door for valid public scrutiny.
Please correct me if I am off-base on this, Deby: The problem may be that
you are involved in the Mariposa/Twin Ridges situation. That's why
clarification is necessary. In your case, a private school was
transplanted into the public domain, in effect. I could then understand
why you might say that you see no difference at all between public and
private waldorf. The same people appear to be making the decisions, the
same faces are in the classrooms, many of the same students are filling
those grades.
>The Waldorf public schools
>*insist* on hiring or training Anthroposophical Specialists and calling
>them teachers.
Aren't they entitled to hire whoever they feel is qualified to teach their
pedagogy?
> Many families who are attracted to public Waldorf, but not private
>Waldorf, come because they liked the methodology and the idea of teaching
>in blocks, etc., but can't stomach the Anthroposophical doctrine and dogma
>in private Waldorf.
If Mariposa taught anthroposophy in the classroom, they were out of line
with what happens in every waldorf school I'm familiar with. I have
noticed, however, that a significant number of critics make this claim, so
I have to assume (sorry, David) it does happen.
>Laws, like charter schools *must* meet state
>performance standards, that *all* charter schools must be non-sectarian,
>offer some kind of "insurance" plan for their child(rens) education. Not to
>mention the idea that parents *think* the public systems would *never*
>sponsor a school of Anthroposophical nature.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, here. Are you trying to
say that one function of the California Charter Committee is to protect you
from anthroposophy?
>
> BUT, they get to the school and find all the same dogma, IF NOT MORE, than
>they found at the private Waldorf school. Why ?? Because, IMNSHO, in
>private Waldorf schools, the teachers need to [somewhat] please the parents
>or they do not get a paycheck. Money is tied to enrollment. Customer
>service *must* be important. Not so in public schools. The pay is
>guarenteed.They do not *care* if you pull your child out. About 60 families
>left our public Waldorf school last year. Unfortunately, new people come to
>replace them. They may not stay long, but they stay long enough to secure
>funding from the school district that sponsors the school.
This is interesting, but I need help from you in clarifying: What are the
circumstances of both your private and public school experience? If you
are talking about Mariposa?Twin Ridges, and the faculty was essentially the
same in both cases, anyone working dogmatically might feel freed up in just
the way you describe. But without more details, it remains speculative.
>Most parents of Waldorf
>students do not know just how limited the teacher training is. When they
>find out, they will not be pleased. The teacher training content is a best
>kept secret.
Most parents of waldorf students do not know much about teacher training.
But I cannot agree that most of those parents would describe it as
"limited": After all, that training is informing what happens in the
classrooms, which they do support.
>I do not judge Anthroposophical beliefs. I do not judge *any* spiritual
>belief system. I judge dishonesty. I judge deception.
>
>Deby Snell
If you saw dishonesty and deception at Mariposa, and the same people went
on to Twin Ridges, why did you enroll again there?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:36:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>I'm confused. If the assertion is "the heart is much more than a pump,"
>this may very well be true (although I'm a lawyer, not a doctor). The full
>range of functions for any organ may be more than we know. New functions
>for internal organs are being discovered all the time, including hormonal,
>immunological, and neurological functions.
>
>But if the assertion is "the heart is not a pump and does not move blood
>through the body," this would appear completely contrary to the common
>understanding of medical science (although again, I'm not a doctor and don't
>pretend to fully understand how the heart works).
Right now, at this point in my life, it doesn't really matter to me whether
or not the heart is a pump. It's not something I concern myself with.
But as I posted earlier, a friend had just one conversation with a Waldorf
teacher and heard about the heart not being a pump.
Is the heart not being a pump a major tenet of Waldorf and Anthroposophy?
If not, why does it come up in conversation and in the classroom? And if it
is, what is the significance of this observation?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.5 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:54:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>McKay says: Stupid statement, You can't put a water pump made for a Honda
>Civic in a Cadilac nor would you use either of these in a human! Our bodies
>and body tissues are very specialized, they are very fussy about what's
>put in them. The fact that the body rejects most artificial hearts put into
>it _doesn't_ support any arguement that the heart is not a pump.
You're begging the question. No one is suggesting putting a Cadillac water
pump in a person. Issues of tissue rejection are not a major concern with
artificial materials, by the way. Mechanical have _not_ failed because
they were rejected.
>If you think that blood circulates thru the body on its own, then have yours
>removed and see what happens!
I don't believe that I've argued that. Correct me if I'm mistaken, and be
sure to quote me. I don't think I'll get into the childishness of this
response or of most of your postings.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.6 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz
Subject: Re: Official Waldorf Curriculum (Was Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:09:04 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Deby and Michael needn't get so hot and bothered that Peter cited a
German book. The book Peter mentioned is out in English as:
Childhood : A Study of the Growing Child
by Caroline Von Heydebrand , Daphne Harwrback (translator)
- 10.95
Published by Anthroposopic Press, Sept. 95
ISBN: 0880102691
I found it quite easily with the author's last name at www.amazon.com
I also have it on the shelf at home.
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, parent at the Detroit Waldorf School
Detroit, Mi USA
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.7 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: quoting long messages
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:19:00 -0500
Could we all please consolidate our comments into fewer messages, and
quote a bit less? This weekend we all received a dozen or so messages
like the following, with a long quotation followed by a one-liner.
For the first time I was unable to get through the w.c. list during
lunch hour. I feel sorry for those with limited disk space.
Thanks, --lee
mckay oro.net writes:
> >>
[fifty or so lines here]
>
> McKay says: Thanks for your point of view Peter.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.8 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Out-of-Body-Experiences--Steiner
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:43:56 -0500
Suzanne, you described reading Robert Munroe's book "Journeys Out of the
Body," and posed the question, " Does one have an OOBE and see the same
things that Steiner did?"
I have also found Munroe's books to be interesting and readable. If you also
read the next two books--"Further Journeys" and "Ultimate Journey"--you will
see a pattern of maturation in his interpretation of his experiences, plus
description of the work of the research institute he started to induce and
analyze OOBE's.
I don't know whether you are familiar with the work of John Lilly, but it is
relevant to your question. Lilly was an MD who began investigating the
nature of intelligence through research with dolphins, including anatomical
research that required dissection of their brains. After a period of
research he decided this approach was unethical. He released the animals and
turned to using himself as the research subject. Using LSD (at the time
legal for research purposes) and an isolation tank (sensory deprivation
through partial submersion in body-temperature water) to induce what we would
now call an OOBE. Over many such experiments he found that the content of
the OOBE was strongly conditioned by the beliefs and expectations he took
into it.
Lilly developed a principle out of his experiences, which I recall as the
following: "What you believe to be true either is true or will become true
within limits determined by your experiences; those limits are beliefs to be
transcended through further experience." Most of us would acknowledge that
perception is conditioned by belief systems and one doesn't have to look
beyond this list to find examples. But Lilly was saying that when you
venture into the realms that he did--whether you want to call this an OOBE or
a venture into the spiritual world or a plunge into your own
subconscious--what you believe to be true is very likely to be experienced.
I have found a variety of other contemporary metaphysical
writings--particularly those purporting to be channeled messages-- that
include the same theme. In fact, several explicitly state that we create our
own reality, meaning the everyday, "ordinary" reality we experience, not just
what we might experience during an OOBE. I believe you will also find this
theme in Monroe's writing, particularly if you read all three books.
So, from these sources the answer to your question would be "No." You would
not expect to experience what Steiner experienced, because you carry into the
experience your own patterns of thinking, feeling and willing. Moreover,
when you bring your experience back into your ordinary consciousness, you
will naturally describe it (to yourself as well as others) in the terms that
are most familiar to you, so again subjectivity enters into it.
By the same token, this idea that you condition your own experiences means
that you can learn how to develop a measure of control over an OOBE. Lilly
learned how to set himself up for certain kinds of experiences. Munroe
didn't seek out the experience at all to begin with, but after it happened to
him he decided that he had better learn how to do it, and his books describe
that learning process. It originally happened spontaneously to Steiner as
well, and I have often wished that we had a similar description of his
experiences as he learned to cope with it.
In my experience, followers of Steiner generally regard the "artificial"
techniques of entering an OOBE--that is, assisted by drugs or devices--as
reckless and even dangerous. The subsidiary exercises of Steiner are
intended to help prepare for "crossing the threshold" into the spiritual
world as well as to help bring stronger consciousness to the material world.
Without preparing yourself with such exercises, many would say, you are
setting yourself up for some bad encounters, even trips from which you may
not return.
But if you scan the shelves of the Metaphysical section of a bookstore, you
will see that these encounters seem to be happening to quite a few people,
prepared or not, and they are usually positive. (At least the ones that find
their way into print are.) Given the subjectivity of the experiences I don't
expect these accounts to tell exactly the same story, and they don't. But
there certainly are some common themes, and that could be taken as evidence
of an objective spiritual reality "out there." At the same time, a
rationalist critic would be quick to point out that the common themes could
well be the result of taking common belief systems into the experience.
For myself, I regard all such accounts, including Steiner's, as metaphorical.
I really have no other rational choice, since I have not had such
experiences. Sometimes I think of them as in the nature of a report by a
traveler returned from some strange distant country. Just as there are
people I wouldn't trust to tell me accurately what is happening on the other
side of the block, there are "travelers" whose accounts I don't value highly.
Among those to which I do pay attention--which includes Munroe, Lilly,
Steiner and several others--I find it an enjoyable exercise to seek out the
common ground, and thus to imagine what really might be out there.
If you are seriously interested in this topic I would be glad to give you a
list of my favorite sources and talk further about them, but we better do
this by private e-mail. Even though your reference to Steiner in this
context is apt, we are likely to be wandering off the focus of this list.
Best wishes,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.9 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:47:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>>I do not judge Anthroposophical beliefs. I do not judge *any* spiritual
>>belief system. I judge dishonesty. I judge deception.
>
>
>If you saw dishonesty and deception at Mariposa, and the same people went
>on to Twin Ridges, why did you enroll again there?
This is an excellent question, and one I've been wondering about myself.
Deby has told us that she was on the board of the Mariposa school for a
year and a half, while it was busy melting down, apparently mostly due to
sloppy financial practices. I would assume that, as a board member, you
had a fairly good grasp of what the school was about in terms of its
orientation towards anthroposophy, etc. It's difficult for me to imagine
that you could claim to have been deceived about the nature of the school.
I'm also very curious as to whether Deby was actively involved in the
charter effort that led to the formation of the Twin Ridges school.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n180.10 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 14:53:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:17 PM 11/4/96 -0800, mckay oro.net wrote:
>
>>At 02:58 PM 11/3/96 -0800, Daniel Sabsay wrote: (Steve Premo's repost
>>response)
>>>On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, RigbyL aol.com wrote
>>>>
>>>>It should help those who seem to be stuck in the metaphor "the heart
>>>>is a pump" to see how much can be missed by refusing to think more freely.
>>>
>>>The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
>>>counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
>>>let alone medicine.
>
>Steve Premo said:
>>I'm confused. . . . .
>>
>McKay asks; Steve could you clairify whom is making what "assertion" above?
>You seem to imply that Daniel has made one or both of them, of which I have
>seen neither made by Daniel in the way you have stated these assertions.
OK.
Rigby said, "It should help those who seem to be stuck in the metaphor 'the
heart is a pump' to see how much can be missed by refusing to think more
freely."
Daniel said, "The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
let alone medicine."
I said, "I'm confused. . . ."
You have to count those little ">" marks. Actually, for the system to work
properly (for me anyway) it would be most helpful for this article to have
started:
At 12:17 PM 11/4/96 -0800, mckay oro.net wrote:
>
>At 10:25 PM 11/4/96 Steve Premo wrote:
>>
>>At 02:58 PM 11/3/96 -0800, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
>>>
>>>On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, RigbyL aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (Rigby's quote)
>>>
>>> (Daniel's response)
>>
>> (Steve's response)
>
> (David's response)
Although it does get confusing carried to this extreme, with four levels, my
prior post only had two levels:
At 02:58 PM 11/3/96 -0800, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
>
>On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, RigbyL aol.com wrote
>>
>> (Rigby's quote)
>
> (Daniel's quote)
As for who said "the heart is not a pump," I believe that was Steiner. At
least that is what I have heard asserted on this list, although I do not
recall who made that assertion. I also don't recall who started this thread
or named it "the heart is much more than a pump."
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n180 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n181 --------------
001 - Lee Story USG - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n178
007 - {~_~} - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n178
008 - snell oro.net - Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
009 - {~_~} - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n179
010 - RigbyL aol.com - The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.1 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:11:29 -0500
Suzanne Lainson writes:
> Is the heart not being a pump a major tenet of Waldorf and Anthroposophy?
> If not, why does it come up in conversation and in the classroom? And if it
> is, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS OBSERVATION?
[capitalization mine --l]
Ok folks, this apparent "old chestnut" has recycled in the muddy
vortex of discussion many times, and I'm no closer to understanding
it. What -IS- the significance? Is it supposed to say, in a sly and
metaphorical way, that "living things are oftentimes much more
complicated mechanically than we realize"? That's okay, but why not
say it, instead of just repeating a possibly-erroneous example? Or
perhaps "living things cannot be reduced to mechanical descriptions at
all"? Perhaps not, but the action of the heart as a "pump" would seem
to be a significant -part- of its total function. Accepting a
complete holism or non-reductionism---that -no- partial, analogical
explanation should be attempted---would seem to rule out every path to
knowledge of nature except for revelation; and like all such
unverifiable negatives, it would seem to require a leap of faith, and
therefore be grossly inappropriate in classroom instruction.
Perhaps someone (Stephen...want to try it) can explicate "the
anthroposophical heart-koan"? Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.2 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 16:05:30 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>McKay says: Stupid statement, You can't put a water pump made for a Honda
>>Civic in a Cadilac nor would you use either of these in a human! Our bodies
>>and body tissues are very specialized, they are very fussy about what's
>>put in them. The fact that the body rejects most artificial hearts put into
>>it _doesn't_ support any arguement that the heart is not a pump.
David Schelesinger says:
You're begging the question. No one is suggesting putting a Cadillac water
>pump in a person. Issues of tissue rejection are not a major concern with
>artificial materials, by the way. Mechanical have _not_ failed because
>they were rejected.
McKay says:
>>If you think that blood circulates thru the body on its own, then have yours
>>removed and see what happens!
David Schelesinger says:
>I don't believe that I've argued that. Correct me if I'm mistaken, and be
>sure to quote me. I don't think I'll get into the childishness of this
>response or of most of your postings.
McKay says: you're free to think what you want, but your put down and
obvious lack of respect for the unnessary bad/negative experiences a lot of
us have had with Waldorf education reminds me of why I'd never go back and
don't have much good to say about Waldorf/Anthroposophy. The childishness
seems to be in the way you respond to anyones post that doesn't agree with
your way of thinking or saying things, (a typical Anthropop
vailing/diversion). You created the statement that I responded to and any
idiot can see what you said. You also jump to the conclusion that I said
you argued for something I never said you did, that in reference to _my_
statement "The fact that the body rejects most artificial hearts put into
it _doesn't_ support *any* arguement...." NOTICE I said *any* not you or
Lefty or David Schelesinger. Wether any artificial hearts have been
rejected or not isn't the main point here.
You also conveniently left out the sentence that preceeded that "Our bodies
and body tissue...". Again I think you're more into crase put downs than
really saying anything constructive. As I've said before on this list, if
what me and others say is at times unargueable because it is the true
reporting of an actual experience, then don't say anything if you don't
have anything good (or constructive) to say!
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.3 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:50:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby Snell said:
>>>I do not judge Anthroposophical beliefs. I do not judge *any* spiritual
>>>belief system. I judge dishonesty. I judge deception.
>>
I don't know who said this:
>>If you saw dishonesty and deception at Mariposa, and the same people went
>>on to Twin Ridges, why did you enroll again there?
McKay says: How do you tell or warn a school district about such facts
without sounding preju
David Schelesinger said:
>This is an excellent question, and one I've been wondering about myself.
>Deby has told us that she was on the board of the Mariposa school for a
>year and a half, while it was busy melting down, apparently mostly due to
>sloppy financial practices. I would assume that, as a board member, you
>had a fairly good grasp of what the school was about in terms of its
>orientation towards anthroposophy, etc. It's difficult for me to imagine
>that you could claim to have been deceived about the nature of the school.
McKay says: there you go "assuming" again! Have you read Debys post of
Sat., Nov. 2nd?
David Schelesinger said:
>I'm also very curious as to whether Deby was actively involved in the
>charter effort that led to the formation of the Twin Ridges school.
>
McKay says: yes she was, and so was I! We were _very clear_ that what we
and other parents wanted was a Waldorf Inspired charter school. The Trouble
is in the fact that as soon as anyone brings up Waldorf, all the "official"
Waldorf people come and say "you're not properly trained in
Waldorf/Anthroposophy" , "it wouldn't be Waldorf", their right, but we
didn't want "pure Waldorf", we at the time wanted aspects of Waldorf along
with aspects of other educational practices. Now I doubt that I'd ever even
mention (or use) Waldorf as the same thing would happen again. I was on the
Charter Council(charter Board), Parent Council Site Commitee, etc. I've
posted info previously on this.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.4 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:24:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Daniel Sabsay writes
>> You might just
>>as well ask why artificial eyes, lungs or ears are not yet good enough for
>>prime time.
Stephen T. said:
>Well, that's a blatant non-sequitur -- unless you are subliminally
>asserting that the eye is a camera, the lungs are sponge-filled balloons
>and the ears are microphones -- all about as logical as the heart being
>a pump.
Mckay asks: Tonkin, is this a joke? or have I just not heard the latest
scientific breakthrough on the heart not being a pump!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.5 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:24:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Steve Premo said:
>>>I'm confused. . . . .
>>>
>>McKay asks; Steve could you clairify whom is making what "assertion" above?
>>You seem to imply that Daniel has made one or both of them, of which I have
>>seen neither made by Daniel in the way you have stated these assertions.
Steve replied:
>OK.
[snip]
Thankyou Steve, David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.6 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n178
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:10:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
> Subject: Science is supposed to prove what man can think?
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:04:38 -0800
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Sunday, November 3, El (allure netcom.com) wrote >
>
> > I always thought that if man can think it that the task of
> >Science was to prove or disprove...
> Dear El,
> If you care to think about Mickey Mouse, science isn't concerned with how
> much common sense you are exhibiting. Nor am I.
Perhaps Daniel,
Then why would the Federal Government want to spend tons of money
testing how long it takes ketchup to flow out of a bottle? Seems they are
interested in Micky Mouse, and anything else in the universe.
> If a large drug company sells a liquid that is supposed to act as an
> antiseptic, or prevent gangrene, etc., then they are responsible (and
> liable) for the scientific tests that give them reason to assert this. In
> particular, they are responsible to test a sample of each manufactured
> batch for safety and efficacy.
I also must say that more people in this country are addicted to
pharmaceuticals drugs that supposedly are safe than illegal drugs.
Further, more of the these supposedly safe drugs seem to cause many side
affects which renders them unsafe by most standards. Some say it is in
the production habits by the companies.
> Purveyors of homeopathic "remedies" claim this is not necessary for their
> product. Go figure.
I have a friend, who is right now, in the jungles of South America looking
for a plant that he hopes will cure AIDS. Considering most of our
pharmaceuticals come from plants I think it is a worthwhile study.
I know in California you need a prescription for homeopathic remedies.
I will say that what I have read of Anthroposophical medicine all things
are useful, I can't imagine any doctor saying "well you got hit by a car
take these homeopathic remedies and forget the emergency room."
Although a very dear friends husband just came out of the hospital with a
lot more than when he went into it... not to mention how wonderful the
staff was to his sore needs while he was there. He said, "I think they
treat you like that so you don't come back."
If you are indeed a skeptic than I would think you'd be skeptic of the drug
companies and institutions of human care as well, no?
NTL I think we will just end up going around on this issue. There are
pros and cons and the debate is a long time coming on both sides at present.
Experience teaches best, not everything is for everyone.
Ain't it wonderful!
Best Wishes,
-El
************************************************************************
With intellectuals you always talk about the same things: they're a lot
of bores, they're never generous, never ready to forgive, to understand,
to learn from other people. -Anna Magnani
************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.7 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n178
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:21:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> What I wanted to know was if one has an out-of-body experience, does that
> necessarily mean one will come to the same conclusions as Steiner?
Dr. Steiner did not condone OBE, channeling, or thoughtless meditation,
So I would say no.
Best Wishes
-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.8 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Public Waldorf Teaching
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:45:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Deby says,
>>The problem, as I see it, is there is no difference at all between public
>>and private,
Please correct me if I am off-base on this, Deby: The problem may be that
you are involved in the Mariposa/Twin Ridges situation. That's why
>clarification is necessary. In your case, a private school was
>transplanted into the public domain, in effect. I could then understand
>why you might say that you see no difference at all between public and
>private waldorf. The same people appear to be making the decisions, the
>same faces are in the classrooms, many of the same students are filling
>those grades.
Robert,
You are correct that I saw no difference between the private and public
Waldorf school *we* were involved with because of the same teachers,
parents, and students. However, I have read about other Waldorf charter
schools, and parent/teacher/community concerns seems
about the same. (See Charter for Indoctrination ? Why one school teacher
gives Waldorf an 'F'; Rob Bosten, Americans United for separation of church
and state newsletter, Spring 1996. Can be found on PLANS web site
)
The CTU in San Diego, Ca. has made similar allegations in their lawsuit
against the school district that sponsored The Harriet Tubman Villiage
school.
>>The Waldorf public schools
>>*insist* on hiring or training Anthroposophical Specialists and calling
>>them teachers.
>
>Aren't they entitled to hire whoever they feel is qualified to teach their
>pedagogy?
In a private school, they can do anything they want, but the First
Amendment precludes propagating religious beliefs in public schools.
Insisting teachers be trained in Anthroposophical pedagogy is a violation
of the separation of church and state law. I would not want to see
Anthroposophists discriminated against, but I do not wish to see people who
do not hold Anthroposophy as their belief system discriminated against
either.It is unlawful to insist that a public school teacher obtain
religious/spiritual instruction in order to get a job as a school teacher.
These schools are simply not legally fundable as a public entity.
>> Many families who are attracted to public Waldorf, but not private
>>Waldorf, come because they liked the methodology and the idea of teaching
>>in blocks, etc., but can't stomach the Anthroposophical doctrine and dogma
>>in private Waldorf.
>
>If Mariposa taught anthroposophy in the classroom, they were out of line
>with what happens in every waldorf school I'm familiar with. I have
>noticed, however, that a significant number of critics make this claim, so
>I have to assume (sorry, David) it does happen.
The morning verses are Anthroposophical. Nature tables, candles,
Michaelmas, Martinmas, Christmas (acting out the story of baby Jesus),
history, eurithmy, wet-on-wet color meditation, the four temperments,
limiting books sold at public school fund raisersto the Anthroposophic
Press Catalog, recognising _only_ Anthroposophical remedial evaluation and
tutoring. There is more, but you get my point. The Anthroposophical
underpinnings are enough to make them illegally funded.
>>Laws, like charter schools *must* meet state
>>performance standards, that *all* charter schools must be non-sectarian,
>>offer some kind of "insurance" plan for their child(rens) education. Not to
>>mention the idea that parents *think* the public systems would *never*
>>sponsor a school of Anthroposophical nature.
>
>
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, here. Are you trying to
>say that one function of the California Charter Committee is to protect you
>from anthroposophy?
I am not certain of your question. Who is the California Charter Committee ?
>
>>
>> BUT, they get to the school and find all the same dogma, IF NOT MORE, than
>>they found at the private Waldorf school. Why ?? Because, IMNSHO, in
>>private Waldorf schools, the teachers need to [somewhat] please the parents
>>or they do not get a paycheck. Money is tied to enrollment. Customer
>>service *must* be important. Not so in public schools. The pay is
>>guarenteed.They do not *care* if you pull your child out. About 60 families
>>left our public Waldorf school last year. Unfortunately, new people come to
>>replace them. They may not stay long, but they stay long enough to secure
>>funding from the school district that sponsors the school.
>
>This is interesting, but I need help from you in clarifying: What are the
>circumstances of both your private and public school experience? If you
>are talking about Mariposa?Twin Ridges, and the faculty was essentially the
>same in both cases, anyone working dogmatically might feel freed up in just
>the way you describe. But without more details, it remains speculative.
Well, I sit here with sooo many instances, that it seems overwhelming to
begin to type them (especially for a plucker like me). I am also trying to
figure out _why_ this is important to you, or what kind of examples you are
asking for...maybe it is late. I was involved on a daily basis almost all
of my waking hours for almost two years. Board members were interviewed by
the IRS; our homes and businesses were on the line. It was intense. I dealt
with everything from faculty not getting to school on time to letters from
lawyers alleging civil rights violations toward a gay parent, to the County
Building Department Head's request _not_ to communicate with the faculty
rep., because he would not be co-operative to landlords who were lied to,
to levied bank accounts, deceptive solisitation of money from parents, to
standing up in front of the entire school parent body to tell them what the
board had discovered, and the implications of our discovery for the school,
then 14 years old.
>
>
>>Most parents of Waldorf
>>students do not know just how limited the teacher training is. When they
>>find out, they will not be pleased. The teacher training content is a best
>>kept secret.
>
>Most parents of waldorf students do not know much about teacher training.
>But I cannot agree that most of those parents would describe it as
>"limited": After all, that training is informing what happens in the
>classrooms, which they do support.
Well, here I am looking like that and talking for other people.You may very
well be right. Sorry. I certainly was no longer confused about low academic
achievement in both of_my_ sons' classes.
>
>
>>I do not judge Anthroposophical beliefs. I do not judge *any* spiritual
>>belief system. I judge dishonesty. I judge deception.
>>
>>Deby Snell
>
If you saw dishonesty and deception at Mariposa, and the same people went
on to Twin Ridges, why did you enroll again there?
Well, both children had different teachers than they had at Mariposa. (And
actually, I liked my older son's teacher very much.) I had difficulty with
_the faculty as a whole, from a board, parent, and community member view.
But never did I question their intentions. I still don't. They truely
believed that they were doing what was best.
At the time, I was truely convinced that the public governance would
_never_ tolerate the kinds of things that went on at Mariposa. I did not
know the scope of Anthroposophy. I thought it was dysfunctional teachers,
not necessarily the Waldorf system.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.9 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n179
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:54:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> From: Lee Story USG
> Subject: Communication / 2 Posts (saving space)
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:28:41 -0500
> {~_~} writes:
> > Like the University, there is a one year study on the philosophy of
> > different types of education (undergrad), at the college it is limited to
> > the writings of Rudolf Steiner, (much like a masters program).
>
> This is extremely disingenuous! While it's certainly possible for a
> university student to do a Masters on the educational theory Rousseau
> or Dewey or Piaget, this would never be a _prerequisite_ for a
> teaching program. It seems to me that what the Waldorf training
> institutes are saying is something like "without a full year's
> indoctrination in the opinions of Rudolf Steiner (so that our goals
> become your goals), we won't admit you to the part of the program
> which is concerned directly with education and teaching methods." --lee
If I wanted to teach at a Piaget, Rousseau, or a Montisorri School I would
indeed hope to understand as much of their own personal philosophy and
development. I would want to know how, though their research, they came to
the model of their approach or Philosophy of Education. It amazes me that in
the public schools today, (which are modeled after Dewy) how few
teachers really know what Dewy had in mind. So I believe knowing
ones roots in Education is very worth while.
On the other hand many of the Waldorf Institutes have designed programs
for those who would like to understand the teaching methods for their
own use in other places of education, outside of a Waldorf School. It can
be applied without the intensive understanding.
I have talked to public school educators who say, "I can't get enough of
this Steiner." Some, of their own free will, will venture into the more
philosophical aspects of this education and decide for themselves whether
this is worthwhile for them. What is so exciting is that there is so much
in the world to choose from and what is even more exciting is that we take
on the responsibility in choosing. I hope this help.
Best Wishes -El
**************************************************************************
"Albert Einstein was once asked, "What will make a brilliant child?" His
answer was, "Tell him fairy tales." Asked again, "What would make a
really brilliant child?" His answer, "Tell him more fairy tales."
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n181.10 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:30:28 -0500
In a recent posting I made reference to those who seem to be stuck in the
metaphor "the heart is a pump" and Dan Sabsay obligingly responded...
"The heart is a pump. Refusing to accept this basic FACT is
counterproductive and would disqualify anyone from a career in philosophy,
let alone medicine."
...thus providing an excellent example of being stuck in a metaphor.
To say "the heart is a pump" is a metaphor. As has pointed out by others
here, the heart is an organ in the body that functions in rather complex
interactions with other structures in the body. Perhaps it will help to
convert the metaphor to a simile: "The heart, in relation to the circulation
of blood, is similar to a pump that circulates fluid through a system of
pipes."
Obviously, this was a very important contribution to understanding human
physiology when William Harvey made it 300 years ago. But it is still a
metaphor (or simile, in the latter version). Stephen Tonkin provided a good
description of how much more there is to be considered about the circulatory
system, in his description of what he teaches about it. "To be stuck in the
metaphor" means losing sight of all of this additional complexity, seeing
heart and circulatory system as essentially the same thing as--not just
"similar to"--a pump and pipes.
Now, Deby pointed out, in chastising Stephen for his snidely comment on Dan
S's reply, that Dan S also said, "Understanding this basic fact does not
limit anyone from appreciating the beauty and complexity of the body." We
may take this to be a clue that Dan S does in fact recognize that the
circulatory system does have complexity (and beauty, to be sure) that is not
conveyed by the model of "the heart is a pump." But his first reflex
reaction was not that.
In the work of Theodor Schwenk I cited earlier ("Sensitive Chaos"), Schwenk
said that if you understand the natural patterns of flow that develop in a
fluid, you will not need to imagine the heart as a pump in order to
understand its form and function. Schwenk did not say that the heart does
not add impetus to the blood flowing through it. He was drawing attention to
another phenomenon--the manner in which the form and action of the heart
represents an organic expression of flow patterns.
The significance of this observation can be understood by considering the
discussion that has occurred here about the difficulty of designing a
dependable artificial heart. A major part of the problem, as I understand
it, is avoiding any kind of "backwater" effect in the artificial heart; that
is, a region in which the blood becomes stagnant and coagulates. In other
words, the problem is designing a heart that matches the natural flow
patterns to the same degree that a natural heart does. In this regard it is
relevant to note that circulation occurs in an embryo prior to development of
a heart. It seems logical to hypothesize that the form and function of the
heart develop in response to the pre-existing flow pattern, explaining why
the developed organ reflects the flow pattern.
My best take on the situation is that the heart is an exceptionally efficient
pump, due to the extent to which its shape and action accord with the flow
patterns of the blood. In this sense, the blood affects the heart to the
same extent the heart affects the blood.
Steve Premo noted that the essential question (that is, essential for
determining whether there is something really to dispute) is whether or not
the heart moves blood through the body. Dan S asserted that Anthroposophy
staunchly maintains that it does not and Dan D made the somewhat milder
statement "My understanding is that in Anthroposophy the mechanical function
of the
heart is as a regulator of the flow of the blood, the blood moving by itself.
It also has a spiritual, "etherising" function."
I would be interested in seeing any statement that would carry the authority
of Anthroposophy--say, from the Anthroposophical Society in America, AWSNA,
or the General Anthroposophical Society--to the effect that blood moves by
itself. I would be even more interested in a statement of similar authority
that says this should be taught in Waldorf schools.
Dan S also said that the statement that the heart does not move blood through
the body "repeatedly turns up in Waldorf student workbooks." Given his
difficulty in moving beyond the metaphor, I would have to wonder if the
workbook statements might be more along the lines of the heart is not only a
pump. But I certainly can't rule out the possibility that some Waldorf
teachers, somewhere, are teaching that blood moves by itself. If so, in my
judgment they are doing Waldorf education and their students a disservice.
Finally, I think it is foolish to make "the heart is a pump" (in either its
positive or negative form) an article of faith, whether it is used as such by
a True Believer or a True Non-Believer. Articles of faith have no place in
Anthroposophy, in which the fundamental approach to knowledge is the Goethean
principle of direct personal observation.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n181 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n182 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: reply to Thandi
002 - DanielSabsay earthlink.ne - Drug Intelligence
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Things I wish they told...
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Whole Language/Phonetics
005 - DanielSabsay earthlink.ne - Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re:
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Waldorf curriculum resources
008 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Water Memory (Sub-Thread of Goethean Science)
009 - RigbyL aol.com - Responsibility to Prove Claims
010 - DanielSabsay earthlink.ne - homeopathic intelligence
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: reply to Thandi
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:11:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
PETER SCHWAB
>What do you [want] to achieve with all those efforts???
DAN DUGAN
"Outing" Waldorf education, so parents will know what they're getting into
in private schools, and school boards will say "no thank you" to
Waldorf-inspired schools.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.2 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: Drug Intelligence
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:14:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Monday 4 Nov 1996: allure netcom.com (El) wrote >
>I also must say that more people in this country are addicted to
>pharmaceuticals drugs that supposedly are safe than illegal drugs.
>Further, more of the these supposedly safe drugs seem to cause many side
>affects which renders them unsafe by most standards.
Boy, the secret is out now. Does this mean that you know of some
alternatives the doctors haven't figured out yet?
>Some say it is in the production habits by the companies.
Let's see, conspiracy and paranoia. Let's go for three: Those stupid,
greedy doctors.
>I have a friend, who is right now, in the jungles of South America looking
>for a plant that he hopes will cure AIDS. Considering most of our
>pharmaceuticals come from plants I think it is a worthwhile study.
I'm glad he has you on his side.
>I know in California you need a prescription for homeopathic remedies.
Really?
>I will say that what I have read of Anthroposophical medicine all things
>are useful, I can't imagine any doctor saying "well you got hit by a car
>take these homeopathic remedies and forget the emergency room."
Does this mean something?
>Although a very dear friends husband just came out of the hospital with a
>lot more than when he went into it... not to mention how wonderful the
>staff was to his sore needs while he was there. He said, "I think they
>treat you like that so you don't come back."
>
>If you are indeed a skeptic than I would think you'd be skeptic of the drug
>companies and institutions of human care as well, no?
Perhaps you could explain this?
>NTL I think we will just end up going around on this issue. There are
>pros and cons and the debate is a long time coming on both sides at present.
>Experience teaches best, not everything is for everyone.
>Ain't it wonderful!
It's wonderful you're not practicing medicine.
>With intellectuals you always talk about the same things: they're a lot
>of bores, they're never generous, never ready to forgive, to understand,
>to learn from other people. -Anna Magnani
I'll say this, El, you're not boring, but I'm sorry the educational system
has been so ill suited to your needs.
-- Best Wishes,
Daniel Sabsay
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:11:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
STEPHEN TONKIN
>In the sense of a prescriptive curriculum like, say, our
>National Curriculum, there is no official Waldorf curriculum.
Stephen, in the light of the uniformity of Waldorf practice world-wide
(they even tell the same stories and paint the same pictures) this
statement reveals a, may I dare say, cult-like propensity to redefine the
English language.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Whole Language/Phonetics
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:11:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
SUZANNE LAINSON
>But with all this debate going on, it makes me wonder--where are the
>studies that explain how children learn to read? Surely there have been
>some.
>
>What do you all know about the subject?
There was a "reading summit" meeting of experts in California a few months
ago. I've been promised the proceedings but haven't gotten it yet. I'll
report when I do.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.5 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: Re: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:14:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Monday, 4 Nov 1996 RigbyL aol.com wrote >
>Dan S also said that the statement that the heart does not move blood through
>the body "repeatedly turns up in Waldorf student workbooks."
I said nothing of the kind.
>Articles of faith have no place in Anthroposophy, in which the fundamental
>approach to knowledge is the Goethean principle of direct personal observation.
You're kidding, right?
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re:
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:11:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
EL
>> >Could the person who posts (recently -- I don't remember them from too far
>> >back in the year I've been on this list) as:
>> >"From: {~_~} "
>> >and signs their posts:
>> >>-El
>> >please consider a fuller identification?
>> >I'm told by Lefty, Tonkin and others that anonymity is cowardly.
>> >While I don't agree, and support anonymous posting where the poster
>> >believes it is indicated (love that word, eh?), if one goes halfway, with
>> >an email address and (incomplete) signature, I feel a desire to know who
>> >they are.
>
>> I agree. If not a name, etc., how about an introduction or *something*.
>> Where are you from ?
>> Deby
>
>
> Oh my, isn't this a pretty pickle... now look what you've done Stanly!
>Mr. Dugan, What say you?
I was concerned that the request might be felt to be harassment. The
requests were polite except for the unnecessary crack by Kopp about
"anonymity is cowardly" [will both you boys learn to let trivial shit like
that JUST GO AWAY?]. Being coy or anonymous here seems to invite sniping,
which is off topic, and I wish people wouldn't, snipe, that is.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Waldorf curriculum resources
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:11:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
PETER SCHWAB POSTED
>>
>> * By the way, what is this "official Waldorf curriculum"? We've heard over
>> and over that there is no international conspiracy of
>> Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy which sets the tune to which individual
>> schools are to march. Now we hear there IS an "official Waldorf
>> curriculum".
>>
>> I, for one, as a parent in a Steiner school whose curriculum is set by the
>> state, except for the "special character" of the school, never having seen
>> any such "official Waldorf curriculum" from the school itself, am all ears.
>>
>>
>
>Caroline von Heydebrand: "Vom Lehrplan der Freien Waldorfschule /
>bearbeitet von Caroline von Heydebrand". Editor: Freie Waldorfschule
>Stuttgart - 10. Auflage - Stuttgart: Verlag freies Geistesleben, 1996.
>ISBN: 3-7725-0200-8
>
>Sometimes you have to go back to the roots, where it all began...
>
>This book explains in detail the progress children should make at
>each stage of their school career.
>
>I do not know if an english translation exists, you'll have to
>search...
The three books I have that are specifically about the curriculum are:
von Heydebrand, Caroline. The Curriculum of the First Waldorf School.
Forest Row, East Sussex, England: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications,
1966-1989.
Wilkinson, Roy. The Curriculum of the Rudolf Steiner School: Guides to
Teaching in Rudolf Steiner Education. U.K.: Robinswood Press, 1975.
Stockmeyer, E.A. Karl. Rudolf Steiner's Curriculum for Waldorf Schools: An
attempt to summarise his indications. A collection of quotations for the
benefit of different Waldorf Schools. Trans. Roland Everett-Zade. Forest
Row, East Sussex, England: 1969.
I've seen the large wall chart in English from Europe, and have the recent
American edition:
Mitchell, David. The Waldorf School Curriculum: An Overview for American
Waldorf School Teachers. (poster) San Francisco, CA: The Ark - Toys, Books
and Crafts, 1994.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.8 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Water Memory (Sub-Thread of Goethean Science)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:11:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
RIGBY
>It is interesting to me, however, how some people have the freedom of mind to
>consider new and unusual ideas without needing to have them proved or
>disproved, while others seem to have a compulsion immediately to stamp out
>anything that doesn't fit with the belief system they have learned. Not that
>you necessarily belong in the latter class, of course.
Rigby, you express the political position of the pseudoscience booster: "we
are open minded, while 'Western' (or masculine, or whatever) science is
dogmatic," and the assertion that science is a "belief system" and
therefore can be equated with any other.
I highly recommend Gross and Levitt's "Higher Superstition" for a full
discussion of this social phenomenon. [Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt.
Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.]
"If we accept the notion that there is a generalized intellectual "project"
of the Enlightenment, one that is intent upon building a sound body of
knowledge about the world the human race confronts, then postmodernism
defines itself, in large measure, as the anthithetical doctrine: that such
a project is inherently futile, self-deceptive, and worst of all,
oppressive."
[Gross & Levitt, p. 72.]
>I could not have asked for a better expression of the classical reaction to
>Goethean science. First, it clearly states the favorite grounds for
>dismissal--mysticism. But more importantly it illustrates the failure to
>follow, even to a small degree, the Goethean principle of looking at
>phenomena without prejudice, to understand them in their own right. (This is
>not just Goethean, in my judgment, it is a principle of any valid approach to
>science.) In this case, the "phenomena" are the research activities actually
>carried out by people interested in the Goethean approach.
"Why should a mental representation now claim more reality than my direct
physical experience?"
[Mellett, Tom. "Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity as Rudolf
Steiner's Final 'Riddle of Philosophy.'" Journal for Anthroposophy. No. 60,
Spring 1995.]
"[S]cience involves a special mode of thought and is unnatural for two main
reasons...Firstly, the world just is not constructed on a common-sensical
basis. This means that 'natural' thinking--ordinary, day-to-day common
sense--will never give an understanding about the nature of science.
Scientific ideas are, with rare exceptions, counter-intuitive: they cannot
be acquired by simple inspection of phenomena and are often outside
everyday experience. Secondly, doing science requires a conscious awareness
of the pitfalls of 'natural' thinking. For common sense is prone to error
when applied to problems requiring rigorous and quantitative thinking; lay
theories are highly unreliable."
[Wolpert, Lewis. The Unnatural Nature of Science. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1992, pp. xi-xii.]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.9 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Responsibility to Prove Claims
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:40:15 -0500
Daniel Sabsay, in your recent comments on the topic "The Heart is Much More
Than a Pump & Water Memory" you informed me that "It is your responsibility
(you are the claimant) to report to us any would-be replications of this
so-called 'work.'" In this context, "work" refers to the investigations of
Theodor Schwenk.
You should read a little more carefuly, Daniel. I just reread my posting and
it looks to me like the only thing I claimed was in the final statement,
where I said that a pin is better used to test whether baked bread was done,
than to debate how many angels could dance on the head thereof. I'm going to
stand by that statement no matter what you say. But aside from that I was
simply responding to Suzanne's request for examples of Goethean science,
trying to give a brief summary of points from Schwenk that I find
interesting.
I'm not here to change anybody's mind, just to share information and
thoughts. I enjoy a little verbal fencing, of course, but I am not ready to
wheel out the battering rams. I would not think of assaulting your castle.
If I do happen to come across research that confirms or refutes Schwenk's
work I will certainly share it with you. I can tell you are deeply intriqued
by the topic.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n182.10 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: homeopathic intelligence
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 02:00:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 allure netcom.com (El) wrote >
>I know in California you need a prescription for homeopathic remedies.
Oh dear, I guess I'll have to turn in my whole stock of illegal Vagisil.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n182 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n183 --------------
001 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Studying Steiner
002 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - OOBEs
003 - Lee Story USG - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n182
008 - Lee Story USG
>If I wanted to teach at a Piaget, Rousseau, or a Montisorri School I would
>indeed hope to understand as much of their own personal philosophy and
>development. I would want to know how, though their research, they came to
>the model of their approach or Philosophy of Education. It amazes me that in
>the public schools today, (which are modeled after Dewy) how few
>teachers really know what Dewy had in mind. So I believe knowing
>ones roots in Education is very worth while.
What's interesting about this is that it lends some credence to what Dan
has tried to do when he searches out references to Steiner's views on
racism.
Some people would argue that what Steiner believed on some subjects should
not invalidate his insights on education. But if you want to know an
educator's background and how he or she developed those ideas and in what
context, then I guess this would lead you into things like his or her
personal life and his or her observations on a wide range of subjects.
So if you studied someone whose techniques you admired and if you found out
he was a cocaine user, would that lead you to discount what he suggested as
an educator?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n183.2 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: OOBEs
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 08:50:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dr. Steiner did not condone OBE, channeling, or thoughtless meditation,
>So I would say no.
>Best Wishes
The person who first brought up OOBEs in this discussion said that he was
willing to keep an open mind about Steiner since practicing Steiner's
techniques had led to OOBEs.
Since a number of non-anthroposophists have reported experiencing them, I
was wondering what, if any, connection there was between experiecing an
OOBE and believing in Steiner.
Unlike the first person who brought up the subject, you are saying there is
no connection, right?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n183.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: The Heart is Much More Than a Pump & Water Memory
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:17:32 -0500
> To say "the heart is a pump" is a metaphor. As has pointed out by
> others here, the heart is an organ in the body that functions in
> rather complex interactions with other structures in the body.
And thus (of course) to say "the heart is not a pump" is also
metaphorical. But in my days on the STEINER list I gained the
distinct impression that most of the people there (some very
influential in anthroposophical and Waldorf circles) were quite
assured in their fundamentalism, and appeared to believe that
metaphors were undesirable, and that Steiner did not use them. In
fact, I remember being chastised for the inappropriate behavior of
pursuing the question whether Steiner's science (or natural history),
his history (or mythic history), his descriptions of the "spirit"
world (or of his own mind), and his analyses of the Christian Bible
were not chock full of (often rather elegant) metaphors.
> In this regard it is relevant to note that circulation occurs in an
> embryo prior to development of a heart. It seems logical to
> hypothesize that the form and function of the heart develop in
> response to the pre-existing flow pattern, explaining why the
> developed organ reflects the flow pattern.
Your comments could certainly provide the starting point
for a careful, gradualistic argument, with mutation and natural
selection as the driving mechanisms. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n183.4 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n179
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:39:36 -0500
{~_~} writes:
> If I wanted to teach at a Piaget, Rousseau, or a Montisorri School I would
> indeed hope to understand as much of their own personal philosophy and
> development.
Yes, but the influence of most educational theorists (Montessori and
Steiner excepted) has not been Despite his tremendous influence, I
don't believe there is a "J.J.Rousseau school" movement, or even a
"Dewey/pragmatism school" movement---certainly none which turns to the
Master for advice if not for a strictly final answer to each
pedagogical concern. The whole idea of a "Xxxxx School" (you supply
the authority, "Xxxxx") seems to me radically authoritarian and
unfortunate. It also seems idolatry: it idolizes the work of an
intelligent and helpful person, rather than properly admiring him for
his contributions.
The problem I have with the "foundation year" is that entering
students, though as you say not wholly intellectually naive, do not
usually have a wide exposure to other educational theory which they
can then contrast with what they're told about the ideas of Rudolf
Steiner. Given the positive interest in Steiner's methods that they
must have in order to start on the program, this Steiner-only year
would seem a sure formula for the indoctrination of at least a
significant proportion of the students.
> On the other hand many of the Waldorf Institutes have designed programs
> for those who would like to understand the teaching methods for their
> own use in other places of education, outside of a Waldorf School.
> I have talked to public school educators who say, "I can't get enough of
> this Steiner.
Of course. I would never claim that the foundation year is necessary
to generate a strong interest in Steiner, or even that the vast
majority of entering students at a Waldorf training institute don't
-already- have such an interest---only that every attempt seems to be
made to prevent fair comparison of educational goals and methods.
When comparisons are favorable or show similarities (as with Piaget's
or Erikson's developmental ideas) they apparently are mentioned,
though only incidentally, and the work of these other thinkers isn't
pursued.
When I hear of a case where such an institute offers coursework
contradicting some portion of Steiner's beliefs, I'll really sit up
and take notice! Until then, a year's immersion in RS's ideas and
Weltanschauung seems like idolatry and indoctrination, not preparation
for grammar-school teaching, to me. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n183.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Heart v. "Pump and Plumbing"
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:04:38 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>My understanding is that in Anthroposophy the mechanical function of the
>heart is as a regulator of the flow of the blood, the blood moving by
>itself. It also has a spiritual, "etherising" function.
Interesting concept -- could you explain it in a bit more detail,
please?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
*** My views are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer ***
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n183.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Things I wish they told...
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 16:51:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan