return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1372 --------------
001 - Kathleen Sutphen (ksutphe - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - PLANS, Inc., is 2 years old
003 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Money IS the issue
005 - Charlie Capstick (downeas - Re: Money IS the issue
006 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
007 - "Duane Koons" (dkoons gun - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
008 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - California bill AB 696 amended
010 - Charlie Capstick (downeas - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.1 ---------------
From: Kathleen Sutphen (ksutphen jps.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 21:25:48 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199906302110.OAA23435 lists1.best.com)
Duane Koons posts:
) Sarina, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Betty Staley's work. I suspect you would like her writings as she is working to make waldorf education be more modern. The fundamentalist anthros don't like her because they think she is selling out. The critics don't like her because she (God forbid) thinks waldorf education can be done in public settings with modifications. She is working that middle ground that many find objectionable.
Excuse me Duane . . . *this* Critic finds Staley's behavior in this
regard to be objectionable because she is defrauding the public school
system and bilking the public coffers out of hundreds of thousands of
dollars, much of which I am very sure finds its way into her own
pockets. Betty Staley is *not* working the middle ground. She infuses as
much Anthroposophy as she can get away with when working with public
teachers and schools. I attended the trainings before she wised up. I
had Anthroposophy thrown at me at every turn. By the time I *dropped
out* it was downright blatant - any attempt at disguising it was
dropped. (Read the recent archives for quotes form literature given to
me by Staley.)
) This current thread criticising waldorf supporters for loosing their public money allergy is ironic and reminds me of when the republicans got so excited about Hillary Rodman making money on the stock market. The public education trough is only good for the worthy as deemed good by Dugan et al.
The public education trough is supposed to allocated to organizations
that can legally bill it for services, materials, etc. It isn't legally
there for whatever larcenous individual or organization, religious or
otherwise, wants to scam it at the moment. Staley is a scam artist -
bottom line. I have to give her credit for doing a fairly good job at it
to date. I would like to see her charged criminally and I do hope it
comes to that.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: PLANS, Inc., is 2 years old
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:32:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Happy birthday to PLANS, Inc, which incorporated June 30, 1997.
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools is a California charitable
non-profit corporation.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.3 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:14:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199906302110.OAA23435 lists1.best.com)
Sarina wrote:
)No, but it had "the ring of truth," so to speak. It seems plausible to me
)that there would be just as much motivation from greed to fund public
)Waldorf schools as there would be from a desire to provide children with a
)holistic education.
Bob W. asks:
Why *just* as plausible?
Sarina wrote:
)Hmm, NOW who's making assumptions? I am not personally acquainted with
)Arline Monks, but I have attended a workshop at RSC - and overheard people
)talk. It seemed to me that, unless I misunderstood, she isn't very well
)liked by some of the Anthroposophists! Of course, it is entirely possible
)that I could have made a mistake, since I wasn't actually trying to
)eavesdrop.... maybe I should have.
Bob W. responds:
Sarina, I apologize if I appeared to be making an assumption about you. I
thought that I remembered you saying that you were not particularly
familiar with RSC. I tried to make it obvious upfront with the "working
from the assumption" lead that my information was incomplete.
However, from your comments above, I am getting the impression that you
don't know much about the individuals involved in the various RSC/public
school endeavors beyond some unspecified antroposophical gossip about
Arline Monks. I don't mean to assume anything here, so if I am off base,
let me know.
Sarina wrote:
)As to making assumptions about the truth of Kathy's opinions, I was merely
)responding to her post with my "gut feelings" - trying to imply that I
)believed her accusation could very well be true.
Bob W. asks:
Is your gut feeling about the truth of Kathy's accusation related to your
comment about Dan:
)And, I am not as filled with admiration for human nature as Dan Dugan
)seems to )be (snip) Dan commented at one point that he didn't believe
)people were "bad."
and therefore since *you* do see people as good and bad, you believe that
the RSC folks could very well be "bad"/greed driven?
Imagine someone criticizing your mini celebrations of religious holidays
for catering to religious folk for your own aggrandizement, pointing to
some new purchase you may have made. If someone came on list with such an
accusation, I would want to have a lot more information before I said that
"the truth hurts" about you, despite any doubts I might have about the
inherent goodness of people in general.
I don't know if Kathy's accusation has any merit, but from the skeletal
nature of that accusation, I don't feel that it would be fair to agree or
disagree with it without additional information. If you have some
additional information that the rest of us don't have on the subject,
please share it. I'm not sure where "gut feeling" fits into critical debate
especially when someone ascribes base motives to another and impugns their
reputation.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.4 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Money IS the issue
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:54:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199906282055.NAA15600 lists1.best.com)
))From: Charlie Capstick (downeast lefca.com)
)
))This is also true of the Camphill Villages. In Ontario, Canada
))the Camphill Village is home to 23 Villagers and about the same
))number of co-workers. Each Villager receives a disability benefit
))of about $1000/mo. from the province. In addition, the compound
))has received building assistance from the Housing Dept. of Ontario.
)
)23 people * (1k/month * 12months) = 276k / year
)
)
))The Camphill Village contracts with the Ontario Social Services
))ministry to provide this service and receives a top-up grant which
))increases the per-villager income to about $1400/mo.
)
)increase to 23 * (1.4k*12) = 386k / year
)
)Let's see, 23 employees splitting 386k (if it were really that easy) =
)16,800 salary per person per year. No money being spent on housing, food,
)utilities, income taxes, employment taxes, health care, medecine,
)maintenance and equipment for a 300 acre farm and animals....
The villagers do not split this money. This is how much it costs them to
live there. I am certain that each villager does not have his/her own staff
person, so it looks a little different from my seat. Do you know what the
client to staff ratio is?
[snip]
))There are no staff on this property who are trained in care
))of people with developmental challenges (US translation:
))retarded).
)
)Maybe that's one reason why they select so narrowly.
I'm certain that the staff are Anthroposophists who bring Steiner's
indications for curative living. Training in what to do about self
stimulation behaviors, etc., could get interesting...
)
) One other reason may be that many camphills (at least the one I visited
)in Kimberton) are essentially working farms with different jobs that are
)required to be done to keep the place together. They may have to select
)narrowly *to ensure that all the jobs can be done with the people they
)have that form the community*. (that is 46 people) Everyone in the
)village probably depends on this kind of careful
)responsibilty-sharing/designation arrangement.
)
)So, Charlie have you got a point to make? Have you ever tried to put a
)community together?
I have,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.5 ---------------
From: Charlie Capstick (downeast lefca.com)
Subject: Re: Money IS the issue
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 16:11:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907011625.JAA27001 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
) The villagers do not split this money. This is how much it costs them to
) live there. I am certain that each villager does not have his/her own staff
) person, so it looks a little different from my seat. Do you know what the
) client to staff ratio is?
I deliberately delayed replying to Luke Schelly's baiting because I am sure
he knows very well that co-workers are not paid. They are volunteers
who usually come from Europe and do whatever is required in return
for a place to sleep and food to eat (and perhaps a small stipend) They are
on visitors' permits from Immigration Canada and cannot earn income.
So, removing this group from the paid staff would leave perhaps
5 to 6 paid staff being paid out of a total client revenue of
23 x 2800 x 12 = $772,800. per annum.
300 acres x $15,000 = $4,500,000. This land is within
spitting distance of a very desirable new housing
development. With 300 acres (6.5 acres per person)
they could easily carve off a subdivision and have
a tidy windfall.
Two other properties have been opened in an urban setting, one
planned to be a bakery or similar business. Other income is realized
from sales of weaving and from produce sales.
Housing and road-building was government supported and
they recently completed a "cultural centre" which is used
for services and celebrations. Tax-deductible donations
were solicited for this project. Tax-deductible means
taxpayer-supported in this country, as those of us who
haven't got the high professional incomes to shelter end up
paying for someone else's deductions.
) I'm certain that the staff are Anthroposophists who bring Steiner's
) indications for curative living. Training in what to do about self
) stimulation behaviors, etc., could get interesting...
Absolutely, they use all the same techniques, curative eurythmy,
hippotherapy, an anthroposophic doctor, biodynamic farming, etc.
) )So, Charlie have you got a point to make? Have you ever tried to put a
) )community together?
I was Chairman of Management Committee for a student housing co-op
in Toronto, a high-rise community of over 400 residents. I organized a
food co-op within the community and helped establish a coffee house
within the building which hosted such artists as Bruce Cockburn, Mose
Scarlett and Leon Redbone.
The point I was making before being so rudely interrupted was that
the intentions of these communities seem clear: to use disadvantaged
members of society as a source of public funding for experimental
intentional communities based upon anthroposophical tenets.
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.6 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:42:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 3:14 PM
Sarina wrote:
)No, but it had "the ring of truth," so to speak. It seems plausible to me
)that there would be just as much motivation from greed to fund public
)Waldorf schools as there would be from a desire to provide children with a
)holistic education.
Bob W. asks:
"Why *just* as plausible?"
Sarina responds:
Cuz I'm a big ol' cynic, that's all.
Sarina wrote:
)Hmm, NOW who's making assumptions? I am not personally acquainted with
)Arline Monks, but I have attended a workshop at RSC - and overheard people
)talk. It seemed to me that, unless I misunderstood, she isn't very well
)liked by some of the Anthroposophists! Of course, it is entirely possible
)that I could have made a mistake, since I wasn't actually trying to
)eavesdrop.... maybe I should have.
Bob W. responds:
"Sarina, I apologize if I appeared to be making an assumption about you. I
thought that I remembered you saying that you were not particularly
familiar with RSC. I tried to make it obvious upfront with the "working
from the assumption" lead that my information was incomplete."
Sarina:
Good thinking! I should have paid more notice to that. I hope I did not
sound....."snotty".... while trying to set the record straight. I just
wanted you to know that I had noticed some apparently internal griping at
RSC, that's all. But I did qualify what I said by admitting that I don't
really *know* much about these people personally, and therefore my
information was incomplete, too.
Again, I'm just a big ol' cynic: Look at all the damage that has been done
and pain that has been caused in every sector by greedy money-grubbers.
From Swiss bankers stealing from dead Holocaust victims to Japanese
chemical companies poisoning fisherman to American pharmaceutical companies
poisoning overweight people who desperately want to be thin, there a
million examples - I'm sure you get my point. People can be - and many are
- noble, gracious, honest, generous, and good... and then there's everybody
else.
And Bob goes on to say:
"However, from your comments above, I am getting the impression that you
don't know much about the individuals involved in the various RSC/public
school endeavors beyond some unspecified antroposophical gossip about
Arline Monks. I don't mean to assume anything here, so if I am off base,
let me know."
Sarina:
You are correct.
Sarina wrote:
)As to making assumptions about the truth of Kathy's opinions, I was merely
)responding to her post with my "gut feelings" - trying to imply that I
)believed her accusation could very well be true.
Bob W. asks:
Is your gut feeling about the truth of Kathy's accusation related to your
comment about Dan:
)And, I am not as filled with admiration for human nature as Dan Dugan
)seems to )be (snip) Dan commented at one point that he didn't believe
)people were "bad."
and therefore since *you* do see people as good and bad, you believe that
the RSC folks could very well be "bad"/greed driven?
Sarina Responds:
Yep, that's about it, Bob. I am simply stating that I find it entirely
possible to believe that *anyone* might find a little extra inspiration for
just about anything that might further their "cause" when there is money in
it for them.
Bob goes on to say:
"Imagine someone criticizing your mini celebrations of religious holidays
for catering to religious folk for your own aggrandizement, pointing to
some new purchase you may have made. If someone came on list with such an
accusation, I would want to have a lot more information before I said that
"the truth hurts" about you, despite any doubts I might have about the
inherent goodness of people in general."
Sarina responds:
Gotta disagree with you here! My school is private and does not receive
public funding. Parents pay tuition to send their own kids here - taxpayers
do not. As a business owner who is supported by her "customers," my
purchases are nobody's business *but* those customers. In other words, all
others can 'butt out.' If they don't like my school, they don't send their
kids here, and they aren't forced to pay for any of it either. Not so with
public Waldorf schools, where everybody is asked to pay.
Bob also says:
"I don't know if Kathy's accusation has any merit, but from the skeletal
nature of that accusation, I don't feel that it would be fair to agree or
disagree with it without additional information. If you have some
additional information that the rest of us don't have on the subject,
please share it. I'm not sure where "gut feeling" fits into critical debate
especially when someone ascribes base motives to another and impugns their
reputation.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams"
Sarina responds:
Well, Bob, you got me there: you are definitely being more careful than I
am. Although I would assert that I haven't actually impugned anyone's
reputation - except for maybe humanity in general!
You are right about one thing, however:
One really should have all the facts before making accusations. In Kathy's
case, I think her opinion is likely to be sound simply because of my
cynical view of human nature, and I am sure she believes the facts as she
sees them.
BUT, since I know how *very much* (note sarcasm) private school
teachers/administrators (tend to) get paid, I would also have to add that
perhaps folks running a private school - *any kind* of private school -
could not really be blamed for trying to find a way to make more money.
I just realized that the best way to get PLANS off public
"Waldorf-inspired" schools' backs would simply be if RSC wasn't behind
them! Someone like me, for example, a parent who is openly critical of
Steiner and anthroposophy but likes many aspects of the Waldorf curriculum,
would be a whole lot more convincing if I started a charter school,
claiming "No, this school doesn't have a religious basis...I just like
silk!"
Okay, I'm being too lighthearted. I meant "Elementary education should
incorporate the arts into all areas of the curriculum - all children should
learn to play an instrument, speak a foreign language, dance, sing, use
their bodies and move, etc. - in a beautiful environment, incorporating
natural materials, that is created with care"... and so on.
It would make more sense for a person or group totally outside of
Anthroposophy to use Waldorf schools as an "inspiration," take the aspects
that make sense - and are legal - and discard the rest. The problem is,
Anthroposophy is what Rudolf Steiner College is all about, and they're the
ones behind these public schools, right? PLANS doesn't like that. When it
comes to my public tax dollars, I don't really like that either.
Am I making sense now, or did I just open up another can of worms?
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.7 ---------------
From: "Duane Koons" (dkoons gundluth.org)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:57:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sarina here is a slightly different perspective on the waldorf public charter
movement which I've articulated before.
Although the RSC has played an important role in providing faculty development
for public school teachers I don't think it is accurate to say that the
anthroposophists are responsible for this movement. There is in fact deep
opposition to this collaboration by conservative anthroposophists. An example
is Gary Lamb the editor of Renewel who has been very critical of all public
waldorf work. His writings curiously echo things written by some subscribers to
this list making even Dan seem gentle at times. Extremist tend to wake up with
stange bedfellows when they are busy defending liberty.
In my experience locally it would be safe to say that the waldorf teachers
initially opposed or at best were lukewarm to the possibility of chartering with
the local public school. This question has not arisen from the will of the
faculty. Instead it has come in the form of a query from parents and local
educational leaders "Do we want public funding and are we willing to make the
changes necessary to receive it?"
There is not a lot of info available that I am aware of about how public
settings have altered waldorf inspired curriculums. The PLANS people prefer to
see anthroposophy in everything waldorf related and seem to believe it is their
duty to block efforts to secularize the movement. AWSNA, the trade organization
that certifies waldorf schools, refuses to allow public schools to use "Waldorf"
or "Steiner" in their names for trademark purposes (and political control in my
opinion). Neither group is interested in broadcasting success stories of
waldorf inspired public schools because they both seem to prefer the present
landscape where the enemies in their respective world views are highly visible.
The Milwaukee schools have a public magnet school that uses a waldorf style
curriculum that is sanitized for public consumption i.e. the word "God " is not
spoken. Apparently the school is doing well and has parent and administrative
support which is more than can be said of many of the schools in that district.
If anyone has factual info that is unbiased I'd be interested in hearing it.
There are a few charters out west that are adjusting to the public regulatory
environment.
I wish there was more info available but suspect the paucity of info is due to
factors above, the newness of this phenomena, (fear of controversy e.g. PLANS
will come and visit your little day care if they find out you recieve any public
funding and do anything remotely waldorf) etc
Since the current conversation thread involves questioning the financial motives
of waldorf supportors I suppose hope the following questions are fair game. Is
PLANS a tax exempt 501c corp? Does this list have any legal relationship to
PLANS? Is there any tax advantage that comes with this public service? I
understand that the joy in experiencing righteous indignation on a regular basis
as a waldorf critic is far outweighs any financial benefit that could come.
(Dan?)
And finally I would note there is a wide spectrum of belief about what is
anthroposophy and what are the essential qualities of waldorf education. It is
easiest to define when confronted with extremist viewpoints within the movement
as examples (be they real or caricatures). However as good modern intellectuals
we understand the dangers of assuming that extremes of behavior and belief
define the essential character of a group of people or movement. Much of
anthroposophical thought is foreign to my world view and I can disagree with
many of Steiner's dated pronouncements about reality. However some analytical
aspects derived from anthroposophy are very interesting and at times sensible.
The same thing happens when I go to church or attend a medical conference. Some
stuff fits and some doesn't.
The WE CRITICS and TRUE BELIEVERS want to keep things simple but fortunately
life isn't that easy. I am thankful for this list and the work that people like
Dan Dugan have done as it helps all of us stay honest and confront our own
values and assumptions about education, community, the future etc. The
perspective Dan et al brings to the table helps us all be better at working to
prepare our children for the future.
Keep at it Sarina. Duane
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.8 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:44:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Duane wrote:
"The PLANS people prefer to see anthroposophy in everything waldorf related
and seem to believe it is their duty to block efforts to secularize the
movement."
Sarina sez:
I believe you are correct, *in general*. (Please no howls of protest,
critics!) _Some_ critics seem incapable of seperating the anthroposophy
from everything else that the rest of us would use for non-anthro reasons.
Duane wrote:
AWSNA, the trade organization that certifies waldorf schools, refuses to
allow public schools to use "Waldorf" or "Steiner" in their names for
trademark purposes (and political control in my
opinion).
Sarina asks:
I wonder what would happen if they did? I wonder what would happen if I
advertised my school as "Cherry Tree, A Waldorf-Inspired School for Young
Children." Would they sue me? Would they just threaten to sue me and then
do nothing? Hmm...(evil grin)
(okay, okay - just kidding....)
Duane wrote:
Neither group is interested in broadcasting success stories of waldorf
inspired public schools because they both seem to prefer the present
landscape where the enemies in their respective world views are highly
visible.
Sarina: In a word: Yucky. True. (Alright that was two...)
Duane wrote:
"I wish there was more info available but suspect the paucity of info is
due to
factors above, the newness of this phenomena, (fear of controversy e.g.
PLANS
will come and visit your little day care if they find out you recieve any
public
funding and do anything remotely waldorf) etc"
Sarina: Yikes! I'd better watch my "mouth"!
Duane wrote:
"And finally I would note there is a wide spectrum of belief about what is
anthroposophy and what are the essential qualities of waldorf education.
It is
easiest to define when confronted with extremist viewpoints within the
movement
as examples (be they real or caricatures). However as good modern
intellectuals
we understand the dangers of assuming that extremes of behavior and belief
define the essential character of a group of people or movement. Much of
anthroposophical thought is foreign to my world view and I can disagree
with
many of Steiner's dated pronouncements about reality. However some
analytical
aspects derived from anthroposophy are very interesting and at times
sensible.
The same thing happens when I go to church or attend a medical conference.
Some
stuff fits and some doesn't."
Sarina: AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (oops, sorry Dan......)
Duane wrote:
"The WE CRITICS and TRUE BELIEVERS want to keep things simple but
fortunately
life isn't that easy. I am thankful for this list and the work that people
like
Dan Dugan have done as it helps all of us stay honest and confront our own
values and assumptions about education, community, the future etc. The
perspective Dan et al brings to the table helps us all be better at working
to
prepare our children for the future."
ABSOLUTELY TRUE. My thanks, too, Dan, Deby, Kathy - everyone. I am glad to
be on this list, too.
Duane wrote: "Keep at it Sarina."
Sarina replies:
Always!
In good cheer,
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: California bill AB 696 amended
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:00:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I pass on the following notice. This is the bill to control the practice
that Twin Ridges uses, founding charter schools in other districts. The
bill has been amended and returned to the education committee. The style {+
thus +} is used to indicate added text, and {- thus -} is text struck out.
-Dan Dugan
***
AB 696 Charter schools: interdistrict program: approval.
BILL NUMBER: AB 696 AMENDED
06/30/99
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 30, 1999
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 1999
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Washington
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
An act to amend Section 47605 of, and to add Section 47605.2
to, the Education Code, relating to charter schools.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 696, as amended, Washington. Charter schools:
interdistrict program: approval.
Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, permits
teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to petition a
school district governing board to approve a charter school to
operate independently from the existing school district
structure as a method of accomplishing, among other things,
improved pupil learning. Existing law precludes denial of a
petition to form a charter school unless the governing board of
the district makes certain findings. If the governing board of
a school district denies a petition, existing law permits a
petitioner to submit the petition to the county board of
education of the State Board of Education.
This bill would {+ , +} in the case of a petition for a
charter school that would operate beyond the jurisdiction of the
agency granting the charter, also permit denial if the district
finds that the petition does not {- contain a comprehensive
description of the identity of -} {+ identify +} the specific
school district or districts, other than the granting agency,
that have given the charter school approval to operate its
educational program within the jurisdiction of the {+ other +}
school district or districts.
This bill would prohibit a governing board of a school
district from approving any charter petition {+ , including a
renewal or material revision, +} that permits a charter school
operated from a physical schoolsite, as defined, to operate
outside of its the granting district's boundaries without the
prior approval of all of the governing boards of the {+ other +}
school districts within whose jurisdiction the charter school
intends to operate, and would prohibit a county board of
education from approving a charter school to operate outside of
the county board of education's jurisdiction. It would require
a county board of education to require petitioners to identify
the school district boundaries within the county in which the
charter school will operate, thereby imposing a state-mandated
local program.
This bill would require any charter petition {+ , including a
renewal or material revision, +} approved by the State Board of
Education to identify the boundaries of a school district in
which it intends to operate, and would prohibit operation of the
charter outside of the identified boundary without approval of
the governing board of the {- affected school district -} {+
other school district or districts +} .
This bill would provide that the identification of the school
district boundaries within which the charter school may operate
in the petition does not impose liability upon {- the -} {+ any
+} school district except as otherwise provided in the
petition.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated
by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for
making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State
Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not
exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims
whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the
state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to
these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:
yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
SECTION 1. Section 47605 of the Education Code is amended to
read:
47605. (a) (1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), a
petition for the establishment of a charter school within any
school district may be circulated by any one or more persons
seeking to establish the charter school. The petition may be
submitted to the governing board of the school district for
review after either of the following conditions are met:
(A) The petition has been signed by a number of parents or
guardians of pupils that is equivalent to at least one-half of
the number of pupils that the charter school estimates will
enroll in the school for its first year of operation.
(B) The petition has been signed by a number of teachers that
is equivalent to at least one-half of the number of teachers
that the charter school estimates will be employed at the school
during its first year of operation.
(2) In the case of a petition for the establishment of a
charter school through the conversion of an existing public
school, that would not be eligible for a loan pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 41365, the petition may be circulated
by any one or more persons seeking to establish the converted
charter school. The petition may be submitted to the governing
board of the school district for review after the petition has
been signed by not less than 50 percent of the permanent status
teachers currently employed at the public school to be
converted.
(3) A petition shall include a prominent statement that a
signature on the petition means that the parent or guardian is
meaningfully interested in having his or her child, or ward,
attend the charter school, or in the case of a teacher's
signature, means that the teacher is meaningfully interested in
teaching at the charter school. The proposed charter shall be
attached to the petition.
(b) No later than 30 days after receiving a petition, in
accordance with subdivision (a), the governing board of the
school district shall hold a public hearing on the provisions of
the charter, at which time the governing board of the school
district shall consider the level of support for the petition by
teachers employed by the district, other employees of the
district, and parents. Following review of the petition and the
public hearing, the governing board of the school district
shall either grant or deny the charter within 60 days of receipt
of the petition, provided, however, that the date may be
extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree to the
extension. In reviewing petitions for the establishment of
charter schools pursuant to this section, the chartering
authority shall be guided by the intent of the Legislature that
charter schools are and should become an integral part of the
California educational system and that establishment of charter
schools should be encouraged. A school district governing board
shall grant a charter for the operation of a school under this
part if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent
with sound educational practice. The governing board of the
school district shall not deny a petition for the establishment
of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings,
specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific
facts to support one, or more, of the following findings:
(1) The charter school presents an unsound educational
program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.
(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully
implement the program set forth in the petition.
(3) The petition does not contain the number of signatures
required by subdivision (a).
(4) The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of
the conditions described in subdivision (d).
(5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of all of the following:
(A) A description of the educational program of the school,
designed, among other things, to identify those whom the school
is attempting to educate, what it means to be an "educated
person" in the 21st century, and how learning best occurs. The
goals identified in that program shall include the objective of
enabling pupils to become self-motivated, competent, and
lifelong learners.
(B) The measurable pupil outcomes identified for use by the
charter school. "Pupil outcomes," for purposes of this part,
means the extent to which all pupils of the school demonstrate
that they have attained the skills, knowledge, and attitudes
specified as goals in the school's educational program.
(C) The method by which pupil progress in meeting those pupil
outcomes is to be measured.
(D) The governance structure of the school, including, but
not limited to, the process to be followed by the school to
ensure parental involvement.
(E) The qualifications to be met by individuals to be
employed by the school.
(F) The procedures that the school will follow to ensure the
health and safety of pupils and staff. These procedures shall
include the requirement that each employee of the school furnish
the school with a criminal record summary as described in
Section 44237.
(G) (i) The means by which the school will achieve a racial
and ethnic balance among its pupils that is reflective of the
general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction
of the school district to which the charter petition is
submitted.
(ii) In the case of a petition for a charter school that
would operate beyond the jurisdiction of the agency granting the
charter, the identity of the specific school district or
districts, other than the granting agency, that have given the
charter school approval to operate its educational program
within the jurisdiction of the school {- district or districts.
This clause shall only apply to charter schools that are
operated from a physical schoolsite. This clause shall not
apply to either of the following:
(I) Any charter school that is operated through the use of
distance learning or home school methodologies.
(II) Any charter school that is providing educational
services to pupils who are receiving care in a residential
treatment center due to substance abuse problems or long-term
physical or psychological illnesses.
(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph, "physical schoolsite"
means any public school that is operated from a physical plant
and is attended by pupils on a daily basis. For purposes of
clause (ii), "distance learning" or "home school methodologies"
means educational settings where educational services are
provided to pupils by a charter school, but the pupils do not
attend a schoolsite as a regular part of their educational
program. -} {+ district or districts. +}
(H) Admission requirements, if applicable.
(I) The manner in which annual, independent, financial audits
shall be conducted, which shall employ generally accepted
accounting principles, and the manner in which audit exceptions
and deficiencies shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the
chartering authority.
(J) The procedures by which pupils can be suspended or
expelled.
(K) The manner by which staff members of the charter schools
will be covered by the State Teachers' Retirement System, the
Public Employees' Retirement System, or federal social security.
(L) The public school attendance alternatives for pupils
residing within the school district who choose not to attend
charter schools.
(M) A description of the rights of any employee of the school
district upon leaving the employment of the school district to
work in a charter school, and of any rights of return to the
school district after employment at a charter school.
(N) The procedures to be followed by the charter school and
the entity granting the charter to resolve disputes relating to
provisions of the charter. {+
(6) (A) In the case of petition for a charter school that
would operate beyond the jurisdiction of the agency granting the
charter, the petition does not identify the specific school
district or districts, other than the granting agency, that have
given the charter school approval pursuant to the petition
process outlined in this part, to operate its educational
program within the jurisdiction of the other school district or
districts.
(B) This paragraph shall only apply to a charter school that
is to be operated at a physical schoolsite. This paragraph
shall not apply to either of the following:
(i) Any charter school that is to be operated through the use
of independent study.
(ii) Any charter school that would provide educational
services to pupils who are receiving care in a residential
treatment center due to substance abuse problems, long-term
physical or psychological illnesses, or referral by a county
probation department.
(C) For purposes of this paragraph, "physical schoolsite"
means any public school that is operated at a physical plant
owned or operated by, or under the control of, the school, and
that is attended by pupils on a daily basis. For purposes of
this paragraph, "independent study" means educational settings
where educational services are provided to pupils by a charter
school, but the pupils do not attend a schoolsite as a regular
part of their educational program. +}
(c) (1) Charter schools shall meet all statewide standards
and conduct the pupil assessments required pursuant to Section
60605 and any other statewide standards authorized in statute or
pupil assessments applicable to pupils in noncharter public
schools.
(2) Charter schools shall on a regular basis consult with
their parents and teachers regarding the school's educational
programs.
(d) (1) In addition to any other requirement imposed under
this part, a charter school shall be nonsectarian in its
programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all
other operations, shall not charge tuition, and shall not
discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity,
national origin, gender, or disability. Except as provided in
paragraph (2), admission to a charter school shall not be
determined according to the place of residence of the pupil, or
of his or her parent or guardian, within this state, except that
any existing public school converting partially or entirely to
a charter school under this part shall adopt and maintain a
policy giving admission preference to pupils who reside within
the former attendance area of that public school.
(2) (A) A charter school shall admit all pupils who wish to
attend the school.
(B) However, if the number of pupils who wish to attend the
charter school exceeds the school's capacity, attendance, except
for existing pupils of the charter school, shall be determined
by a public random drawing. Preference shall be extended to
pupils currently attending the charter school and pupils who
reside in the district. Other preferences may be permitted by
the chartering authority on an individual school basis and only
if consistent with the law.
(C) In the event of a drawing, the chartering authority shall
make reasonable efforts to accommodate the growth of the
charter school and, in no event, shall take any action to impede
the charter school from expanding enrollment to meet pupil
demand.
(e) No governing board of a school district shall require any
employee of the school district to be employed in a charter
school.
(f) No governing board of a school district shall require any
pupil enrolled in the school district to attend a charter
school.
(g) The governing board of a school district shall require
that the petitioner or petitioners provide information regarding
the proposed operation and potential effects of the school,
including, but not limited to, the facilities to be utilized by
the school, the manner in which administrative services of the
school are to be provided, and potential civil liability
effects, if any, upon the school and upon the school district.
The petitioner or petitioners shall also be required to provide
financial statements that include a proposed first-year
operational budget, including startup costs, and cash-flow and
financial projections for the first three years of operation.
(h) In reviewing petitions for the establishment of charter
schools within the school district, the school district
governing board shall give preference to petitions that
demonstrate the capability to provide comprehensive learning
experiences to pupils identified by the petitioner or
petitioners as academically low achieving pursuant to the
standards established by the State Department of Education under
Section 54032.
(i) Upon the approval of the petition by the governing board
of the school district, the petitioner or petitioners shall
provide written notice of that approval, including a copy of the
petition, to the State Board of Education.
(j) (1) If the governing board of a school district denies a
petition, the petitioner may elect to submit the petition for
the establishment of a charter school to either the county board
of education or directly to the State Board of Education. The
county board of education or the State Board of Education, as
the case may be, shall review the petition pursuant to
subdivision (b). If the petitioner elects to submit a petition
for establishment of a charter school to the county board of
education and the county board of education denies the petition,
the petitioner may file a petition for establishment of a
charter school with the State Board of Education.
(2) A charter school for which a charter is granted by either
the county board of education or the State Board of Education
pursuant to this subdivision shall qualify fully as a charter
school for all funding and other purposes of this part.
(3) If either the county board of education or the State
Board of Education fails to act on a petition within 120 days of
receipt, the decision of the governing board of the school
district to deny a petition shall, thereafter, be subject to
judicial review.
(4) The State Board of Education shall adopt regulations
implementing this subdivision.
(5) Upon the approval of the petition by the county board of
education, the petitioner or petitioners shall provide written
notice of that approval, including a copy of the petition to the
State Board of Education.
(k) (1) The State Board of Education may, by mutual
agreement, designate its supervisorial and oversight
responsibilities for a charter school approved by the State
Board of Education to any local education agency in the county
in which the charter school is located or to the governing board
of the school district that first denied the petition.
(2) The designated local education agency shall have all
monitoring and supervising authority of a chartering agency,
including, but not limited to, powers and duties set forth in
Section 47607, except the power of revocation, which shall
remain with the State Board of Education.
(3) A charter school that has been granted its charter by the
State Board of Education and elects to seek renewal of its
charter shall, prior to expiration of the charter, submit its
petition for renewal to the governing board of the school
district that initially denied the charter. If the governing
board of the school district denies the school's petition for
renewal, the school may petition the State Board of Education
for renewal of its charter.
(l) Teachers in charter schools shall be required to hold a
Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or
other document equivalent to that which a teacher in other
public schools would be required to hold. These documents shall
be maintained on file at the charter school and shall be
subject to periodic inspection by the chartering authority. It
is the intent of the Legislature that charter schools be given
flexibility with regard to noncore, noncollege preparatory
courses.
SEC. 2. Section 47605.2 is added to the Education Code, to
read:
47605.2. (a) The governing board of a school district shall
not approve any charter petition {+ , including a petition for
renewal or material revision of a charter, +} that permits a
charter school to operate its educational program outside of the
granting district's boundaries without prior approval {- of -}
{+ , pursuant to the petition process set forth in this part, by
+} the governing boards of all of the {+ other +} school
districts within whose jurisdiction the charter intends to
operate.
(b) A county board of education shall not approve any charter
petition {+ , including a petition for renewal or material
revision of a charter, +} that permits a charter school to
operate outside of the county board of education's jurisdiction
and shall require petitioners for the establishment of a charter
school to identify the school district boundaries within the
county in which the charter school will operate.
(c) Any charter petition {+ , including a petition for
renewal or material revision of a charter, +} approved by the
State Board of Education shall identify the boundaries of a
school district in which the charter school intends to operate
and shall not permit the charter school to operate outside of
the identified school district boundary prior to approval {- of
-} {+ , pursuant to the petition process set forth in this part,
by +} the governing boards of all of the {+ other +} school
districts within whose jurisdiction the charter school intends
to operate.
(d) {+ On and after January 1, 2000, no charter school that
received its charter after July 1, 1999, may operate in multiple
school districts unless and until the charter petition is
approved by the governing board of the other school district or
districts within whose jurisdiction the charter school intends
to operate.
(e) +} Except as otherwise provided in a petition approved by
a school district and in accordance with the charter petition,
this part, and applicable laws, the identification of the school
district boundaries in which the charter school intends to
operate shall not impose any liability for the actions,
operations, or academic performance, of the charter school upon
{- the -} {+ any +} school district in which the charter school
intends to operate.
SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4
of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of
the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars
($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State
Mandates Claims Fund.
Searching keywords: (statusam) (authorWashington) (HooA)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1372.10 ---------------
From: Charlie Capstick (downeast lefca.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 22:17:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907020145.SAA07734 lists1.best.com)
Sarina McDonald wrote:
) Duane wrote:
) AWSNA, the trade organization that certifies waldorf schools, refuses to
) allow public schools to use "Waldorf" or "Steiner" in their names for
) trademark purposes (and political control in my
) opinion).
)
) Sarina asks:
) I wonder what would happen if they did? I wonder what would happen if I
) advertised my school as "Cherry Tree, A Waldorf-Inspired School for Young
) Children." Would they sue me? Would they just threaten to sue me and then
) do nothing? Hmm...(evil grin)
It would be like my advertising "Richard Rat", a Disney-inspired fable
about a rodent with three fingers and short pants. Disney being one of
the most litigious commercial entities would be on my case overnight.
They are more rabid than Scientologists when protecting their turf
and I suspect the Anthros have similar viewpoints.
In the consumer goods world I have noticed the "style" appendage
but usually it is used like "a mayonaisse-style dressing". It doesn't
tread on another's intellectual property rights, it just deceives
consumers. No problem there.
Charlie
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1372 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1373 --------------
001 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
005 - "Duane Koons" (dkoons gun - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
006 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
007 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Self-Addressed Spirits [Was: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1373.1 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:26:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199906301357.GAA20244 lists1.best.com)
Duane,
To me the true irony is that the separation of church and state,
of which secular public education is an important part, is
precisely for people like you, who wish to be free to practice your chosen
spiritual path. The long term survival of smaller religious movements like
Anthroposophy depends on a society free of government intervention and
pressures. The Anthroposophical Society should consistently discourage the
pursuit of public funding for Waldorf education. Judging from previous
posts on this list, it is quite possible that Steiner himself would agree
with this position.
Alan S. Fine MD
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Koons (dkoons gundluth.org)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
)
) This current thread criticising waldorf supporters for loosing their
public
) money allergy is ironic and reminds me of when the republicans got so
excited
) about Hillary Rodman making money on the stock market. The public
education
) trough is only good for the worthy as deemed good by Dugan et al.
)
) Duane
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1373.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:36:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907020145.SAA07734 lists1.best.com)
)ABSOLUTELY TRUE. My thanks, too, Dan, Deby, Kathy - everyone. I am glad to
)be on this list, too.
Sarina, We are happy to have you. I am happy to be on the list also. (Even
when I am too busy to participate).
)
)Duane wrote: "Keep at it Sarina."
Affectionately yours,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1373.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:52:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199906301357.GAA20244 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907020435.VAA09738 lists1.best.com)
)Duane,
)
) To me the true irony is that the separation of church and state,
)of which secular public education is an important part, is
)precisely for people like you, who wish to be free to practice your chosen
)spiritual path. The long term survival of smaller religious movements like
)Anthroposophy depends on a society free of government intervention and
)pressures. The Anthroposophical Society should consistently discourage the
)pursuit of public funding for Waldorf education. Judging from previous
)posts on this list, it is quite possible that Steiner himself would agree
)with this position.
)
)Alan S. Fine MD
This is wha our lawsuit is all about. We are waiting for the outcome,
anxiously.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1373.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:52:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Charlie Capstick [mailto:downeast lefca.com]
)
) In the consumer goods world I have noticed the "style" appendage
) but usually it is used like "a mayonaisse-style dressing".
[Bob Tolz]
Reminds me... Last week, my kids joined me at work with school out
for the summer. Outside Grand Central Terminal we encountered a vendor
selling sunglasses arrayed above a series of boxes with labels shouting out
such brandnames as "Gucci", "DKNY" and so forth. When you got close, you
could see the small lettering saying "Compare these to".... I've seen a
similar ploy taken with car air fresheners with brand-name perfume scents
prominently listed and the smaller disclaimer of "smells like"....
[Charlie]
) It doesn't
) tread on another's intellectual property rights, it just deceives
) consumers. No problem there.
[Bob Tolz]
If it's too deceptive, it *does* tread on another's intellectual
property rights.
Back to the original thread -- I agree with Bob Williams and Sarina
that it does appear that the PLANS keepers of the flame seem to want to
prevent even *attempts* at secularization of Waldorf, and I just don't
understand why.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1373.5 ---------------
From: "Duane Koons" (dkoons gundluth.org)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:48:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Please be careful of the "people like you references." If you have seen some of
my contributions regarding immunizations etc on this and the other list and
followed my prior contributions here you might find that I sound like you now
and then. (A scary thought eh?)
I am also not comfortable within the waldorf community with Steiner Says
pronouncements but understand that the tendency for supportors to invoke Steiner
(as a deity at times) leads critics to hold supportors accountable for all his
opinions. That said I will say that it is not clear to me that Steiner would
oppose public charters. In fact many elements of current waldorf school
ideology are inconsistent with how he administered the first school.
Here are some examples that I found in reading "Faculty Conversations with
Rudoph Steiner" that became available in English last year. He didn't oppose
textbooks but instead found the available textbooks inadequate. He expected
students to have sufficient knowledge and academic skills to be able to
transition into mainstream schools after 4th and 8th grade if necessary. He
expected the school to prepare the students for the state administered exam that
was given for college bound graduates. Although he wasn't enthusiastic about
these exams he stated that compromising with the state was necessary for the
survival of the school from a regulatory standpoint and as good marketing
relative to parent expectations. Ability grouping was also prefered in subjects
like foreign languages. He used available technology freely e.g. telephones and
stenography which raises the question in my mind as to whether he would in fact
oppose all T.V. or computors as many waldorf supportors currently believe.
Steiner did state an ideal vision of society where the state was not
responsible for education but noted that Germany at the time was not evolved
enough for this ideal to be realized. I believe the waldorf movement has made
the mistake of equating freedom from public financing (and the strings attached)
as a sign of healthy evolution i.e. threefolding. It really is an adolescent
vision of freedom that is a hangover from the counter-cultural impulses of the
60's as are several of the myths above that reflect supportor's politics rather
than being derived from Steiner. It is amusing to me that the keepers of the
faith are happy to deviate from Steiner when it suits their politics but are
unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of others in doing the same when
attempting to bring new interpretations to the pedagogy. But this is human
nature and not peculiar to WE, anthroposophy, or critics.
In my personal view I don't want my children's teachers to feel responsible for
my child's spiritual destiny. I do expect them to honor and respect that humans
have spiritual natures. It is a difficult distinction but worth working
towards. I believe it is possible to do in a public funded education and would
exemplify the best in multiculturalism and humanism. Many parents who have
their children in waldorf schools believe this distinction between spirit and
religion can be made despite the pessimism of the CRITICS and conservative
waldorf believers.
Duane.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1373.6 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 17:51:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) "Duane Koons" (dkoons gundluth.org) - 7/1/99 6:57 PM )))
writes:
)[snip] An example is Gary Lamb the editor of Renewel who has been very critical of all public waldorf work.(
Just a point of information (unless, of course, I missed some news): Gary Lamb is not the editor of Renewal magazine. /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1373.7 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Self-Addressed Spirits [Was: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter
in Ukiah, California)]
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 18:04:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) "Duane Koons" (dkoons gundluth.org) - 7/2/99 1:48 PM )))
wrote:
)In my personal view I don't want my children's teachers to feel responsible for
my child's spiritual destiny. I do expect them to honor and respect that humans
have spiritual natures. It is a difficult distinction but worth working
towards.(
Hi, Duane.
When I visited Beaver Run Special Schools (an anthroposophically-based Camphill-movement community for handicapped children) in Pennsylvania, I was told by one of the directors that the coworkers there look after the children's bodies and souls, and that if they do that, "The spirit takes care of itself." Best, /MRx
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1373 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1374 --------------
001 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: THE brain research
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1374.1 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 16:52:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199906301357.GAA20244 lists1.best.com) (199907020551.WAA25361 lists1.best.com)
) )Duane,
) )
) ) To me the true irony is that the separation of church and state,
) )of which secular public education is an important part, is
) )precisely for people like you, who wish to be free to practice your
chosen
) )spiritual path. The long term survival of smaller religious movements
like
) )Anthroposophy depends on a society free of government intervention and
) )pressures. The Anthroposophical Society should consistently discourage
the
) )pursuit of public funding for Waldorf education. Judging from previous
) )posts on this list, it is quite possible that Steiner himself would agree
) )with this position.
) )
) )Alan S. Fine MD
)
) This is wha our lawsuit is all about. We are waiting for the outcome,
) anxiously.
) Deby
To grab a quote from today's paper:
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other
man's freedom."
-Clarence Darrow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1374.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: THE brain research
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 00:03:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199906130008.RAA04113 lists1.best.com)
Sarina, you wrote,
)I keep being asked to supply references to the "brain research" I discuss
)in these posts. Now, in the interest of saving (my) time, I will give
)specific examples of where the ideas I've expressed about TV watching come
)from. I will use two examples, although there are many more that I simply
)do not have the time to quote for you. If you are interested in further
)study, this info is out there, and easily accessible! Take a class, read a
)book, e-mail me for suggestions if you're wondering where I got into all
)this stuff...
(snip helpful discussion of Edelman and Bernstein)
)It seems that rule number one of "current brain research" is:
)Use it or Lose it.
Makes sense to me. I note that neither of the studies you mentioned are
about children and television, but I agree they're relevant. I think
everybody agrees that watching too much TV is bad for kids, so we don't
have to beat that one any more. The Waldorf attitude, however, is to reject
-all- modern media (sound recording, photography, film, video, and
computers) as intrinsically harmful to children. I don't see the research
you cite supporting that attitude. Computers are interactive, for example,
but they were removed from the Sacramento magnet school and from the
Marysville court school when they converted to Waldorf. Is there "brain
research" to back up that move?
)Now I realize that this is all theory, so please don't start quoting
)opposing rat studies or talking about chimps vs. cats or what have you. I
)would simply refer you, again, to my assertion above that:
)1) If you have observed something yourself, then reading "current brain
)research" that seems to suggest you were right should not come as too much
)of a surprise,
)-and-
)2) I'm a preschool teacher. Every preschool teacher already knows little
)kids learn by DOING.
It's a Waldorf principle that small children learn by copying. That may not
be the same as "doing" in everybody's book.
(snip discussion of active/passive activities)
))You're probably right, but do recall that similar complaints were made in
))the 19th and early 20th century about children -reading- "cheap novels".
)
)Well, that is cultural. The fact is, kids are imitation machines! And if
)you don't like for your kid to play Sam Spade, you you're going to be
)understandably distressed by him reading stories about the character. (Did
)you read the article in Newsweek (I think) about "The Girl Trap" game?)
)That has to do with the SUBJECT of children's play. But many veteran
)teachers are noticing that more and more kids CAN'T PLAY. Do you hear me?
)Many kids are so used to being entertained (okay, anecdotal, but just bear
)with me on this one), that they no longer have the ability to come up with
)their own themes for play! Someone - or someTHING - has killed their
)imaginations.
This is a recurrent theme in Waldorf articles lately. Is there any research
on it?
(snip discussion of backing up assertions with references)
)Dan wrote:
))I bought Elkind's book, read every word. It's not based on research, it's
)an opinion piece.
)
)That's interesting. I don't believe I have ever mentioned Elkind. Has he
)done ANY brain research to back up his opinions? Come to think of it, I
)don't think I've ever *read* Elkind (though I keep meaning to)....
Sorry, it was someone else who quoted Elkind. He's a darling of the Waldorfs.
(snip further discussion of references)
)My Mom always said, "Kid, don't believe anything you read and only half of
)what you see." I've SEEN this stuff, Dan. I'm willing to concede that the
)brain is so complex we may never know everything about how it develops, but
)there are some things coming out of this research that a preschool teacher
)just KNOWS are true. So when three or four (or five, or six) researchers
)start saying the same things, it just becomes common sense, not current pop
)opinion.
OK, but some things Waldorf does are very different from the mainstream,
like teaching reading later. Quoting studies about -that- would be very
much to the point. How about delaying "abstract reasoning" till puberty?
That principle is completely opposed to the "current brain research" quoted
in Newsweek.
)Yes, we should examine "studies" and so-called "science" carefully. But,
)let's not forget how warmly the germ theory or the theories of Galileo were
)received by the scientific community! Sometimes I think skeptics are too
)skeptical for their own good. The gentleman doctors who never washed their
)hands were pretty durned skeptical of the germ theory, and yet, had they
)been a little more "credulous", perhaps lives would have been saved...
It wasn't till the 20th century, and in medicine after WWII, that
scientific method was clearly defined and applied. Still lots of bad
science gets published. Principles and how people actually behave are
different things.
)Oh, okay, I realize that was pointless ribbing, but I'm leaving it in
)anyway. The research is stacking up, and I feel that you are turning a
)blind eye.
A blind eye to what, Sarina? Everybody has agreed that education should be
developmentally based since the 20's, and that too much TV is bad, ever
since it started in 1949. Tell me the things that Waldorf does
-differently-, and how "current brain research" supports -those- policies.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1374 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1375 --------------
001 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: THE brain research
002 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Whoops! Re: THE brain research
003 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: THE brain research
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1375.1 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: THE brain research
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:53:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DAN wrote:
"...neither of the studies you mentioned are about children and television,
but I agree they're relevant."
SARINA:
Thank you. I was simply trying to illustrate how some of the brain research
*can* be used to back up controversial opinions like those held by Waldorf
folks.
Basically the brain molds itself to the environment. Anything that a young
person spends a great deal of time engaging in, is going to affect how that
person's brain develops by strengthening the neural pathways that are used
for the activity. "Use it or lose it" has been established by more research
than just the two scientists I quoted - and it isn't difficult for anyone
with common sense to extrapolate that passive, visually stimulating
activites such as watching TV could cause little people to grow up to be
passive, visual stimulation-needing people. It goes both ways - you can
stimulate the brain for greater flexibility, or you can stimulate it for
less!
DAN wrote:
"The Waldorf attitude, however, is to reject -all- modern media (sound
recording, photography, film, video, and computers) as intrinsically
harmful to children. I don't see the research you cite supporting that
attitude. Computers are interactive, for example, but they were removed
from the Sacramento magnet school and from the Marysville court school when
they converted to Waldorf. Is there "brain research" to back up that move?"
SARINA:
Well, to the first point, I think they are just plain wrong about recorded
music. How it is bad for children is beyond me. There is no doubt in my
mind that live music bestows more of a sense of awe - "wow, look at Daddy
play guitar!" instead of just "push that button." And because of that
awe-inspiring quality, I'd say that it is essential for children be exposed
to real, live music, whether it is the preschool teacher singing and
playing a drum, attending a concert, or "jamming" with dad like my son
does. But to do away with recorded music? Naaaaw, I don't buy it.
And photography? Give me a break. I don't even want to waste time on that
one.
But when it comes to video, film, and computers....... aaahhh, there it is
a different story...
Video and film are nothing but TV without the commercials..... or, to be
more accurate, with all the commercials at the beginning. The level of
violence, the fast-paced action, the visual stimulation, the fear
("reptilian brain") stimulation - it's all there. I have still not been
able to take my son to a movie in a theater, and he's four and half. Mulan:
a war movie featuring violence and death. A Bug's Life: another war movie.
Tarzan: a lovely story including themes of child abandonment, gun violence,
and god knows what else. Nope, sorry: movies are every bit as bad for kids
as videos and TV. Not only that, but even "educational" screen time is
still stimulating the brain in ways that are less than optimal (passive
reception of visual images and emotion-inducing sound), and taking time
away from more valuable activities. Now, please understand, I am not saying
kids should *never* watch TV or video, but it should be used sparingly. If
a child like my son is into sharks, it's probably okay for him to watch a
Discovery Channel special on the beasties. But, I would say, ONLY with the
additional hands-on activities we provided him, like feeding the sharks at
the Seattle Aquarium, drawing pictures of sharks, doing shark puzzles,
reading shark books snuggled up with mom or dad, etc. The key is balance.
And as for COMPUTERS - HAH!
Computers are "interactive," you say. So do all the folks making money hand
over fist selling that same idea to parents!
The big difference is the age of the child we are talking about. The sad
truth is, preschoolers can (and, I believe, *are*) being hurt by this
attitude. I am not talking about proper use of technology in a 4th grade
classroom, I am talking about some parents' tendency to allow their kids
unlimited time on the PC because it's "educational." Too many children's
software programs - the vast majority, in my opinion - are simple-minded
"drill and practice" or venal 'edutainment' that is not worth *anything*
educationally.
Preschoolers need to be building their social skills and experiencing the
world. Computers take away from that just as much as TV does. So what if
your kid can "learn" the alphabet from a computer program? He or she
*should* be learning it from YOU. It is a basic tenet of early childhood
whole language that kids learn that print has meaning: it needs to be made
relevant to their lives. Clicking on an icon in expectation of a visual
reward does not a reader make. Perhaps Bob Williams could offer a comment
on this.
Not only that, but Jane Healy asserts that children are starting to show up
at the doctors' office with carpal tunnel and other physical symptoms of
computer over-use. Yikes.
Dan wrote:
"It's a Waldorf principle that small children learn by copying. That may
not be the same as "doing" in everybody's book."
Oh, get real Dan. One of the arguments against violent TV and video is
precisely that: little kids imitate everything they see, their brains are
"hard-wired" for it. I think that activites for children should be
appropriate for them to copy, because they will. I think the Waldorfs are
correct that children learn in this way.
Right now, as I type this, my little guy is outside by the construction
site of our addition - a new preschool classroom . He is wearing a child
sized hard hat and safety goggles, and is gleefully pounding away at scrap
wood and nails with a real hammer.
At first I allowed the children to hammer inside the new building in the
afternoon after the workers had gone, thinking they wouldn't be able to
drive a nail all the way through the wood. Only after I had to pry a 2x4
off the floor of my new classroom did I move the whole activity out to the
sidewalk! They have now constructed a complex conglomeration of scrap
wood, all firmly nailed together. When you ask them what they are building,
they will tell you - "a new classroom!" Well, of course. They've only
spent countless hours over the past two months with their little noses
pressed up against the back window, watching the construction workers
intently.
Children imitate everything they see adults do, and learn in the process.
This imitation prepares them for adult life: it probably helped our species
to learn to survive in whatever environment cavemen found themselves.
Unfortunately, it also means little guys are not selective - they imitate
*everything.* We have one construction worker with a slightly more colorful
vocabulary than the others. He is also the favorite of the kids, because he
is the one who climbs up on the roof to frame it and he also has the
biggest tool belt. Is there any wonder that my son has started muttering
"shit!" while pounding nails? No, not really.
I had said:
)....many veteran teachers are noticing that more and more kids CAN'T PLAY.
Do you hear me? )Many kids are so used to being entertained (okay,
anecdotal, but just bear with me on this one), )that they no longer have
the ability to come up with their own themes for play! Someone - or
)someTHING - has killed their imaginations.
To which Dan responded:
"This is a recurrent theme in Waldorf articles lately. Is there any
research on it?"
I don't know Dan, but I will try to find out. I got this information
directly from said "veteran teachers" in all of the workshops and classes I
have attended. Ask any middle aged or senior preschool teacher her opinion
on that, and I bet you will hear the same thing repeated. I did mention
that was purely anecdotal, but should have given you a little bit more
background. I have discussed this issue with teachers much older than me,
and I figure if 20 or 30 local teachers have noticed this, and I have
noticed this, then it is probably not just localized in Washington State!
Again, we have arrived at this opinion through our own observations. If
there is research out there that would seem to support our opinion, I would
not be surprised if we would embrace it fairly "credulously", since we
already believe it to be true. Perhaps there *is* some research to back
this up. I will find out soon, if I can, since I am going to be in classes
for the next two weeks.
)Dan wrote:
"Sorry, it was someone else who quoted Elkind. He's a darling of the
Waldorfs."
SARINA:
I bet he is.
DAN wrote:
"OK, but some things Waldorf does are very different from the mainstream,
like teaching reading later. Quoting studies about -that- would be very
much to the point. How about delaying "abstract reasoning" till puberty?
That principle is completely opposed to the "current brain research" quoted
in Newsweek."
SARINA:
There you go with the Newsweek thing again.... I don't know anything about
Arlene Monks and HER reading ability!
And the belief about abstract reasoning is one of those WE things that bugs
me, as is the reading issue. I agree with them that not all children should
be pushed so early, and I do think that curriculum has been pushed ever
lower and lower, so that kids in kindergarten are now learning what used to
be in taught in 1st grade. I believe this can and does cause "learning
disabilities" that could have been avoided by simply waiting until the
child was a bit more mature. My own husband, now an avid reader, suffered
miserably with reading until about 3rd grade. I think he could have
benefitted greatly if it had been anoption in his school to wait until then
to begin to learn, at which I am sure the Waldorf folks would say, "AHA!
See? Told you so." On the other hand, I come from a very verbal family of
early readers, and I was reading at a first grade level before I entered
kindergarten. Never did a bit of harm, and here I am an avid reader today.
I think they are wrong to hold all children back, but I think the current
public school system is wrong to push all children early. The way I see it,
I have taught my kid to read at home anyway, so that's not something I need
the school for.
I also agree with them that some kids are "damaged" by early academics.
Strict Montessori schools focus on the abstract work to the exclusion of
developing social schools through play.... a bad prescription for
preschoolers, in my book. But to say that a 4 year old child who has
learned to read - through developmentally appropriate, hands-on, whole
language activities with a little phonics instruction thrown in at an
appropriate time in a low-pressure atmosphere - is somehow
damaged.....well, that's one of the things my kid's kindergarten teacher
had to answer for. My kid reads quite well for his age, and I wanted to
know, "are people going to be whispering behind my back for "damaging" my
kid?" "Am I "Waldorf enough" to have a positive experience at this
school?"
I will see what else I can find out in answer to your question.
DAN wrote:
"Principles and how people actually behave are different things."
So true. I was just saying that it is a good idea to be skeptical, but not
so skeptical that you refuse to believe anything.
Please consider reading Healy's books, Dan. I know you don't like her
simply because she spoke at RSC this spring, but I attended that conference
and she didn't sound like an anthroposophist to me. In fact, I arrived at
this opinion because of the quizzical look on her face when she said
(something like) "blah, blah, blah - don't you do something like that in
Waldorf schools? The wman is a darling of the WE folks, but they are not
darlings of hers.
The books I would recommend to anyone interested in how the brain develops
and how children learn are:
Your Child's Growing Mind
Endangered Minds
and
Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds for Better or
Worse
If you want to read an interview with Healy explaining some of this stuff
herself, here ya go:
http://www.sevenhills.pvt.k12.ca.us/JTC/healy.htm
I hope I didn't just tick anybody off again - I am low on time (what else
is new) and this was the best I could do. Dan, I will try to find out if
there is actualy research about the play issue while I am at the college
this and next week.
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1375.2 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Whoops! Re: THE brain research
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:56:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention....
All the research you'd ever want to see is clearly, exhaustively referenced
in Healy's books. If you want to know exactly where some tidbit of
oft-repeated information comes from, you'd do well to look at her refs and
bibliographies.
S.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1375.3 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: THE brain research
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 17:08:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Oops, again. I just re-read my post, and in the paragraph on Montessori
where it says "social schools" it should have said 'social skills'. I also
found a bunch of other typos.... sorry, hope you can read it.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1375 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1376 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - new series of Waldorf teaching manuals
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - AB 696 analysis
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1376.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: new series of Waldorf teaching manuals
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:36:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There is a new series of Waldorf teaching manuals published in Australia.
Has anyone seen them?
http://www.users.bigpond.com/goldenbeetlebooks/
"The Spiritual Syllabus Series is by far the most comprehensive catalogue
of the Rudolf Steiner teaching program ever produced. There are
approximately 50 teaching units detailed in each year - each usually taught
in the 3-week 'block' system (as opposed to 'period' teaching) of from 23
to 30 hours. For instance, in the Class 3 and 4 Language book below,
Logios, the '12 Points of Punctuation' refers to a whole 30-hour unit, as
does every other annotation. The books cover the four main academic strands
of modern schooling. In the spirit of balance, so important in Steiner
Education; these are Language; Maths; Social Studies; Science."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1376.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: AB 696 analysis
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 13:02:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Dede Alpert, Chair
1999-2000 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 696
AUTHOR: Washington
AMENDED: July 2, 1999
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 7, 1999
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:James Wilson
{u SUMMARY u}
This bill requires that the charter of a charter school may
only be approved, or renewed, if the governing boards of
all school districts where the charter intends to operate
have given their approval for the charter to operate in
their jurisdiction.
In addition, this bill requires that the charter of a
charter school identify all school districts, in addition
to the chartering agency, which have approved operation of
the charter school in their jurisdiction, unless that
operation is to be undertaken by independent study or to
provide services in a residential treatment center.
{u BACKGROUND u}
Current law provides for the establishment of charter
schools that have met specified requirements and address
specific items in the charter that they present to a school
district, county office of education or the State Board of
Education. Current law limits the grounds upon which a
school district can deny a charter to very specific
findings that the district must support with "written
factual findings".
Current law provides that "admission to a charter school
shall not be determined according to the place of residence
of the pupil, or his or her parent or guardian?" except for
the preference given to residents of the attendance area of
a conversion charter school (EC Section 47605 {d}). Based
largely on this clause, the Attorney General has published
an opinion that charter schools may operate anywhere in the
state and a number of charter schools report that they
AB 696
Page 2
operate in various school districts, sometimes through
physical facilities, but most frequently through
independent study or "distance learning" arrangements.
Current law provides that a school district in which a
charter school operates must allow the school use of any
facilities that are not currently being used or rented.
The law also allows a district to charge a charter school a
3% oversight fee if the district provides facilities, but
only a 1% fee if no facilities are provided.
The inability to provide facilities to a charter school is
not one of the reasons that a school district may cite to
reject a charter school petition.
AB 696
Page 3
{u ANALYSIS u}
{u This bill: u}
1) Provides that the governing board of a school district
may not approve, renew or make a material change to, a
charter that permits a charter school to operate
outside of the chartering district's jurisdiction,
unless the governing boards of the other districts
have given prior approval.
2) Provides that, as of January 1, 2000, no charter
school whose charter was approved on or after July 1,
1999, may operate in multiple school districts unless
its charter petition is approved by all school
districts in which the charter school intends to
operate.
3) Provides that no county board of education or the
State Board of Education may approve, renew or make a
material change to, a charter unless the governing
boards of the districts in which the charter intends
to operate have given their consent.
4) Provides that the operation of a charter school in any
school district shall not impose any liability on that
school district, unless the school's charter or other
"applicable laws" provide otherwise.
5) Requires that the charter of a charter school identify
all school districts, in addition to the chartering
agency, which have approved the charter school to
operate in their territory. This section
specifically exempts from identification those "other"
school districts where the charter's operation is
limited to either:
a) Independent study, as defined, or,
b) Providing educational services in a
residential treatment center.
6) Requires charter schools to estimate average daily
attendance for purposes of facility allocation and
submit the estimate to the school's chartering
district. In addition:
AB 696
Page 4
a) Estimates are subject to audit to determine
the grade level of pupils and identify which are
residents of the chartering district.
b) The charter school is required to surrender
possession of any facilities obtained from the
district that were allocated to the charter as a
result of an estimate that exceeded the actual
numbers of resident pupils by 20 or more pupils.
7) Provides that the eligibility of a school district for
school facilities funding may not include the ADA of
independent study pupils who are also not residents of
the district.
8) Provides that a school district is only responsible to
provide facilities for pupils in a charter school who
are also residents of the district.
9) Defines that a charter school is "operating in a
district" when the district in which the charter
school is physically located has approved and granted
the petition of the charter school.
{u STAFF COMMENTS
u}
{u 1) What approval is needed for a charter school to offer
independent study to a pupil in a district other than
the charter granting district? u} Section 2 of this bill
contains language that clearly prohibits the approval
or renewal of a charter for a school that operates its
educational program in a district that has not given
approval. The bill's definition of "operating in a
district" seems to suggest that a school must be
physically located in the district, which is not
necessarily the case when pupils are served through
independent study. Finally, this bill would require a
school's charter to list districts where the charter
will operate but in that section, operation through
independent study is exempt from the listing
requirement. Is "operation" through independent study
exempt from the various requirements to seek approval
from "other" districts?
{u 2) Will a full petition approval process be required to
obtain the approval of each "other" district where the
AB 696
Page 5
charter will operate? u} The bill requires that a
charter petition include a listing of all districts
that have approved operation of the charter school in
their territory. The referenced "approval" is
"pursuant to the petition process outlined in this
part." Therefore, it appears that every district
that approves the operation of a charter will be
required to follow the entire process that would be
required to approve the issuance of a charter.
{u 3) Are the requirements of this bill retroactive to
charter approved between July 1, 1999 and January 1,
2000? u} All of the requirements to obtain "other"
district approval appear, by language included in the
bill, to apply to charters approved or renewed in the
future, presumably after the bill would become law on
January 1, 2000. On the other hand, the language on
page 11, lines 24 through 29, applies to any charter
approved after July 1, 1999. Can this language
invalidate charters issued between July 1, 1999 and
January 1, 2000?
{u 4) Would this bill create a charter school entitlement to
facilities? u} Until now, charter schools have only
been "entitled" to facilities owned, but not used, by
their chartering district. However, this bill
declares that "a school district shall only be
responsible for providing facilities to a charter
school operating in the district and shall only
provide facilities sufficient to accommodate
in-district students." While this provision can read
as a limitation on the district's responsibility to
provide facilities, it may also be seen as a mandate
to provide facilities for "in-district" pupils.
{u SUPPORT u}
American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees
California Teachers Association
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
{u OPPOSITION u}
California Network of Educational Charters
T.C. Crownover
Ukiah Unified School District
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1376 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1377 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - negative reviews of Healy
002 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: Money is the issue(?)
003 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: negative reviews of Healy
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: negative reviews of Healy
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Money is the issue(?)
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: negative reviews of Healy
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Waldorf rights
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: negative reviews of Healy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: negative reviews of Healy
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:17:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here are some negative reviews of Healy's "Failure to Connect" posted on
Amazon.com:
***
A reader from Beijing , March 10, 1999
Blame it on the computer?
This is a very disappointing book for anyone that wants to know more about
how computers affect children (which the book claims to do - and the reason
why I bought it). There is no such reliable information to be found in it.
There are very interesting questions to be asked on this subject, but Jane
M. Healy gets it all mixed up. Especially she is unable to make up her mind
on when to attack the way computers are being used, their potential as a
learning aid or their role as a life skill.
She also believes that time not spent with computers is spent in a rich and
colorful learning environment at school and at home. All teachers would
provide wonderful challenging lessons that spellbind the students - if not
for that ghastly computer-thing in the corner with ball-chained students
playing mindless tic-tac-toe as their intellectual capacity dwindles.
Parents would swamp their kids with activities, word games, kitchen math
and-who-knows-what. Unfortunately, the kids want to play "Doom" instead?
Serious social studies on the use of computers in my native country
(Denmark) show amongst others: that computer time at home impairs most of
all on TV-viewing hours (now falling for the first time). That families
spend more child/adult time together after they get a home computer. And
that kids computer skills can effectively break down ethnic/racial
barriers. Not too bad for a hate-machine.
The obvious truth is that computers can be used or misused at school, at
home, at the office etc. Jane M. Healy does not have to tell us a hundred
times that some teachers do not no how to use computers in class. They have
colleagues; English teachers who cannot spell, math teachers that do not
know their fractions, boring science teachers, teachers that think violence
is a learning tool.
But there are many others; Teachers that do wonders with words, riddle math
into everything around us, stir the inventor and scientist in young minds
and create rich learning environments. Some of them use computers, some do
it without computers.
Her mindless ranting reminds me of the kind of books seen decades ago
arguing that comic books and TV-viewing would be the doom of modern
civilisation.
Let me try to quote (from heart) the paramount thinker Ghandi when in
London asked about his impression of modern western civilisation: "I think
it would be a wonderful idea!"
Alas, our world is far from perfect - but do not blame it on the computers.
In stead save your money and buy "Lego Mindstorms". Then see how computers
can affect your children's minds in the most wonderful ways.
***
A reader from Flemington, NJ , March 5, 1999
Failure to Properly Review Research (a Better Title) A careful reading of
Jane Healy's Failure to Connect: How Computer's Affect Our Children's
Minds-- for Better and Worse reveals many faults in logic, and we can only
guess that her rationale for writing this kind of book is to capitalize on
a parent's fear of the unknown.
For example, Dr. Healy groups all media forms (TV, videogames, the Internet
and educational software) into one category called "computers" and then
puts the whole mix on the level of "mind altering drugs," a possible cause
of autism (p. 173) and even a reason for "experimentation with cigarettes
and alcohol" (p. 83). She describes software as places where "children flit
about in a colorful multimedia world" that can be "a recipe for a
disorganized and undisciplined mind" (p. 54). Healy must tell us just what
kind of software experience she thinks will have such negative effects on
children. Her observations appear to be based on unnamed software titles
(is it Tomb Raider or Oregon Trail?) and frightening quotes from anonymous
informants like a "suburban mother of a seven-year-old."
Most offensive is how she underestimates young children and their own
ability to know when they are being asked to use poorly designed software,
or have simply been sitting too long and want to go outside to play in the
backyard. Healy seems to think that children are little puppets, with
rigid, fragile minds. She implies that this makes children easy prey for
powerful, devious electronic multimedia wizards motivated by vast profits.
At times her desire to frighten the reader is so great that she is plainly
inaccurate. In addition to her interesting discussion of autism, she makes
the causal link between her own nearsightedness and her time at the
computer and what can happen to young children. She cited evidence from one
"developmental optometrist." Healy didn't see the report from the American
Academy of Ophthalmology (the folks with medical degrees) that find "no
convincing experimental or epidemiologic evidence of any organic damage to
the eye" ...despite the millions of children who have been spending way too
much time sitting inches from TVs and videogames. Her coverage of this very
well researched issue helps the reader understand how weak Healy's argument
is throughout her book.
The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has
been watching this topic for years, and has released a position statement
on the use of computers with young children. This is a much more balanced,
rational perspective (found at
http://www.naeyc.org/about/position/position_statement1.htm) discredits
most of Healy's book, and is useful for bringing this issue back into
perspective. I urge you to also consider this body of research if you
decide to read this book.
Warren Buckleitner, Editor Children's Software Revue
***
I've bought the book, It'll be a little while before I get to it.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.2 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: Money is the issue(?)
Date: 8 Jul 1999 21:56:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Charlie capstick responded:
)I deliberately delayed replying to Luke Schelly's baiting because I am sure
)he knows very well that co-workers are not paid.
Who's baiting? Firstly, I don't/didn't know that (for your example) and I can't say that that is the norm here in the US. Maybe someone else more familiar with camphills can say. I said I visited one camphill in Kimberton. You called them co-workers which I took to mean employees.
)They are volunteers who usually come from Europe and do whatever is required in )return for a place to sleep and food to eat (and perhaps a small stipend) They )are on visitors' permits from Immigration Canada and cannot earn income.
Can you say that this is the same here in the US? How many camphills have you visited and researched?
)So, removing this group from the paid staff would leave perhaps
)5 to 6 paid staff being paid out of a total client revenue of
)23 x 2800 x 12 = $772,800. per annum.
You still haven't accounted for the cost of running this camphill so you are not making a point that has any meaning.
)300 acres x $15,000 = $4,500,000. This land is within
)spitting distance of a very desirable new housing
)development. With 300 acres (6.5 acres per person)
)they could easily carve off a subdivision and have
)a tidy windfall.
Firstly, one might not want to sell any land in order to preserve it *from development*. Secondly, one might not be able to sell any land as it may be in a permanent trust restricting any sales, third, how long could you keep selling off land to balance the books? What happens when its gone? Selling off assets to finance a yearly deficit is foolish. It has no long-term future.
)Two other properties have been opened in an urban setting, one
)planned to be a bakery or similar business. Other income is realized
)from sales of weaving and from produce sales.
cool.
)Housing and road-building was government supported and
)they recently completed a "cultural centre" which is used
)for services and celebrations. Tax-deductible donations
)were solicited for this project.
Yes. so?
)Tax-deductible means taxpayer-supported in this country, as those of us who
)haven't got the high professional incomes to shelter end up paying for someone )else's deductions.
Someone of similar political/fiscal leanings might say that it works exactly the same here in the US. I don't have any high professional salary to shelter, but I still disagree with the sentiment of that staement. Your statement just sounds like political/financial sour grapes about your countries spending policies and tax structure. It has nothing to do with camphills. Are you against all charities and not-for-profits that are helped by tax deductible donations and government subsidies, or just the ones you don't like?
)The point I was making before being so rudely interrupted...
Excuse me Charles, YOU are the one who clicked the send button. If you weren't finished yammering why did you send the post when you did?
)... was that the intentions of these communities seem clear: to use disadvantaged members of society as a source of public funding for experimental )intentional communities based upon anthroposophical tenets.
You have some nerve, Capstick. This reads sooo patently cynical it is frightening. What it sounds like you are saying is that people get together to form a community (experimental, intentional, whatever), but because they actually can't afford to do it they start to "take in" people on disability in order to prop up their bottom line. (of course it costs more to have them there than they get so go figure, one could go broke making money like that) You are going to have to show me more proof of this kind of intention before I let that comment stand unchallenged/unquestioned and let you trash what could be the good intentions of many people.
Are you going to complain so cynically about every program and soft science that uses public funds to treat or look after or care for the disabled, or just the ones you don't like? What about all those public school teachers that are *using* the uneducated children of society as a source of public funding for their intentional programs based on whatever. And what about all those doctors and nurses who are bilking the taxpayers out of millions for those experimental drug treatment and early prevention programs. And those research scientists driving back and forth to their government granted labs in their Saabs. Don't forget them. Then there are the churches and social groups that run tax exempt and/or subsidized soup kitchens, freestores, and drop-in centers. Better keep an eye on those shady characters.
While your at it you might want to look and see if your student housing coop had any public funding or tax exemptions. You know, that could be just a bunch of students swindling the taxpayer in order to have their favorite musicians play while they sip tasty coffee drinks in their subsidized housing.
Have you got some personal grudge against this camphill or are your political leanings the source of this cynicism?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.3 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: negative reviews of Healy
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:35:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I will try putting my responses in brackets, [[[Like this]]]. Please note:
my usually critical - and always cranky - opinions ahead.
Sarina
----------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: negative reviews of Healy
Date: Thursday, July 08, 1999 6:17 PM
Here are some negative reviews of Healy's "Failure to Connect" posted on
Amazon.com:
***
A reader from Beijing , March 10, 1999
Blame it on the computer?
This is a very disappointing book for anyone that wants to know more about
how computers affect children (which the book claims to do - and the reason
why I bought it). There is no such reliable information to be found in it.
[[[And what does Mister Beijing know about educating children? Anyone who
has witnessed children mindlessly pushing the mouse button to get a visual
"reward", especially any way they can (without using critical thinking
skills, for example, just clicking on everything until they find the
"right" spot), knows that Healy has made some accurate observations about
how computers are used by young children.]]]
There are very interesting questions to be asked on this subject, but Jane
M. Healy gets it all mixed up. Especially she is unable to make up her mind
on when to attack the way computers are being used, their potential as a
learning aid or their role as a life skill.
[[[Excuse me? I don't think this guy even read the book!!!!!! She not only
explained, in great detail, WHEN to attack (some) of the ways computers are
being used with kids, but she also gave MANY clear examples of their
benefits and potential. In fact, throughout the book she provides outlines
explaining how to use the computer for the most educational benefit with
different ages of children and different subject areas.
Not only that, but she does address the "life skill" issue pretty darned
clearly and convincingly. Dan, when you get to the part of the book where
the author talks about how easy it is to learn to use computers at, say,
10, 12, or even 20, see what you think! I had never touched one until I got
mine three years ago, and now I am proficient in all kinds of applications
(even though I am ignorant about certain aspects of the internet because I
don't really care). Sheesh.]]]
She also believes that time not spent with computers is spent in a rich and
colorful learning environment at school and at home. All teachers would
provide wonderful challenging lessons that spellbind the students - if not
for that ghastly computer-thing in the corner with ball-chained students
playing mindless tic-tac-toe as their intellectual capacity dwindles.
Parents would swamp their kids with activities, word games, kitchen math
and-who-knows-what. Unfortunately, the kids want to play "Doom" instead?
[[[Ridiculous ranting from someone with an axe to grind (a programmer,
maybe?). For preschool children, almost anything they could find to do
outside, alone, would be better than mindless clicking. No, not all parents
and teachers provide activities, but they should. Too many parents stick
their kids in front of the computer just like they used to do with the TV -
as a babysitter. Then they justify it - and soothe their guilt - by telling
themselves "it's educational!" when in fact they just can't be bothered to
interact with their kids.]]]
Serious social studies on the use of computers in my native country
(Denmark) show amongst others: that computer time at home impairs most of
all on TV-viewing hours (now falling for the first time).
[[[Big woop. Mindless time is still mindless.]]]
That families spend more child/adult time together after they get a home
computer.
[[[Bullshit.]]]
And that kids computer skills can effectively break down ethnic/racial
barriers. Not too bad for a hate-machine.
[[[HA! Break down racial barriers! IN DENMARK? Scandanavian coutries seem
to be way beyond the US when it comes to racism and other types of
prejudice anyway, so big deal. Not only that, but I'd like to see those
studies for myself, mister.]]]
The obvious truth is that computers can be used or misused at school, at
home, at the office etc. Jane M. Healy does not have to tell us a hundred
times that some teachers do not no how to use computers in class. They have
colleagues; English teachers who cannot spell, math teachers that do not
know their fractions, boring science teachers, teachers that think violence
is a learning tool.
[[[Uh, yeah, but at least the science, math, and english teachers are
taking ongoing education courses to keep up their certifications - yet
there's very little money to provide computer instruction training because
the computers themselves "ate" it all. I dunno about you, but I think that
sounds pretty important.]]]
But there are many others; Teachers that do wonders with words, riddle math
into everything around us, stir the inventor and scientist in young minds
and create rich learning environments. Some of them use computers, some do
it without computers.
[[[True.]]]
Her mindless ranting reminds me of the kind of books seen decades ago
arguing that comic books and TV-viewing would be the doom of modern
civilisation.
[[[Hey, are we sure this guy isn't Dan Dugan? *LOL* ]]]
Alas, our world is far from perfect - but do not blame it on the computers.
[[[I don't remember reading anywhere in Healy's book that computers were to
blame for any of the problems in our world. But I did read some disturbing
discussion about the way children simplify computer use into mindless
clicking because of the way the majority of the software is programmed.
It was disturbing because I recognized my son while working on his beloved
"Math With Pooh:" The wishing well presents a number, and my son had to
choose from 5 or 6 sets of flowers. He soon learned that he could skip the
counting altogether and just click on them all until he got the right one.
At that point, Tigger would come on and say "Woo-hoo! Good for you!" (or
some crap like that), which was all he wanted all along. He just wanted to
see Tigger, and he quickly found a way to bypass the "educational"
activity. Needless to say, he doesn't play that game, or any other,
anymore. I started playing math story board games using colored markers
with him, however, and now he can add up to 8 (4=4 = 8). Not only that, but
he truly understands the concepts involved. He's even starting to figure
out fractions. If I'd left him on the computer game, he'd still be going,
"Woo-hoo, Good for you!"]]]
Instead save your money and buy "Lego Mindstorms". Then see how computers
can affect your children's minds in the most wonderful ways.
[[[WHAT AGE, BUDDY?]]]
[[[I'm not even going to comment on the other review you posted, Dan,
because it too was full of mis-statements just like the first ones. I did
notice many good reviews that you didn't post, from parents, teachers, and
critics alike.
I am thrilled to see that you are reading a Healy book, but I wish you'd
started with Endangered Minds because it goes into much more detail about
how children's brains develop and how they learn. Not being a preschool or
early primary teacher, I'd urge you to spend some time with a four or five
year old using a computer so that you can evaluate some of what Healy says
against your own observations. (So many arguments on theory could be
avoided if we just kept the age of the child in mind. For example, my
assertion that Waldorf Kindergarten is just dandy, but I wouldn't put my
kid in a Waldorf middle school without planning on providing a whole lot of
homeschool supplementation.) I was convinced by this book, well, yes,
because I'm biased - I love Healy's earlier work - but also because I HAVE
WITNESSED WHAT SHE DESCRIBES. There's that, "Sorry this is anecdotal,
but..." again.
P.S. After viewing a video about the challenges of teaching children in our
media age, in which the narrator explained that children no longer come to
school with the ability to pay attention, follow throuhg on a task, or even
play, I asked the professor and other students if they could point me to
the research. Just about every single teacher in the room began lamenting
that it was true, and just look at how much time they watch TV, and so
don't play outside, don't talk to their families, etc. Yes, I said, but I'm
in this really picky debating group, and they want me to give them the
actual research. "There's tons! Just look! It's overwhelming! Jeez, don't
you have a computer? Go online! It's proven!" But they didn't know off the
tops of their heads, and they were more concerned about the topic of the
class (Math and Science for Young Children). Go figure. I will look some
more.
Thanks for keeping things spicy, Dan!]]]
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: negative reviews of Healy
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:50:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Dan Dugan]
)
) Here are some negative reviews of Healy's "Failure to
) Connect" posted on
) Amazon.com:
Dan,
As you probably recall, I am not a total convert on the Waldorf
anti-media approach, and my feelings are known to the teachers at my kids'
school. Indeed, I've received some friendly chiding at the school for a
comment I once made on this list in which I used the term "Luddite."
I'm not at all surprised that there would be critical comments of
Healy's anti-media book. However, as is your predilection, you have posted
to this list only the information which suits your purposes and have ignored
that which is contrary to your argument.
The vast majority of the reviews posted on Amazon.com were
favorable. There were 8 private reviews, with the average rating being 4
out of 5 stars.
I'm not going to quote any of them here, but for those who want to
see the complete lay of the land over at Amazon.com, the URL is
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684831368/qid=931527309/sr=1-1/002-6
604890-2679807.
As an aside, I note that Healy's book seems to be popular enough
that a paperback edition is supposed to come out in September.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Money is the issue(?)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:57:24 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Luke Schelly]
)
) You have some nerve, Capstick. This reads sooo patently
) cynical it is frightening. What it sounds like you are
) saying is that people get together to form a community
) (experimental, intentional, whatever), but because they
) actually can't afford to do it they start to "take in" people
) on disability in order to prop up their bottom line. (of
) course it costs more to have them there than they get so go
) figure, one could go broke making money like that)
Did you hear the one about the store-owner who was selling
everything below cost? When questioned by his accountant how he
anticipating making a profit when he was realizing a loss on every sale, the
store-owner replied that he expected to make it up on volume.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: negative reviews of Healy
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:43:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907091346.GAA17650 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz, you wrote,
) I'm not at all surprised that there would be critical comments of
)Healy's anti-media book. However, as is your predilection, you have posted
)to this list only the information which suits your purposes and have ignored
)that which is contrary to your argument.
) The vast majority of the reviews posted on Amazon.com were
)favorable. There were 8 private reviews, with the average rating being 4
)out of 5 stars.
So if it's popular it must be true? You're not addressing the issues.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:43:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907012043.NAA17109 lists1.best.com)
Sarina, you wrote,
)I just realized that the best way to get PLANS off public
)"Waldorf-inspired" schools' backs would simply be if RSC wasn't behind
)them! Someone like me, for example, a parent who is openly critical of
)Steiner and anthroposophy but likes many aspects of the Waldorf curriculum,
)would be a whole lot more convincing if I started a charter school,
)claiming "No, this school doesn't have a religious basis...I just like
)silk!"
)
)Okay, I'm being too lighthearted. I meant "Elementary education should
)incorporate the arts into all areas of the curriculum - all children should
)learn to play an instrument, speak a foreign language, dance, sing, use
)their bodies and move, etc. - in a beautiful environment, incorporating
)natural materials, that is created with care"... and so on.
I support all that. That's what attracted me to Waldorf.
)It would make more sense for a person or group totally outside of
)Anthroposophy to use Waldorf schools as an "inspiration," take the aspects
)that make sense - and are legal - and discard the rest. The problem is,
)Anthroposophy is what Rudolf Steiner College is all about, and they're the
)ones behind these public schools, right? PLANS doesn't like that. When it
)comes to my public tax dollars, I don't really like that either.
)
)Am I making sense now, or did I just open up another can of worms?
It's the can we've been fishing with all along, Sarina. Neither the Waldorf
magnet schools nor the Waldorf charter schools were started by Rudolf
Steiner College. They were started by groups of parents and/or teachers who
believed in Waldorf. Waldorf teachers in -private- schools will tell you
that there's no Anthroposophy in the classroom, and that they take the best
from Waldorf. What's the difference when it's publicly funded? It's the
same story. And it's false in both cases. The problem is, Anthroposophy is
what Waldorf is all about.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:49:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907012259.PAA20896 lists1.best.com)
Duane Koons, you wrote,
)There is not a lot of info available that I am aware of about how public
)settings have altered waldorf inspired curriculums. The PLANS people
)prefer to
)see anthroposophy in everything waldorf related and seem to believe it is
)their
)duty to block efforts to secularize the movement.
I've visited a number of them, and they vary widely. We're opposing
publicly funded Waldorf programs; I don't think that equates with "efforts
to secularize the movement." I think there are many good things in Waldorf
that can be imitated; but I don't see how you could "secularize" Steiner's
principles.
(snip)
)The Milwaukee schools have a public magnet school that uses a waldorf style
)curriculum that is sanitized for public consumption i.e. the word "God "
)is not
)spoken. Apparently the school is doing well and has parent and administrative
)support which is more than can be said of many of the schools in that
)district.
)If anyone has factual info that is unbiased I'd be interested in hearing it.
Test scores have been disappointingly low, and seem to rise only to the
degree that the programs are de-waldorfed.
)There are a few charters out west that are adjusting to the public regulatory
)environment.
Yes, in some cases by watering down Waldorf, in others by learning how to
lie more convincingly.
)I wish there was more info available but suspect the paucity of info is due to
)factors above, the newness of this phenomena, (fear of controversy e.g. PLANS
)will come and visit your little day care if they find out you recieve any
)public
)funding and do anything remotely waldorf) etc
I agree. A national database of test scores would be helpful. California
has theirs on a web site.
)Since the current conversation thread involves questioning the financial
)motives
)of waldorf supportors I suppose hope the following questions are fair
)game. Is
)PLANS a tax exempt 501c corp?
501c(3)
)Does this list have any legal relationship to
)PLANS?
It's sponsored by it, i.e. maintained by PLANS volunteer labor, and PLANS
pays $20/month internet service charges for the list and web site.
)Is there any tax advantage that comes with this public service? I
)understand that the joy in experiencing righteous indignation on a regular
)basis
)as a waldorf critic is far outweighs any financial benefit that could come.
)(Dan?)
No financial benefit to any person. PLANS Inc. is presently carrying a huge
debt for legal services. Personally I spend about $1000/year on
publications and at least one day a week of my time. I'm not complaining, I
enjoy it, it's my hobby.
)And finally I would note there is a wide spectrum of belief about what is
)anthroposophy and what are the essential qualities of waldorf education.
)It is
)easiest to define when confronted with extremist viewpoints within the
)movement
)as examples (be they real or caricatures). However as good modern
)intellectuals
)we understand the dangers of assuming that extremes of behavior and belief
)define the essential character of a group of people or movement. Much of
)anthroposophical thought is foreign to my world view and I can disagree with
)many of Steiner's dated pronouncements about reality. However some analytical
)aspects derived from anthroposophy are very interesting and at times sensible.
)The same thing happens when I go to church or attend a medical conference.
)Some
)stuff fits and some doesn't.
Of course, Duane. The same is true of Catholics, for example. But the fact
that most U.S. Catholics use birth control doesn't exonerate the official
church position. Same thing with Waldorf. Steiner rules. If you're going to
promote Waldorf, I'm going to demand that you explicitly repudiate
Steiner's racist theories about history, for example, before I consider you
respectable.
)The WE CRITICS and TRUE BELIEVERS want to keep things simple but fortunately
)life isn't that easy. I am thankful for this list and the work that
)people like
)Dan Dugan have done as it helps all of us stay honest and confront our own
)values and assumptions about education, community, the future etc. The
)perspective Dan et al brings to the table helps us all be better at working to
)prepare our children for the future.
Thanks. -Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf rights
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:52:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907091102_MC2-7C7A-35BC compuserve.com)
Sally J. Bigongiari (SMBig compuserve.com), I'm answering your message on
the waldorf-critics list. I'd like you to subscribe right away so that you
can participate in any subsequent discussion.
)Hi Dan, I'm a representative of a group in Eugene, OR. that's starting a
)charter school influenced by the 'best of Waldorf education', but leaving
)behind everything spiritually-controversial.
I don't believe this is possible, Sally. Deby Snell tried to do this, and
the Anthropop teachers took it over. Where will you get your teachers? What
curriculum resources will you use? Everything comes from Anthroposophy.
)David Alsop's already pretty
)mad at me, and we want to do everything legally and avoid trouble with the
)anthroposophists. I'm wondering if you can tell me what AWSNA's
)limitations on "Waldorf" and "Steiner" are. I read the 1996 AWSNA position
)statement in the Waldorf files; is that still current information, and can
)we call ourselves, "A Steiner-Based Elementary Program"? Thanks for any
)light you can shed on this subject. Sally Bigongiari, for The Village
)School
I can't give you legal advice. I'm not aware of AWSNA ever suing anyone;
this kind of thing is often resolved privately after a lawyer's warning
letter.
How can it not be Anthroposophical if it's based on Steiner?
Sincerely yours, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1377.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: negative reviews of Healy
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:57:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Dan Dugan]
)
) So if it's popular it must be true?
[Bob Tolz]
Don't put words in my mouth, Dan. I simply noted that there is a
demand for the book.
[Dan Dugan]
) You're not addressing the issues.
[Bob Tolz]
You are correct: I'm not addressing the issues, nor do I see much
of a need to. I happen to have an opinion about the media issue which is
somewhat closer to yours than to Sabrina's, though I can certainly point to
a number of occasions where I'd conclude that TV and video games to bring
about premature brain death.
The principal purpose of my prior post in this thread was to point
out your typical lack of objectivity and to direct readers of the list to a
URL where they could obtain the balance of the information which you
purposefully omitted.
Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1377 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1378 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
004 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
005 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1378.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:21:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Dan Dugan]
) Waldorf teachers in -private- schools
) will tell you
) that there's no Anthroposophy in the classroom, and that they
) take the best
) from Waldorf. What's the difference when it's publicly
) funded? It's the
) same story. And it's false in both cases. The problem is,
) Anthroposophy is
) what Waldorf is all about.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
[Bob Tolz]
That's really been the thrust of the PLANS position all along, that
Waldorf cannot exist without Anthroposophy.
Recently, I mentioned on this list that it would be irrelevant that
someone's experiences in a non-defendant school district might support that
argument if the defendant school district had a different factual situation.
You responded that PLANS hopes to prove in its lawsuit that Waldorf is so
pervasively permeated with Anthroposophy (which PLANS argues is a religion)
that PLANS would thereby prove its case.
This is an important legal issue in the PLANS case, one which is
highlighted by the claim made by the defendant school districts in their
summary judgment motion that PLANS has no factual proof regarding the actual
practices in those districts. It seems to me that PLANS is taking a pretty
risky legal tactic of intentionally avoiding developing the factual record
regarding the defendant school districts in favor of trying to apply what it
believes are global truths to a specific situation.
Though I've had my share of trials, my specialty is not litigation.
However, like most law students, I took a course in evidence, and I know
enough about problems of proof to say that it is in only very rare
circumstances that a factual determination will be made by a judge based on
what someone tries to argue is "normal" or "habitual." The party trying to
prove a point on that basis is pretty much going to have to show that it's
highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the facts could be otherwise.
The trier of fact needs to know what happened ***in the specific
circumstances*** which are the subject of the complaint.
This morning, I asked one of my litigator partners about what I
perceived to be the PLANS tactic. He said that the most important thing is
the factual record and he found it highly unlikely that such a complaint
could succeed without developing the facts as they actually manifest
themselves in the defendant school districts.
You say that Waldorf cannot exist without Anthroposophy. Many
Anthroposophists apparently agree with you. In both cases, that's a matter
of opinion, not fact.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1378.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:51:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907021349.GAA12952 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz, you wrote,
) Back to the original thread -- I agree with Bob Williams and Sarina
)that it does appear that the PLANS keepers of the flame seem to want to
)prevent even *attempts* at secularization of Waldorf, and I just don't
)understand why.
Because we've seen it fail. I don't say it's impossible, just very
difficult, especially considering all the other problems you have trying to
build a school.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1378.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:48:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907092116.OAA15367 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz, you wrote,
) This is an important legal issue in the PLANS case, one which is
)highlighted by the claim made by the defendant school districts in their
)summary judgment motion that PLANS has no factual proof regarding the actual
)practices in those districts. It seems to me that PLANS is taking a pretty
)risky legal tactic of intentionally avoiding developing the factual record
)regarding the defendant school districts in favor of trying to apply what it
)believes are global truths to a specific situation.
)
) Though I've had my share of trials, my specialty is not litigation.
)However, like most law students, I took a course in evidence, and I know
)enough about problems of proof to say that it is in only very rare
)circumstances that a factual determination will be made by a judge based on
)what someone tries to argue is "normal" or "habitual." The party trying to
)prove a point on that basis is pretty much going to have to show that it's
)highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the facts could be otherwise.
)
) The trier of fact needs to know what happened ***in the specific
)circumstances*** which are the subject of the complaint.
We are providing specific evidence from each school. I think we can
supplement that with some examples from other places, to indicate that
there is a larger picture.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1378.4 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:40:38
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907092116.OAA15367 lists1.best.com)
)You responded that PLANS hopes to prove in its lawsuit that Waldorf is so
)pervasively permeated with Anthroposophy (which PLANS argues is a religion)
)that PLANS would thereby prove its case.
For the argument supporting Anthroposophy as a religion, and this religious
basis providing the pedagogical basis of Waldorf education from the
writings of Rudolf Steiner see my latest article available at the PLANS
website.
) This is an important legal issue in the PLANS case, one which is
)highlighted by the claim made by the defendant school districts in their
)summary judgment motion that PLANS has no factual proof regarding the actual
)practices in those districts. It seems to me that PLANS is taking a pretty
)risky legal tactic of intentionally avoiding developing the factual record
)regarding the defendant school districts in favor of trying to apply what it
)believes are global truths to a specific situation.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I was at the motion for summary
judgement in California, and the PLANS attorney *did* provide evidence from
the "factual record" noting "actual practices" of the districts in
question. Thus, the case moves from the general to the particular:
Anthroposophy is religious, Anthroposophy provides the basis for and is
implicit within Waldorf education, the Waldorf pedagogy in the public
schools in question contain specific religious elements.
) You say that Waldorf cannot exist without Anthroposophy. Many
)Anthroposophists apparently agree with you. In both cases, that's a matter
)of opinion, not fact.
I respectfully disagree. The opinions must and should be informed by fact.
As I document in my latest article, *Steiner himself* stated that true
Waldorf pedagogy by necessity incorporated a religious element based upon
Anthroposophy and its understanding of a person's spiritual evolution.
John Morehead
Watchman Fellowship
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1378.5 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:42:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
JOHN MOREHEAD:
"As I document in my latest article, *Steiner himself* stated that true
Waldorf pedagogy by necessity incorporated a religious element based upon
Anthroposophy and its understanding of a person's spiritual evolution."
SARINA:
[Well that's interesting, John, but I would have expected a critic to know
better: Just because Steiner said something, doesn't make it true!
It seems to me that a person who is not interested in "true" Waldorf
pedagogy wouldn't much care what Steiner said. Those who do care probably
are already Anthroposophists, and so have no problem with the
incorporation. Like most Catholics whose children attend Catholic school,
the Anthropop parents are pretty supportive of the religious stuff - right?
People like me, however, who generally approve of the activities done in
the classroom but who are critical of Steiner and Anthroposophy, are simply
not interested in whether Steiner would consider a school a "true" Waldorf
school or not. As far as I'm concerned, Rudolf Steiner can go jump off a
cliff for all I care (I mean after his next incarnation, of course.) ;-)
In fact, I would *prefer* it if my son's Waldorf school was not a "true"
Waldorf school! I approve of what they DO, but I disapprove of their
failure to do things I consider important (age-appropriate early academics)
- and I don't belive in their so-called spiritual reasons for omitting
them. I am still sending my son to the Waldorf kindergarten here, because
as I've said before: I have taught him to read, write, add, and subtract on
my own, so he's not exactly going to be behind when he hits "real" school.
I may not *believe* in the Anthropops' religion, but I don't mind that they
do.
I want what I said in an earlier post:
"Elementary education should incorporate the arts into all areas of the
curriculum - all children should learn to play an instrument, speak a
foreign language, dance, sing, use their bodies and move, etc. - in a
beautiful environment, incorporating natural materials, that is created
with care"... and so on."] (Sarina)
TO WHICH DAN RESPONDED:
"I support all that. That's what attracted me to Waldorf."
BUT THEN DAN SAID THIS:
(in response to Sally B's assertion that her school would be "influenced by
the 'best of Waldorf education'", yet also be "leaving behind everything
spiritually-controversial")
"I don't believe this is possible, Sally. Deby Snell tried to do this, and
the Anthropop teachers took it over. Where will you get your teachers? What
curriculum resources will you use? Everything comes from Anthroposophy."
(Dan)
SARINA SEZ
[Well, which is it, Dan?
I am quite puzzled with this apparently muddled thinking on the part of the
critics. (Dan is not the only one.) On the one hand, you agree with much of
the curriculum, that's why you were drawn to the schools in the first
place. On the other hand you disagree with the underlying Anthropop
religious stuff like me. But then you say that a non-anthropop Waldorf
style school is an impossibility! AAARGH.
Why couldn't a school be Waldorf inpsired, without Anthroposophy? Dan
could start the school himself, be the administrator. He could incoproate
all those things that mainstream education tends to ignore - you know,
those things he says he supports - and, voila! A non-Steiner, "Waldorf
style" school.
It's not impossible.]
Sarina
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1378 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1379 --------------
001 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - How Do a Waldorf School - Sans Steiner
002 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
004 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
005 - Kevin Houston (Kevin urly - URGENT! We only have until Monday!
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: URGENT!--Admin: warning
007 - MomOf2Gals aol.com - Re: URGENT!--Admin: warning
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1379.1 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: How Do a Waldorf School - Sans Steiner
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:18:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Some more on the topic of "Waldorf inspired" yet not Anthropop schools:
All that a school would have to do is start out with skepticism toward
Steiner, and incorporate more mainstream curriculum in with all the pretty,
hippy-granola Waldorf stuff. It would be fairly simple, actually: hire
non-Steiner trained teachers who have simply observed in Waldorf schools
(and become enchanted as so many people on this list admit they were
initially), and who:
* Have spoken with Waldorf teachers, parents, and other Anthroposophists,
* Done some reading of the more outrageous teachings/writing of Steiner,
* Have learned about many other approaches to child development before
encountering WE, and
* Are skeptical of "spiritual science" and "clairvoyance" and any other
Steiner BS that Anthropops use to explain some of their wackier
practices.
There - I just told you how to do it.
Want more specifics? Imagine this:
A "mainstream" teacher goes into a Waldorf school, is impressed by the
beauty of the classroom, and notices positive effects on the children that
she attributes to the beautiful and soothing environment. (No harsh
fluorescent lights here, no banks of plastic tubs, no cold tile or vinyl
floors!) She thinks the use of ONLY natural materials is odd, but keeps
thinking about the serene quality of the classroom - "maybe there is
something to that," she thinks.
Imagine this teacher becoming intrigued and enrolling her child in the
school's Mother/Toddler group, where she stays to do hand-work with the
other mothers while the children play and work with the Waldorf teacher.
She is surprised to find that she enjoys the hand work immensely! Also,
this teacher/mom notices how much her child enjoys the singing and
eurythmy, the "real" work such as bread baking and soup making, and how
much he likes the loving and committed teacher. She is impressed with the
interactions between the children, the non-violent and anti-television
attitudes of the other parents, and the emphasis on organic, whole-foods
nutrition, so she researches further: she begins reading Steiner and others
(A.C. Harwood, Britz-Crecelius, etc.)
YIKES! The teacher/mom is shocked to find that Steiner's writings
are....well, she thinks they're WEIRD. She finds the spiritual science
highly questionable and is frankly disappointed in the "spritual
underpinnings" of this wonderful school. How could such a beautiful school
that seems to work so well for the children have such a freaky basis? She
looks up Waldorf on the internet, finds the PLANS site, and becomes even
more doubtful... When she asks questions, nobody in the school wants to
listen to criticism of Steiner, and the teacher just make excuses and
sounds really new-agey. She finally abandons the Waldorf school,
disenchanted.
Apparently, other parents felt the same: the privately owned school folds.
Some ruckus occurred between the Anthroposophist teacher/owner and some of
the parents. The parents, deeply disapointed that there is now no Waldorf
alternative in their area, forge ahead to create a new, non-profit, board
run Waldorf school. Over two years of work go into this....
The new school finally finds an Ann Arbor - trained Waldorf teacher for
their kindergarten. They tell her explicity: "don't tell us what to do. We
had a bad experience with the last teacher being too radical, don't even
try it." The new teacher agrees that parents should not feel pressured or
preached to. The work to open the school goes on.
The mainstream teacher/mother attends a fundraiser for the new Waldorf
school, and is once again enchanted! What to do? How to proceed? Never
before has her child experienced such wholesome, appealing activities as he
is at this event! Her son is enthralled with the puppet show - which has a
gentle safety message about strangers - and is completely absorbed with the
birdhouse building, candle making, soap making, gnome sewing, and so on.
The Teacher/mother has to drag him out by force after FOUR hours. She
begins to wonder if, perhaps, she can dislike Steiner, disagree with
Anthroposophy, and still want her child to engage in these "Waldorf"
activities? Can it work for her family? Can they put their kid in a Steiner
school while inwardly loathing much of Steiner's beliefs?
Yes, they can, and they did. I'm sure you've figured out by now that the
"mainstream teacher/mother" is me.
Would you be surprised to learn that I have just hired a preschool teacher
to be my assistant, who feels the same way about Waldorf after experiencing
the same thing? She was a preschool teacher, trained in the theories of
Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, and the philosophy of NAEYC, when she encountered
Waldorf. She loved it! She was enchanted! The children were so kind, the
teachers so fabulously committed! So she took a Waldorf teacher training
course......
...and ran, fast, the other way.
I now have the best possible teacher to help create a Waldorf-style
program, without the Anthroposophical underpinnings, working with me. I'm
not particularly fond of Steiner, and I have no intention of turning my
school into a Waldorf school - there's no way I am throwing away those
plastic Legos! But I *do* intend to incorporate all those things that
Waldorf schools do that so enchant children and parents, and which critics
like Dan Dugan seem to also agree, and I am changing the classroom to look
more like a Waldorf one (that is, more aesthetically pleasing).
And yet, I keep hearing folks say "it's impossible!" Oh, B.S. You start
with a teacher who *wasn't* trained by RSC, or whatever the one is in Ann
Arbor, or any other Steiner teacher training college, and you go from
there.......
Simple.
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1379.2 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:31:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DAN WROTE:
"It's the can we've been fishing with all along, Sarina. Neither the
Waldorf
magnet schools nor the Waldorf charter schools were started by Rudolf
Steiner College. They were started by groups of parents and/or teachers who
believed in Waldorf. Waldorf teachers in -private- schools will tell you
that there's no Anthroposophy in the classroom, and that they take the best
from Waldorf. What's the difference when it's publicly funded? It's the
same story. And it's false in both cases. The problem is, Anthroposophy is
what Waldorf is all about. -Dan Dugan"
SARINA SEZ:
Again, I say B.S! Those parents are probably ignorant of most of Steiner's
objectionable teachings, and those teachers have all been trained in
Steiner colleges, RSC or other. Yeah, the people who would lie about
Steiner would also mislead parents, saying "oh, no - no anthroposophy
here!" And yet, you know that Anthroposophists are behind the schools, and
I'm sure that, since we are talking about CA, RSC grads are teaching in
those schools.
Anthroposophy is NOT what my school is all about, and yet I already
incorporate Waldorf ideas in my school. For example, I may still immerse
children in an environment rich in print and use whole language activities
- a big Waldorf no-no - but I have also changed my classroom so that it
looks more Waldorf. I came back from the "old" Waldorf school one day,
looked around at all the plastic tubs and bins in mine, and went "YUCK!"
Since then its been nothing but baskets. And you know what? The classroom
feels warmer, somehow. It just provides a more wholesome environment
without all that cold plastic. Yeah, this is an emotional response, but I
happen to think that children deserve the same finely orchestrated
environment as adults in a dentist office do! (dentists decorate their
offices according to research on how color, pictures, and music affect
mood, for example.) Now, that's not even going into the foreign language,
art, and movement aspects of a Waldorf curriculum.....
I'm just saying, IT IS POSSIBLE, IT IS POSSIBLE, IT IS POSSIBLE.......
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1379.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:11:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) [Bob Tolz]
) ) You say that Waldorf cannot exist without Anthroposophy. Many
) )Anthroposophists apparently agree with you. In both cases,
) that's a matter
) )of opinion, not fact.
)
[John Morehead]
) I respectfully disagree. The opinions must and should be
) informed by fact.
) As I document in my latest article, *Steiner himself* stated that true
) Waldorf pedagogy by necessity incorporated a religious
) element based upon
) Anthroposophy and its understanding of a person's spiritual evolution.
[Bob Tolz]
Well, it seems that Dan Dugan disagrees with you. He says it's not
impossible, just difficult. Maybe when it happens, despite the difficulty,
it's no longer "true" Waldorf.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1379.4 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 07:37:24
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907102142.OAA14922 lists1.best.com)
At 02:42 PM 7/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
)JOHN MOREHEAD:
)"As I document in my latest article, *Steiner himself* stated that true
)Waldorf pedagogy by necessity incorporated a religious element based upon
)Anthroposophy and its understanding of a person's spiritual evolution."
)
)SARINA:
)[Well that's interesting, John, but I would have expected a critic to know
)better: Just because Steiner said something, doesn't make it true!
JOHN:
Since the Anthroposophical Press states that their materials, and Steiner's
books, serve as the authoritative texts for defining Waldorf pedagogy, I
submit that they serve as the primary reference material for understanding
both Anthroposophy and its relationship with Waldorf education. For
example, if one wants to understand Scientology one reads the authoritative
writings and lecture transcripts of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, not the
writings of Thomas Aquinas. Likewise, if one wants to understand
Anthroposophy and Waldorf one goes to the founder, Rudolf Steiner. The
modifications and perspectives of Waldorf practitioners and advocates since
Stiner are important and must be taken into consideration, but one must go
to the source.
Now there are many positive aspects of Waldorf education which I've noted
in my first article (an increased emphasis on art and storytelling for
example). But as I've argued (and I think demonstrated from Steiner's
writings) the Waldorf pedagogy is *inseparable* from Anthroposophy and is
necessarily religious. Now, if someone wants to utilize the artistic and
cognitive elements of a Waldorf system, but then remove the distinctive
Waldorf pedagogy, then that is not Waldorf even if one uses that name for it.
John Morehead
==============================================
John W. Morehead
Associate Director
Watchman Fellowship, California branch office
http://www.watchman.org/ca/main.htm
(sierra7 quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 631-7897
(916) 631-0413 - fax
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1379.5 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (Kevin urly-bird.com)
Subject: URGENT! We only have until Monday!
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:33:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi,
I don't often send these kind of things out, but this one is very
important. The FEC is proposing to change the rules for third pirates'
inclusion in the debates. I've seen the petition myself [Kevin Houston]
and this is not a hoax. The details are below, or you can go to:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/debtpet1.htm and read it yourself.
When you have decided to support the petition, as I'm sure you will want to,
Send an e-mail TODAY to Rosemary C. Smith, Senior Attorney,
mailto://debates fec.gov/
(be sure to include your full name, e-mail address, and mailing Address).
in that email, say that you SUPPORT the proposed rule change for inclusion
in the debates. we only have until June 12, that is Monday, do this now and
send it on.
Thank you, and please forward this to everyone you know right away. No
matter which political party or persuasion you are, having more viewpoints
to listen to is always a good thing.
Thank you,
Kevin Houston,
Libertarian.
PS If this post is off-topic to this list, then I appologize and plead
mercy given the fact that I rarely do this sort of thing.
--------------------------Begin forward here.--------------------------
The Federal Elections Commission is considering adopting objective criteria
for debate participation, based on a petition that was presented to them.
Sources for this information are a Natural Law Party press release and a
release from Liberty Activists. The petition in this message does exist at
the website indicated.
John Geltemeyer
_________________________
The objective criteria are as follows:
1) Candidate must be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically be able
to pick up 270 electoral votes.
2) Candidate must have spent $500,000 by the end of August 2000.
Meeting these two criteria would allow the candidate in the general election
debates.
The petition also insists on "equal access" for all third party candidates to
any debates prior to September 1.
Copies of the Petition are available for review at
http://www.fec.gov/1996/whatsnew.htm (click on "View the Petition"
under "June 10, 1999 Notice") or from the FEC's FlashFAX service
(dial 202-501-3413 and follow instructions, requesting document #239).
***The Commission has invited comments from the public through July 12, 1999.
Send an e-mail TODAY to Rosemary C. Smith, Senior Attorney, debates fec.gov
(be sure to include your full name, e-mail address, and mailing Address).
******
You may also fax your comments to Ms. Smith at 202-219-3923, with a written
follow-up comment sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street NW,
Washington, DC 20463.
This letter is in reference to the Petition for Amendment of 11 CFR, Part
110, submitted to the Federal Election Commission by Mary Clare Wohlford,
William T. Wohlford, and Martin T. Mortimer.
***Forward this to any supporter of third party candidates!***
----------------------End forward-----------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1379.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: URGENT!--Admin: warning
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:14:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907111736.KAA05000 lists1.best.com)
)I don't often send these kind of things out, but this one is very
)important. The FEC is proposing to change the rules for third pirates'
)inclusion in the debates. I've seen the petition myself [Kevin Houston]
Kevin, this posting is off-topic for waldorf-critics and is de facto list
abuse. I have unsubscribed you. If you wish to continue on waldorf-critics,
you may re-subscribe yourself after thinking it over.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1379.7 ---------------
From: MomOf2Gals aol.com
Subject: Re: URGENT!--Admin: warning
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:07:54 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I know it was unintentional on Kevin's part, but did anyone notice
that his URGENT message referred to ``third pirate's'' participation in the
voting process?
I had to re-read it a few times to understand that it meant to say
``third PARTY's.''
I was picturing someone with a red bandana, an eye-patch and a parrot
on his shoulder.
Just wanted to add a little humor to an otherwise not OK thing to do
on this list. This was a good reminder to all of us that this list is meant
only for discussions of SWA -- not as a convenient way for any of us to
enlist support or help for our own, private interests or causes.
Thanks once again to Mr. Dugan for being such an on-the-ball
moderator, as well as an overall fair guy to deal with. I am what is usually
called on this list a Defender of the Faith (even though I am NOT an
anthropop!) and even I can recognize Dan's very fair-handed devotion to
freedom of opinion and open discourse.
So, guys, let's not abuse it.
Thanks again, Dan!
Lisa in Baltimore
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1379 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1380 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
002 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1380.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:35:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[John Morehead]
)
) Now there are many positive aspects of Waldorf education
) which I've noted
) in my first article (an increased emphasis on art and storytelling for
) example). But as I've argued (and I think demonstrated from Steiner's
) writings) the Waldorf pedagogy is *inseparable* from
) Anthroposophy and is
) necessarily religious. Now, if someone wants to utilize the
) artistic and
) cognitive elements of a Waldorf system, but then remove the
) distinctive
) Waldorf pedagogy, then that is not Waldorf even if one uses
) that name for it.
)
[Bob Tolz]
Therefore, it follows from your reasoning that if the school
districts which are targeted in the PLANS lawsuit use Waldorf artistic and
cognitive elements without the Steinerian aspects, it is not pure Waldorf,
as you might define it, and therefore is constitutionally permissible.
Do I understand your logic correctly?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1380.2 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:48:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907120130.SAA06375 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)
) [John Morehead]
) )
) ) Now there are many positive aspects of Waldorf education
) ) which I've noted
) ) in my first article (an increased emphasis on art and storytelling for
) ) example). But as I've argued (and I think demonstrated from Steiner's
) ) writings) the Waldorf pedagogy is *inseparable* from
) ) Anthroposophy and is
) ) necessarily religious. Now, if someone wants to utilize the
) ) artistic and
) ) cognitive elements of a Waldorf system, but then remove the
) ) distinctive
) ) Waldorf pedagogy, then that is not Waldorf even if one uses
) ) that name for it.
) )
)
) [Bob Tolz]
) Therefore, it follows from your reasoning that if the school
) districts which are targeted in the PLANS lawsuit use Waldorf artistic and
) cognitive elements without the Steinerian aspects, it is not pure Waldorf,
) as you might define it, and therefore is constitutionally permissible.
) Do I understand your logic correctly?
) Bob Tolz
) .
Your understanding of my logic is correct. However, you've got a mighty
big IF in your statement above. The school districts have *not* merely
utilized the cognitive and artistic elements, but have done so *with*
the Anthroposophical foundations. In addition, they have withheld
traditional academic study based upon Anthroposophical teaching related
to the spiritual evolution of the child, not based upon scientific
research on childhood development and its relationship to pedagogy.
As an aside, true Waldorf education with Anthroposophy is not just the
way "I would define" pure Waldorf. It was the way Steiner defined it
himself as he states in his writings.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1380.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:32:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) ) [Bob Tolz]
) ) Therefore, it follows from your reasoning that if the school
) ) districts which are targeted in the PLANS lawsuit use
) Waldorf artistic and
) ) cognitive elements without the Steinerian aspects, it is
) not pure Waldorf,
) ) as you might define it, and therefore is constitutionally
) permissible.
) ) Do I understand your logic correctly?
) ) Bob Tolz
) ) .
)
[John Morehead]
) Your understanding of my logic is correct. However, you've
) got a mighty
) big IF in your statement above. The school districts have
) *not* merely
) utilized the cognitive and artistic elements, but have done so *with*
) the Anthroposophical foundations. In addition, they have withheld
) traditional academic study based upon Anthroposophical
) teaching related
) to the spiritual evolution of the child, not based upon scientific
) research on childhood development and its relationship to pedagogy.
Let's assume that you're correct in that the districts have withheld
traditional academic study. Are you certain that they have done so based
upon Anthroposophical teachings? Or is it possible that they have done so
because, like our list-mate Sarina, they have found things to like in the
methods, regardless or even in spite of the Anthroposophical teachings?
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1380 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1381 --------------
001 - Jivatma aol.com - Re: OUCH! and other discussions: (new member of this list)
002 - Bob Williams (danabob she - RE: negative reviews of Healy
003 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: Waldorf rights
004 - David McKay (mckay oro.ne - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
005 - David McKay (mckay oro.ne - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
006 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: web counter 27,949
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
009 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
010 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.1 ---------------
From: Jivatma aol.com
Subject: Re: OUCH! and other discussions: (new member of this list)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:42:31 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello list,
I'm a new member and have listened to the discussion for only a couple of
weeks. I'm a Waldorf music teacher, not waldorf trained but beginning to
understand a little (only a little) about anthroposophy and the workings of
my school.
)From what I have read on the list, the current debates/discussions are about
issues to which I have no previous exposure so I'm a neophite at best.
I would appreciate any response (private email is ok too) which would help me
understand the 10-thousand foot view of the current issues at hand.
Regards,
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.2 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: RE: negative reviews of Healy
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:04:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan wrote in response to Bob Tolz:
) So if it's popular it must be true? You're not addressing the issues.
Bob Williams responds:
Dan, exactly which issues were you addressing in your post?
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.3 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf rights
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:03:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I apologize in advance. The following is in a two part format that may be
unrecognizable to any other than the guy what writ it.
Sally J. Bigongiaris wrote:
)Hi Dan, I'm a representative of a group in Eugene, OR. that's starting a
)charter school influenced by the 'best of Waldorf education', but leaving
)behind everything spiritually-controversial.
Bob Williams peeks out stage left and addresses a virtual Sally:
If you are going to abandon Steiner's take on the world, the challenge as I
see it is to define your own, making sure it includes at least a complete
pedagogy (theory of teaching) as well as a view of child development. I
agree with Dan that without the spiritually-controversial stuff it ain't
Steiner-based. You might list Steiner as one of the thinkers by whom you
are influenced, but I would assume that the folks upon whom you lean for
your pedagogy and view of the child would be a bit more important than the
guy responsible for your painting scheme.
I don't think that you can appropriate practices from Waldorf and think
that they will yield an educative experience,*unless* they fit into a
clearly defined vision. I've heard of a study done in Australia where they
looked at classrooms that were using identical literacy practices but had
different levels of student success. The variable that seemed to be
responsible was whether the teacher had a clearly articulated theory of
learning that included the practices used in the classroom. If you don't
believe Steiner's view of why and how you do what when and where with whom,
then you need to delineate your own view of the same. As stated in the
Partial Vision article on the PLANS site, one of the strengths of WE is
that they "have it all figured out" and everything they do with children is
purposeful.
Like specifying the exact star by which you are navigating, the more
specific you are in your vision, the more likely you are to stay on course
when others are involved in the steering. Look at public school mission
statements for examples of meaningless cliches to avoid in defining your
own vision. IMO, you really need to create a world view that gives an "end"
(nod to Neil Postman) to education and then make sure you have enough folks
that buy into that view to support a school. *However* if your world view
includes anything vaguely spiritual (which most people's do at some level--
watch for environmentalism, anything Gaia like, talk of beauty, love,
truth, light, inspiration, inner development, paths, miracles/magic of a
sunset, etc., higher self) then you better be prepared to do some
explaining around here.
Dan responded to Sally:
)I don't believe this is possible, Sally. Deby Snell tried to do this, and
)the Anthropop teachers took it over. Where will you get your teachers? What
)curriculum resources will you use? Everything comes from Anthroposophy.
Bob Williams then turns to Dan to say:
1) Maybe Deby's done a service to Eugene, OR. Sally, be wary of hiring
Anthopop teachers, but remember, there are free thinking teachers that have
been exposed to WE and survived without becoming evangelical Anthropops.
2) Where to find teachers? The dilemma is similar to the one faced by
Waldorf schools and any other alternative school. I assume Sally would have
similar challenges and use the same techniques used by her local Montessori
school.
3) The original Waldorf bunch wasn't relying on Anthoposophic Press for
curriculum resources. It is my impression from Faculty Meetings with
Steiner that they drew on a variety of resources that supported their
vision. I assume Sally's group could do the same-- if they have a clear
vision. I *would* urge caution, however. I recently watched 8th graders
studying Steven Covey's 7 Habits in a Waldorf school. A secular text, some
might think, but I knew that that Covey guy is a Mormon and has that weird
Mormon view of God behind everything he does. It pays to be vigilant.
Always respectful,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.4 ---------------
From: David McKay (mckay oro.net)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:11:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907121930.MAA02654 lists1.best.com)
Tolz wrote:
)
) Let's assume that you're correct in that the districts have withheld
)traditional academic study. Are you certain that they have done so based
)upon Anthroposophical teachings? Or is it possible that they have done so
)because, like our list-mate Sarina, they have found things to like in the
)methods, regardless or even in spite of the Anthroposophical teachings?
No, it is not possible:
Every teacher at Twin Ridges Waldorf Charter *and* there respective
students from the private Mariposa Waldorf School are what the charter
school started with. I personally believe that the *conversion law* was
broken by such a direct cross over change.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.5 ---------------
From: David McKay (mckay oro.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:11:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907012043.NAA17109 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907091804.LAA13092 lists1.best.com)
)Sarina wrote:
)
))I just realized that the best way to get PLANS off public
))"Waldorf-inspired" schools' backs would simply be if RSC wasn't behind
))them! Someone like me, for example, a parent who is openly critical of
))Steiner and anthroposophy but likes many aspects of the Waldorf curriculum,
))would be a whole lot more convincing if I started a charter school,
))claiming "No, this school doesn't have a religious basis...I just like
))silk!"
))
))Okay, I'm being too lighthearted. I meant "Elementary education should
))incorporate the arts into all areas of the curriculum - all children should
))learn to play an instrument, speak a foreign language, dance, sing, use
))their bodies and move, etc. - in a beautiful environment, incorporating
))natural materials, that is created with care"... and so on.
))
))It would make more sense for a person or group totally outside of
))Anthroposophy to use Waldorf schools as an "inspiration," take the aspects
))that make sense - and are legal - and discard the rest. The problem is,
))Anthroposophy is what Rudolf Steiner College is all about, and they're the
))ones behind these public schools, right? PLANS doesn't like that. When it
))comes to my public tax dollars, I don't really like that either.
))
))Am I making sense now, or did I just open up another can of worms?
Sarina, The Twin Ridges Waldorf Charter school (Yuba River Charter school
now), was started by parents with *exactly* your above mentioned
goals/ideals, but if you've ever noticed that when you turn on a light on
your porch, the moths soon turn up. That's exactly what will happen when
you use "Waldorf Inspired". In our case since this Charter started out of
the fact that the private Waldorf school was going bankrupt and many
parents still wanted aspects of Waldorf. Many of us thought that with the
safty net of the Public Ed Code we would be free of all the Anthro crap,
having the best of public, alternative, and Waldorf. We soon found out
that "Waldorf Inspired" is a dirty word to W/E Anthroposophists and the
battle that ensued for the first two years is how PLANS came about.
I also have gotten many calls over the last 4 years asking for my help in
starting "Waldorf Inspired" schools from all over Northern Calif. due to
my involvement in starting the Twin Ridges school. My point is that in any
given circle of disapline word travels in fast and in many ways. Someone
always knows someone, etc.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.6 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:21:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)DAN WROTE:
)"It's the can we've been fishing with all along, Sarina. Neither the
)Waldorf
)magnet schools nor the Waldorf charter schools were started by Rudolf
)Steiner College. They were started by groups of parents and/or teachers who
)believed in Waldorf. Waldorf teachers in -private- schools will tell you
)that there's no Anthroposophy in the classroom, and that they take the best
)from Waldorf. What's the difference when it's publicly funded? It's the
)same story. And it's false in both cases. The problem is, Anthroposophy is
)what Waldorf is all about. -Dan Dugan"
)SARINA SEZ:
)Again, I say B.S! Those parents are probably ignorant of most of Steiner's
)objectionable teachings, and those teachers have all been trained in
)Steiner colleges, RSC or other. Yeah, the people who would lie about
)Steiner would also mislead parents, saying "oh, no - no anthroposophy
)here!" And yet, you know that Anthroposophists are behind the schools, and
)I'm sure that, since we are talking about CA, RSC grads are teaching in
)those schools.
Bob Williams, somewhat mistified by the exchange, and so, sure to be
missing the point but responding nevertheless as learned from elderly
relatives:
Sarina, I would urge caution in trying to pigeon hole teachers based solely
on their training. Exposure to and the study of ideas does not necessarily
make one a convert to those ideas. I think that most WE teachers have a
real desire to help children grow and learn. I believe that they call on
their training and peers, as well as their life experiences and various
learnings both of which may have very little to do with Anthroposophy to
help them realize that desire. I would humbly suggest that there may be
more variation amongst teachers than the monolithic Anthroposophist zealot
image might imply.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter 27,949
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:40:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On July 12, 1999, the PLANS web site had registered 27,949 visitors since
August 12, 1996. That's 969 visitors in the last month, averaging 32 per
day. We're in a summer slump; last month it was 41/day. The
subscribe/unsubscribe activity for the list has also slowed down. School's
out, summer's here, and people are getting away from their computers.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.8 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 06:21:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: David McKay [mailto:mckay oro.net]
) Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 4:11 AM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
)
)
) Tolz wrote:
) )
) ) Let's assume that you're correct in that the districts
) have withheld
) )traditional academic study. Are you certain that they have
) done so based
) )upon Anthroposophical teachings? Or is it possible that
) they have done so
) )because, like our list-mate Sarina, they have found things
) to like in the
) )methods, regardless or even in spite of the Anthroposophical
) teachings?
)
) No, it is not possible:
) Every teacher at Twin Ridges Waldorf Charter *and* there respective
) students from the private Mariposa Waldorf School are what the charter
) school started with. I personally believe that the
) *conversion law* was
) broken by such a direct cross over change.
)
) David McKay
Sorry, David, you've lost me. I don't know what a "conversion law"
is, nor do I understand how your comment is responsive to my original post.
Help me out.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.9 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 06:27:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: David McKay [mailto:mckay oro.net]
) I also have gotten many calls over the last 4 years asking
) for my help in
) starting "Waldorf Inspired" schools from all over Northern
) Calif. due to
) my involvement in starting the Twin Ridges school. My point
) is that in any
) given circle of disapline word travels in fast and in many
) ways. Someone
) always knows someone, etc.
)
)
) David McKay
Are the people who have called you generally anthroposophists, or
are they generally parents and teachers without that background who have
some hope of creating a "Waldorf-inspired" school independent of the
anthroposophy?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1381.10 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:45:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907121930.MAA02654 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
) [John Morehead]
) ) Your understanding of my logic is correct. However, you've
) ) got a mighty
) ) big IF in your statement above. The school districts have
) ) *not* merely
) ) utilized the cognitive and artistic elements, but have done so *with*
) ) the Anthroposophical foundations. In addition, they have withheld
) ) traditional academic study based upon Anthroposophical
) ) teaching related
) ) to the spiritual evolution of the child, not based upon scientific
) ) research on childhood development and its relationship to pedagogy.
[Robert Tolz]
) Let's assume that you're correct in that the districts have withheld
) traditional academic study. Are you certain that they have done so based
) upon Anthroposophical teachings? Or is it possible that they have done so
) because, like our list-mate Sarina, they have found things to like in the
) methods, regardless or even in spite of the Anthroposophical teachings?
I have no doubt that those unrelated to Rudolf Steiner College and
Waldorf from the school districts saw some things they liked in Waldorf
education apart from any Anthroposophical considerations. It is
my opinion however that Waldorf education advocates who are fully aware
of Anthroposophy's ties to Waldorf education utilized this interest to
push their spiritual and educational agenda. In addition, the igorance
of many concerning Waldorf education's connections to Anthroposophy does
not mean that Anthroposophy is not there, or surfaces within the
pedagogy and curriculum.
I applaud innovative pedagogical methods, especially when confirmed by
sound research from childhood educational and pedagogical experts, but
again, as Steiner himself noted, Waldorf pedagogy is inseparable from
the spiritual teachings of Anthroposophy.
John Morehead
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1381 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1382 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
002 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
003 - David McKay (mckay oro.ne - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
004 - David McKay (mckay oro.ne - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
008 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:13:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[John Morehead]
)
) I applaud innovative pedagogical methods, especially when
) confirmed by
) sound research from childhood educational and pedagogical
) experts, but
) again, as Steiner himself noted, Waldorf pedagogy is inseparable from
) the spiritual teachings of Anthroposophy.
)
) John Morehead
)
But the public school districts calling it "Waldorf" doesn't make it
the brand of pedagogy that Steiner would say is inseparable from
Anthroposophy.
And the fact that Steiner may have decreed a marriage between
Waldorf and Anthroposophy at the beginning of this century has to be looked
at in some historical context. When he said that Waldof pedagogy is
inseparable from the spiritual teachings of Anthroposophy, was he confronted
with an alternative method of presentation that tried to offer some of the
external methods without containing the innards? I sincerely doubt it. Who
knows what he would have said today? I suspect he'd be against Waldorf in
the public schools because they are not sufficiently anthroposophical.
Isn't this why many anthroposophists are against Waldorf in the
public schools? Because they believe it's not "true" Waldorf because it
doesn't have enough of the spiritual elements?
Therefore, it's too **secular** for them. Which makes it more
likely to be constitutionally permissible.
Bob Tolz
So the comp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.2 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:26:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907131609.JAA04864 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
) But the public school districts calling it "Waldorf" doesn't make it the brand of pedagogy that Steiner would say is inseparable from
) Anthroposophy.
No, simply calling it Waldorf doesn't make it an Anthroposophical
pedagogy. The methodology and content does, thus making it a Waldorf
school and not merely Waldorf inspired.
As the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America states:
"It should be understood by any school or institution seeking
affiliation with AWSNA that Waldorf education is based on
Anthroposophy...It is our belief that Waldorf methods can be applied in
many different classroom settings. However, Waldorf education is only
possible if its practitioners and administrators are free to work out a
clear recognition and commitment to the development of the spiritual
nature of the human being."
)Isn't this why many anthroposophists are against Waldorf in the
)public schools? Because they believe it's not "true" Waldorf because it) doesn't have enough of the spiritual elements?
) Therefore, it's too **secular** for them. Which makes it more
) likely to be constitutionally permissible.
Then maybe PLANS should join forces with those Anthroposophists and
Waldorf education advocates who recognize the inseparable and
necessary connection between Waldorf education/pedagogy and
Anthroposophy! The fact remains that the concern in the California
lawsuit centers around the Anthroposophical foundation, content and
methodology in the school districts, which demonstrates that it has not
been secularized.
John Morehead
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.3 ---------------
From: David McKay (mckay oro.net)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:32:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907131016.DAA06609 lists1.best.com)
)) Tolz wrote:
)) )
)) ) Let's assume that you're correct in that the districts
)) have withheld
)) )traditional academic study. Are you certain that they have
)) done so based
)) )upon Anthroposophical teachings? Or is it possible that
)) they have done so
)) )because, like our list-mate Sarina, they have found things
)) to like in the
)) )methods, regardless or even in spite of the Anthroposophical
)) teachings?
))
)) No, it is not possible:
)) Every teacher at Twin Ridges Waldorf Charter *and* there respective
)) students from the private Mariposa Waldorf School are what the charter
)) school started with. I personally believe that the
)) *conversion law* was
)) broken by such a direct cross over change.
))
)) David McKay
)
) Sorry, David, you've lost me. I don't know what a "conversion law"
)is, nor do I understand how your comment is responsive to my original post.
)Help me out.
)
) Bob Tolz
It is against Charter law to convert a private school to a public school.
As to your lack of understanding I'm perplexed. What don't you understand?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.4 ---------------
From: David McKay (mckay oro.net)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:38:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907131025.DAA08361 lists1.best.com)
)) -----Original Message-----
)) From: David McKay [mailto:mckay oro.net]
)) I also have gotten many calls over the last 4 years asking
)) for my help in
)) starting "Waldorf Inspired" schools from all over Northern
)) Calif. due to
)) my involvement in starting the Twin Ridges school. My point
)) is that in any
)) given circle of disapline word travels in fast and in many
)) ways. Someone
)) always knows someone, etc.
))
))
)) David McKay
)
)
) Are the people who have called you generally anthroposophists, or
)are they generally parents and teachers without that background who have
)some hope of creating a "Waldorf-inspired" school independent of the
)anthroposophy?
)
) Bob Tolz
)From parents, but that's not the point, the point was (which you left
out) that when "Waldorf Inspired" is used/mentioned, the Anthro/W.E. folks
will soon show up telling you how to do things like "moths to a light".
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:24:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) Tolz, Robert wrote:
)
) ) But the public school districts calling it
) "Waldorf" doesn't make it the brand of pedagogy that Steiner
) would say is inseparable from
) ) Anthroposophy.
)
[John Morehead]
) No, simply calling it Waldorf doesn't make it an Anthroposophical
) pedagogy. The methodology and content does, thus making it a Waldorf
) school and not merely Waldorf inspired.
I don't follow your distinction. Where do you draw the line between
a Waldorf school and one which is "Waldorf inspired"?
)
) As the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America states:
)
) "It should be understood by any school or institution seeking
) affiliation with AWSNA that Waldorf education is based on
) Anthroposophy...It is our belief that Waldorf methods can be
) applied in
) many different classroom settings. However, Waldorf education is only
) possible if its practitioners and administrators are free to
) work out a
) clear recognition and commitment to the development of the spiritual
) nature of the human being."
Help me with the facts. Have the defendant school districts made a
clear recognition and commitment to the development of the spiritual nature
of the human being? If so, in what way?
)
) )Isn't this why many anthroposophists are against Waldorf in the
) )public schools? Because they believe it's not "true"
) Waldorf because it) doesn't have enough of the spiritual elements?
) ) Therefore, it's too **secular** for them. Which makes it more
) ) likely to be constitutionally permissible.
)
) Then maybe PLANS should join forces with those Anthroposophists and
) Waldorf education advocates who recognize the inseparable and
) necessary connection between Waldorf education/pedagogy and
) Anthroposophy!
Perhaps so, but there's still quite an element of illogic there.
The Anthroposophists would join forces because they think there's not enough
Anthroposophy in the public school application of Waldorf ideas, while the
PLANS position is that there's too much. If the Anthroposophists are right,
then PLANS loses its lawsuit.
) The fact remains that the concern in the California
) lawsuit centers around the Anthroposophical foundation, content and
) methodology in the school districts, which demonstrates that
) it has not
) been secularized.
A factual question which the judge will have to determine.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:30:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) )) Tolz wrote:
) ) Sorry, David, you've lost me. I don't know what a
) "conversion law"
) )is, nor do I understand how your comment is responsive to my
) original post.
) )Help me out.
)
[David McKay]
) It is against Charter law to convert a private school to a
) public school.
[Bob Tolz]
OK. That explains the concept of "conversion law." I'm ignorant of
local California laws.
[David McKay]
) As to your lack of understanding I'm perplexed. What don't
) you understand?
)
[Bob Tolz]
Now that you've explained what a "conversion law" is, I understand
better how what you're saying is responsive to my post.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:39:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: David McKay [mailto:mckay oro.net]
) Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 1:38 PM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
)
)
) )) -----Original Message-----
) )) From: David McKay [mailto:mckay oro.net]
) )) I also have gotten many calls over the last 4 years asking
) )) for my help in
) )) starting "Waldorf Inspired" schools from all over Northern
) )) Calif. due to
) )) my involvement in starting the Twin Ridges school. My point
) )) is that in any
) )) given circle of disapline word travels in fast and in many
) )) ways. Someone
) )) always knows someone, etc.
) ))
) ))
) )) David McKay
) )
) )
) ) Are the people who have called you generally
) anthroposophists, or
) )are they generally parents and teachers without that
) background who have
) )some hope of creating a "Waldorf-inspired" school independent of the
) )anthroposophy?
) )
) ) Bob Tolz
)
) From parents, but that's not the point, the point was
) (which you left
) out) that when "Waldorf Inspired" is used/mentioned, the
) Anthro/W.E. folks
) will soon show up telling you how to do things like "moths to
) a light".
)
) David McKay
Oh, I understand *your* point. The moth-to-light analogy is a vivid
one.
However, *my* point, which is supported by your comment that it is
the un-anthroposophized (may I be permitted to coin that word?) parents who
want the Waldorf approach, is that the *founding* of a public school which
uses Waldorf-type methods can be purely for secular reasons, simply because
their are attractive aspects to some of the methods, even without
anthroposophy.
The *founding* of such a school would then have a secular and
constitutional purpose.
What happens *afterward* could result in an unconstitutional
situation if the curriculum is invaded too much by spiritual aspects. Of
course, that would be unconstitutional in *any* public school; witness the
recent decision in the Bedford, NY case which I described on the list. I
would expect you to argue that it's more likely to happen in a Waldorf-type
curriculum, but the fact remains that unless and until it *does* happen, the
school's curriculum and approach is constitutional.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.8 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:01:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907131821.LAA10062 lists1.best.com)
) [John Morehead]
) ) No, simply calling it Waldorf doesn't make it an Anthroposophical
) ) pedagogy. The methodology and content does, thus making it a Waldorf
) ) school and not merely Waldorf inspired.
)
) I don't follow your distinction. Where do you draw the line between
) a Waldorf school and one which is "Waldorf inspired"?
Good question. A Waldorf school is one which recognizes the foundation
of Anthroposophy to Waldorf pedagoy and curricula. A Waldorf inspired
school is one which might try to incorporate the artistic and cognitive
aspects of a Waldorf school without the Anthroposophical pedagogy.
) Help me with the facts. Have the defendant school districts made a
) clear recognition and commitment to the development of the spiritual nature
) of the human being? If so, in what way?
Not to my knowledge. My point is that the AWSNA notes that "Waldorf
education is based on Anthroposophy" and that Waldorf education is only
possible with reference to Anthroposophy's understanding of the child's
spiritual nature and evolution. This is Waldorf education's
self-understanding, and as such, it is hardly non-sectarian.
)
) ) Then maybe PLANS should join forces with those Anthroposophists and
) ) Waldorf education advocates who recognize the inseparable and
) ) necessary connection between Waldorf education/pedagogy and
) ) Anthroposophy!
)
) Perhaps so, but there's still quite an element of illogic there.
) The Anthroposophists would join forces because they think there's not enough
) Anthroposophy in the public school application of Waldorf ideas, while the
) PLANS position is that there's too much.
LANS, and other Waldorf critics, are opposed because there's sufficient
religious content to violate the establishment Clause. Despite the
differing positions, perhaps a strange alliance could be formed, eh?
) A factual question which the judge will have to determine.
Definitely so. And given the judge's statement at the motion for summary
judgment to the effect that reasonable doubt exists about the possible
nature of religious content in Waldorf education (hence the probable
pending denial of the motion for summary judgment), it should be an
interesting case, one which the plaintiff and Waldorf critics look
forward to in terms of presenting the evidence regarding this factual
question.
Thanks, Bob.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:09:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Grass Valley-Nevada City
The Union (Letters to the Editor)
7/13/99
Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
"Twin Ridges School District runs the best scam on the State of California
taxpayers that has been thought of in a long time. How sad that it is a
school district that is setting this example.
Charter schools have a method by which they can be approved in their local
area. If disapproved, they appeal to the county where they are located; if
disapproved again, they may appeal to the State Board of Education. Local
taxpayers and school boards may have some very good reasons for not wanting
some of these schools approved. The word is out, if your charter is denied,
go to Twin Ridges; they will approve anything. Even if your school is more
than 600 miles away.
Why is Superintendent David Taylor agreeing to approve and administer so
many of our district charter schools? Because he is getting part of the
swindle money taken by these disapproved charters in other areas of
California, where he agrees to grant them a charter. He does not seem to
care that the elected school boards in these other places had reasons to
disapprove these charters; all he cares about is the extra funds he
defrauds for Twin Ridges.
Of course, considering that Mr. Taylor reportedly does not even live in the
Twin Ridges Elementary District community, it makes sense that he is less
interested in local schools than those that are far away. I wonder how Twin
Ridges District taxpayers will feel when the legal costs, lawsuits and
liability costs start to add up and the local Twin Ridges taxpayers have to
cough up the money to defend these actions.
The charter school movement holds great promise for local innovation. Let
us hope that opportunists such as Taylor do not ruin it for all of us by
being so irresponsible."
Derek J. Hilderand
Concord (CA)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1382.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:27:45 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[John Morehead]
)
) My point is that the AWSNA notes that "Waldorf
) education is based on Anthroposophy" and that Waldorf
) education is only
) possible with reference to Anthroposophy's understanding of
) the child's
) spiritual nature and evolution. This is Waldorf education's
) self-understanding, and as such, it is hardly non-sectarian.
[Bob Tolz]
I agree it's hardly non-sectarian, but the AWSNA self-understanding
you describe is not applicable to a school district which appropriates some
of the ideas without applying them the way that AWSNA would dictate. AWSNA
would say that's *not* Waldorf education. Are you going to pin an AWSNA
definition on such a school? I don't see how you can do so if AWSNA
wouldn't. And if you can't apply the AWSNA definition, then you can't say
it's a non-sectarian school simply because it uses the word "Waldorf" to
describe its approach.
[John Morehead]
) And given the judge's statement at the motion
) for summary
) judgment to the effect that reasonable doubt exists about the
) possible
) nature of religious content in Waldorf education (hence the probable
) pending denial of the motion for summary judgment), it should be an
) interesting case, one which the plaintiff and Waldorf critics look
) forward to in terms of presenting the evidence regarding this factual
) question.
[Bob Tolz]
I expect PLANS to win on the summary judgment motion. Just don't
start salivating over NY hot dogs as soon as the judge's decision comes
down!
Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1382 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1383 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
004 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
006 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
007 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Waldorf/Not Waldorf - who cares?
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:38:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Debra Snell [mailto:snell netshel.net]) Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999
7:10 AM
)
) Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
The elected/appointed official is getting a personal kickback right
into his pocket? Or is the headline for the letter to the editor
extrapolating a conclusion from facts not described in the letter? I didn't
read anything about a payoff in the body of the letter.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:55:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907131935.MAA10488 lists1.best.com)
)) -----Original Message-----
)) From: Debra Snell [mailto:snell netshel.net]) Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999
)7:10 AM
)
))
)) Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
)
) The elected/appointed official is getting a personal kickback right
)into his pocket? Or is the headline for the letter to the editor
)extrapolating a conclusion from facts not described in the letter? I didn't
)read anything about a payoff in the body of the letter.
)
) Bob Tolz
)
The titles [of letters to the editor] are given by the newspaper staff, not
the author of the letter.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:20:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) )
) The titles [of letters to the editor] are given by the
) newspaper staff, not
) the author of the letter.
) Deby
)
)
Pretty sensationalistic headline writer, wouldn't you say?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.4 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:27:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907131925.MAA02819 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
) [Bob Tolz]
) I agree it's hardly non-sectarian, but the AWSNA self-understanding you describe is not applicable to a school district
which appropriates some of the ideas without applying them the way that
AWSNA would dictate. AWSNA would say that's *not* Waldorf education.
Are you going to pin an AWSNA definition on such a school? I don't see
how you can do so if AWSNA wouldn't. And if you can't apply the AWSNA
definition, then you can't say) it's a non-sectarian school simply
because it uses the word "Waldorf" to describe its approach.
[John Morehead]
I am not saying that the AWSNA self-understanding applies to all
school districts. Although to the best of knowledge no successful
attempt has been made to completely secularize Waldorf education, the
AWSNA self-understanding defines "true" Waldorf education for those
schools that wish to be recognized as promoting Waldorf education with
all of its Anthroposophical connections (i.e. childhood spiritual
evolution), not merely Waldorf inspired schools. Now I have no doubt
that the other Anthroposophical entities such as Rudolf Steiner College
would also promote true Waldorf education and pedagogy that still has
the Anthrosophical foundations, yet covertly, so as to appear to meet
the requirements of separation of church and state. That is why honest
Waldorf advocates have stated that Waldorf education has a hidden
agenda.
) [Bob Tolz]
) I expect PLANS to win on the summary judgment motion. Just don't start salivating over NY hot dogs as soon as the judge's decision
comes down!
)From what some have told me about NY hot dogs, I may not salivate even
if PLANS wins the whole lawsuit. :)
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:40:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) From what some have told me about NY hot dogs, I may not
) salivate even
) if PLANS wins the whole lawsuit. :)
)
) John
)
Then choose something else of comparable value as your reward in the
bet. All I can tell you is that when my kids visit me at the office, one of
the highlights of their day is to get hotdogs from the sidewalk vendors.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.6 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:53:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bob Williams:
"I would urge caution in trying to pigeon hole teachers based solely on
their training. Exposure to and the study of ideas does not necessarily
make one a convert to those ideas. I think that most WE teachers have a
real desire to help children grow and learn. I believe that they call on
their training and peers, as well as their life experiences and various
learnings both of which may have very little to do with Anthroposophy to
help them realize that desire. I would humbly suggest that there may be
more variation amongst teachers than the monolithic Anthroposophist zealot
image might imply."
SARINA SEZ:
I would agree with you, Bob. I was simply trying to make a case for my
opinion that "Waldorf-inspired" schools are possible, while some critics
are insisting that the Anthropops always infiltrate such schools, thereby
'converting' them into true Steiner schools eventually. I still insist
that it IS possible for a school's educational philosophy to be Waldorf-,
Vygotsky-, *and* Montessori- inspired, SIMULTANEOULSY!
Heck, mine is. I take the best from all of the methods I've learned about
and try to incorporate what I think works for my kids and my community.
Now, if I drew slighty more from the Waldorf pedagogy but still omitted the
spiritual stuff, I would feel it appropriate to call my school
"Waldorf-inspired" - yet not Anthroposophic. (I imagine AWNSA would
disagree, but - whatever!)
I was simply exaggerating to make a point: if you take a teacher who has
never attended a Steiner teacher training who is comfy with the work of
Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Montessori, and (insert any theorists you like
here), and you train that person in the Waldorf STYLE whilst simultaneoulsy
teaching him/her to be cautious of the more bizzarre aspects of
Anthroposophy, you will end up with......
well, you will end up with me, or someone like me: a teacher who could,
perhaps, 'pull off' a Waldorf style class (that Dan Dugan et al. might find
acceptable?) without the Anthro underpinnings. It was just a thought.
Hang loose, Bob.
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.7 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Waldorf/Not Waldorf - who cares?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:59:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am tiring of the
"Nu-uh!"
"Yeah-huh!"
"No way!"
"Yes way!"
argument of whether or not this type of compromise in a school would be
possible.
Well, DUH, such a school wouldn't be Waldorf - it would be "waldorf"!
I don't see any other preschools around - anywhere! - doing the things they
do in the Waldorf kindergarten. Certainly no other school near me does
such rich storytelling, incorporates music so (apparently) effortlessly,
provides gratifying, real experiences in the real world (soup making, bread
baking, handwork), or emphasizes creative play they way they do.
Oh, yeah, the Montessori schools have their "practical life skills" -
yippee skippee, a vanity with a real powder puff, or "here, kid, cut your
own cheese for snack." (EXAGGERATION again, please excuse...) Or, there's
the so-called developmentally appropriate preschools, which have free
choice "centers" for all kinds of activities - and look like (and, I would
argue, ARE) total chaos with too many kids. I think that one can - and
should - strike a balance between all of the philosophies available, and
that adherence to any specific approach is foolish. Just as people all have
different gifts to offer the world, so do the different theories of child
development. As a teacher, you have to learn all that you can about the
pedagogical options available to you, and then:
-evaluate
-modify
-*then* apply.
I look at it this way (since we seem to be enjoying metaphors on the list
lately...):
A teacher evaluating any educational theory has to be like a thresher:
harvest the wheat, toss it up in the air, let the chaff blow away, and
then....well, then you have the grain.
Do we use the chaff? No. Are we allergic to wheat? (maybe, but...) If not,
then we can use the grain for food, right?
Some people are so allergic, they don't even want to use the stalks to pick
their teeth, much less grind the stuff into flour.
I have personally found it to be an enormous challenge to seperate the
chaff from the grain with Waldorf Education, but it was satisfying
nonetheless. And I have a little bit more flour for my "multi-grain" bread,
so to speak.
(Was that even comprehensible?)
Silly Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Superintendent gets payoff for approving charter schools
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:40:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907132117.OAA01492 lists1.best.com)
)) )
)) The titles [of letters to the editor] are given by the
)) newspaper staff, not
)) the author of the letter.
)) Deby
))
))
)
) Pretty sensationalistic headline writer, wouldn't you say?
It certainly got my attention! :+) I'm wondering where the school is, and
if it is a Waldorf school. It seems TRSD is specializing in public Waldorf
schools. They have three that I know of.
My girlfriend attended a soccer game in Sacramento the other evening. She
engaged in conversation with a Waldorf teacher who said that Twin Ridges
was "courting" him to take the job administering their new high school.
I've read lots of information about their new high school and had no clue
it was going to have anything to do with Waldorf. My girlfriend insists
that it will be a Waldorf high school, based on her conversation with this
man. I guess that remains to be seen. Twin Ridges is clearly smitten with
Waldorf.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:03:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907131025.DAA08361 lists1.best.com)
)
) Are the people who have called you generally anthroposophists, or
)are they generally parents and teachers without that background who have
)some hope of creating a "Waldorf-inspired" school independent of the
)anthroposophy?
)
) Bob Tolz
I'm not David, but I have been contacted as well. Mainly by parents who
haven't a clue about Anthroposophy's relationship to Waldorf, but wanted a
"pure Waldorf" program (generally because of teacher request). The rumor
these folks heard is that Twin Ridges successfully managed to do just that
- create a "pure" Waldorf program and they wanted to know how we did it.
I was contacted by a Waldorf teacher/friend who wanted me to help her
obtain a charter for her private Waldorf kindergarten program. I graciously
declined the invitation and warned her about the potential legal problems.
We had a friendly conversation. She jokingly asked, "Are you saying that
school districts may have a problem with me evaluating students' past lives
and their spiritual destiny?"
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1383.10 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:24:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907121930.MAA02654 lists1.best.com)
)[John Morehead]
)) Your understanding of my logic is correct. However, you've
)) got a mighty
)) big IF in your statement above. The school districts have
)) *not* merely
)) utilized the cognitive and artistic elements, but have done so *with*
)) the Anthroposophical foundations. In addition, they have withheld
)) traditional academic study based upon Anthroposophical
)) teaching related
)) to the spiritual evolution of the child, not based upon scientific
)) research on childhood development and its relationship to pedagogy.
Bob T.:
) Let's assume that you're correct in that the districts have withheld
)traditional academic study. Are you certain that they have done so based
)upon Anthroposophical teachings? Or is it possible that they have done so
)because, like our list-mate Sarina, they have found things to like in the
)methods, regardless or even in spite of the Anthroposophical teachings?
The faculty at Twin Ridges school said that Waldorf is the child of
Anthroposophy. Without Anthroposophy, you wouldn't have Waldorf. The two
are inseparable.
Yep, have that in writing. Even the interview questions used to hire most
of the teachers addressed Anthroposophy. Potential Waldorf teachers had to
make a statement about their relationship to Anthroposophy. One of the
teachers (that was hired) said during her interview, "Anthroposophy is my
life."
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1383 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1384 --------------
001 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Waldorf/Not Waldorf - who cares?
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - what does PLANS do?
003 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charte
004 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - You People Are All Like.....
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf/Not Waldorf - who cares?
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new ch
007 - David McKay (mckay oro.ne - Re: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new
c
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new
c
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.1 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Waldorf/Not Waldorf - who cares?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:51:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sarina posted:
)I don't see any other preschools around - anywhere! - doing the things they
)do in the Waldorf kindergarten. Certainly no other school near me does
)such rich storytelling, incorporates music so (apparently) effortlessly,
)provides gratifying, real experiences in the real world (soup making, bread
)baking, handwork), or emphasizes creative play they way they do.
Yael responds:
Well, I've been lurking lately but this caught my attention. I couldn't
help but notice that -- given your examples of things you like about
Waldorf schools that are *not* necessarily inseparable from Anthroposophy
-- my daughter's Chabad-Lubavitch preschool compares rather favorably with
your own!
(For the record, I *do* think that certain "externals" of the Waldorf
approach can be successfully incorporated into any type of school, and
there is certainly no harm -- and plenty of potential for good -- in
improving the aesthetics of classrooms, choosing natural materials over
plastic, infusing the children's day with music and art and hands-on,
real-life experiences... etc.)
In my daughter's pre-K class last year, the teacher sang everything from
"good morning" to "it's clean-up time" to "Now it's time to say Shalom,
Morah [teacher] Goldie is going home..." and virtually everything in
between! The children all sing the morning prayers together every day (this
is a religious school, remember), done in kid-fashion with lots of romping
and stomping around the room, standing up on chairs, follow-the-leader hand
motions, dance steps, gestures, sign language, clapping, etc. They sing as
they put pennies in a charity box, they sing blessings before and after
they eat snack and lunch. They sing together on their way to the
playground, and they sing their way back to class. They learn two languages
(Hebrew and Yiddish) in addition to English, mostly through singing.
The children learn about each Jewish holiday and each week's portion of the
Torah through storytelling. They sit absolutely enthralled as the teacher
dramatizes the story. They sing songs about what they've learned. They act
things out, complete with costumes. They paint and glue and color projects
about the story. They learn with all their senses.
The children cooked lentil soup one day, baked challah (Sabbath bread) on
another, pressed their own grape juice on yet another. Every Friday, they
had an end-of-the-week celebration before the Sabbath, complete with a long
table set with candles and flowers.
In the fall they jumped in the leaves, in the winter they rolled in the
snow, and in the spring they ran through sprinklers (there was a heat wave
over here). They had free time when they arrived in the morning to color or
pound clay or build with blocks or put pegs in a board or string beads or
whatever. They put on three music-filled plays during the year. They
visited a farm, the fire station, the police station, a dentist's office,
the park, and the zoo.
The walls were decorated with the children's projects and art; there were
bean plants growing in paper cups on the window sills; folders on the front
door were filled with each child's "mitzvah notes," sent by the parents
each day -- and read out loud at lunch time by the teacher -- to thank the
child for something good or special he or she did.
I'm not saying that my daughter's class was especially wonderful. Maybe it
was -- I have nothing in my personal experience to compare it to. I did
have my complaints (I wanted there to be more "free art" time, for example.
I also wished they didn't give out junk food at parties), but over all I
think the teachers did a fabulous job. Yes, there were plastic toys around.
Yes, some of the art projects were of the cookie-cutter,
each-kid's-looks-the-same genre. No, my daughter hasn't (yet) learned to
knit or play the recorder. But in terms of infusing the children's day with
music and fun and hands-on experiences, the school is terrific.
This isn't a plug for Chabad schools. What I'm saying is that *any* good
school that really cares about children will end up doing much of what's
most important about what Waldorf does (most important from a secular
perspective, that is). If you asked my daughter's teachers whether they got
the idea for making soup or baking bread with the class from Rudolf
Steiner, they'd say, "Who?"
The particular aesthetics of Waldorf -- the wet-on-wet, the wicker baskets,
or whatever -- those are gravy. I do think if a school has a more natural
aesthetic, it's all for the good, and schools should strive for that. But
beyond that, what are we really talking about here? Without those aspects
of Waldorf that go beyond the aesthetics (which seem to be universally
admired) -- in other words, without the particular Waldorf pedagogy and its
spiritual context -- in my opinion, it's not Waldorf. (Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh! Is
so! Is not!) In my extremely humble and possible quite misguided opinion,
it's not even really Waldorf-inspired. It's more like
interior-design-by-Waldorf. :) (Oh, please don't take that last comment
too seriously. I've been studying at SCHEME, the Sarina College of
Hyperbole, Exaggeration, and Manipulation of Evidence! ...Just a friendly
joke, Sarina! I was in the mood to make an acronym ;)
I know someone who is trying to start a religious Jewish Waldorf school in
Israel. She was trying hard to explain to me what exactly would be
"Waldorf" about the school, other than the name and the aesthetics. She
couldn't go beyond those two things. My feeling is that there just isn't
anything beyond it for her. She likes the aesthetics, the natural feel of
things. The quiet. The walls. I said to her, "It's not really a Waldorf
school you have in mind. It's just a really, really nice Jewish school."
She didn't get it and kept telling me I just had to *visit* a Waldorf
kindergarten and I'd understand. Maybe I would.
Well, I've gone on long enough, it's late, children are sleeping, and
there's work to do! (By the way, Sarina, your school sounds terrific, and I
think you've got a good head on your shoulders.)
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic Jewish perspective
on childraising and family health.
mailto:njpmail mindspring.com
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
phone (973) 538-3737 fax (973) 539-5454
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: what does PLANS do?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:51:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm filling out non-profit tax forms, and one asks for a description of
what PLANS does, with estimates of what part of our effort goes to each
activity. I thought I'd share it:
PLANS attempts to remove public funding from Waldorf programs in public
schools by legal action. February 11, 1998, PLANS filed a federal lawsuit
on behalf of PLANS members and the public against two school districts for
violation of First Amendment separation of church and state. Trial date
October 12, 1999. 50%
PLANS maintains a publicly accessable Internet email list for discussion of
Waldorf education as viewed from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. The
list provides public information and a forum for discussion between
supporters and opponents. Approximately 100 subscribers. Begun September
23, 1995. Administrated by PLANS Secretary. 20%
PLANS maintains a World Wide Web site with a collection of articles about
Anthroposophy and Waldorf education, a description of the organization,
appeal for contributions, mailing list archives, bookstore, and links to
allied organizations. Established March 1996. Has 20 to 40 visitors per
day. Administered by PLANS Secretary. 15%
PLANS has a packet of articles about Waldorf education that is mailed to
school boards considering Waldorf and also sent to inquirers for a $15
donation. 5%
PLANS offers a slide show talk to school boards, parent groups or any
interested organization about Waldorf education. First presented February
26, 1996. 5%
PLANS board members counsel parents who contact us by telephone and email
with questions about Waldorf education. 2%
PLANS provides a research library and research services to lawyers
preparing cases involving Waldorf education. 2%
PLANS board members answer telephone and email questions from reporters
writing about Waldorf education. 1%
In the future, PLANS intends to advertise in magazines targeting parents
and teachers. PLANS intends to publish a pamphlet to every school board
member in the U.S.A.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah, California))
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:56:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199907121930.MAA02654 lists1.best.com)
(199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
De-lurking temporarily to wade in with a few thoughts on this:
To my mind the sine qua non of Waldorf education is that it is based on
an anthroposophical view of child development. Period. The "trappings"
(wet-on-wet, nature tables, natural materials, main lessons, etc.) do
not make a Waldorf school.
Hence, I have to agree with those who assert that Waldorf education
cannot exist independently of anthroposophy. If you take the
anthroposophy out of it, it is no longer Waldorf education. It may be a
very good education, it may be better than Waldorf education, but it is
most definitely not *Waldorf* education.
The problem is one of names/labels. "Waldorf" has a good name in many
circles and, owing to the time it has been around, is one that is
recognised quite widely. People who want to use those ideas which they
like from Waldorf education, tend to give them the label "Waldorf" for
convenience, but (for example) using natural materials is no more
Waldorf than it is pre-Victorian.
There is a move in this country (UK) to "trademark" the name "Waldorf",
so that it can only be used by "approved" Waldorf schools. The rationale
is that the "good name of Waldorf" cannot be sullied by something that
does not meet certain standards. I understand that something similar
exists in the US. One may quibble about what those standards should be,
but I would be surprised if they did not include something about there
being a basis in anthroposophy.
Was there not once a subscriber to this list (a Dr Mollett?) who had
fallen foul of this somehow and was unable to use the word "Waldorf" for
his school.
So why don't those who want "Waldorf without anthroposophy" find another
name for it? After all, it is only a label of identification.
I also think that there is a phenomenon that schools which start without
a very sound philosophical basis underlying them (by which I mean that
the basis must be sound; the soundness of the philosophy will always be
a subjective judgement) tend to fizzle after a few years. So, I would
urge those who want to try for something slightly different to be
extremely clear about what they are trying to achieve.
Nuff said -- back to the sidelines...
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.4 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: You People Are All Like.....
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:09:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
.......MY HUSBAND! That is, we argue even when we're agreeing about
something.
(TomAYto, TomAH-to...)
You are right, Yael, the Waldorf aesthetics appeal to me greatly. I feel
the environment has a great effect on children, and most people ignore it,
thinking kids don't notice such things.
So, okay, take my imaginary school and chuck the Waldorf name out the
window. Let's just call it:
"The Preschool of Really, Really Good Taste."
;-)
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf/Not Waldorf - who cares?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:36:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) (Was that even comprehensible?)
)
) Silly Sarina
)
Absolutely.
Bodacious Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new chart
er in Ukiah, California))
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:28:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Stephen Tonkin [mailto:sft aegis1.demon.co.uk]
)
) Hence, I have to agree with those who assert that Waldorf education
) cannot exist independently of anthroposophy. If you take the
) anthroposophy out of it, it is no longer Waldorf education.
) It may be a
) very good education, it may be better than Waldorf education,
) but it is
) most definitely not *Waldorf* education.
[Bob Tolz]
So perhaps there are two types of public Waldorf schools: (1) those
which are true Waldorf because they are permeated with anthroposophy and (2)
those which are not true Waldorf because they have insufficient
anthroposophy.
In the first instance, you may have a constitutional infirmity
because of the spiritual nature of the approach. In the second instance,
you have a potential intellectual property lawsuit by the owners of the
trademark (if any such owners can be found).
It would seem to me that PLANS has a cause of action in the first
instance but no remedy in the second.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.7 ---------------
From: David McKay (mckay oro.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new
charter in Ukiah, California))
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:01:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
(199907121930.MAA02654 lists1.best.com)
(199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907140801.BAA12542 lists1.best.com)
Well said Stephen!
Tonkin wrote:
)De-lurking temporarily to wade in with a few thoughts on this:
)
)To my mind the sine qua non of Waldorf education is that it is based on
)an anthroposophical view of child development. Period. The "trappings"
)(wet-on-wet, nature tables, natural materials, main lessons, etc.) do
)not make a Waldorf school.
)
)Hence, I have to agree with those who assert that Waldorf education
)cannot exist independently of anthroposophy. If you take the
)anthroposophy out of it, it is no longer Waldorf education. It may be a
)very good education, it may be better than Waldorf education, but it is
)most definitely not *Waldorf* education.
)
)The problem is one of names/labels. "Waldorf" has a good name in many
)circles and, owing to the time it has been around, is one that is
)recognised quite widely. People who want to use those ideas which they
)like from Waldorf education, tend to give them the label "Waldorf" for
)convenience, but (for example) using natural materials is no more
)Waldorf than it is pre-Victorian.
)
)There is a move in this country (UK) to "trademark" the name "Waldorf",
)so that it can only be used by "approved" Waldorf schools. The rationale
)is that the "good name of Waldorf" cannot be sullied by something that
)does not meet certain standards. I understand that something similar
)exists in the US. One may quibble about what those standards should be,
)but I would be surprised if they did not include something about there
)being a basis in anthroposophy.
)
)Was there not once a subscriber to this list (a Dr Mollett?) who had
)fallen foul of this somehow and was unable to use the word "Waldorf" for
)his school.
)
)So why don't those who want "Waldorf without anthroposophy" find another
)name for it? After all, it is only a label of identification.
)
)I also think that there is a phenomenon that schools which start without
)a very sound philosophical basis underlying them (by which I mean that
)the basis must be sound; the soundness of the philosophy will always be
)a subjective judgement) tend to fizzle after a few years. So, I would
)urge those who want to try for something slightly different to be
)extremely clear about what they are trying to achieve.
)
)Nuff said -- back to the sidelines...
)
)--
)Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1384.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new
charter in Ukiah, California))
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:25:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
(199907121930.MAA02654 lists1.best.com)
(199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907140801.BAA12542 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
[snip]
)Was there not once a subscriber to this list (a Dr Mollett?) who had
)fallen foul of this somehow and was unable to use the word "Waldorf" for
)his school.
According to David Mollett, he may use the word Waldorf because he was
using the term long before it was trademarked by AWSNA.
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1384 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1385 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Russian Orthodox statements about Anthroposophy and Waldorf
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new
c
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1385.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Russian Orthodox statements about Anthroposophy and Waldorf
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:08:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Excerpts from a report on a Russian Orthodox Church conference found at:
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/9903a.html
***
CONCLUDING DECLARATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARLY and PRACTICAL
CONFERENCE "TOTALITARIAN SECTS IN SIBERIA,"
10-13 January 1999, Belokurikha, Altai territory
***
24. We submit that a sufficient basis for public alarm over the activity of
one or another religious movement is the presence within it of secret
doctrinal texts. Freedom of choice by citizens of their religious ideas can
be truly protected only when religious movements honestly lay out their
convictions so that anybody who wishes, including those who do not undergo
initiation procedures, are given the possibility of becoming fully
acquainted with their system of belief.
25. We cannot remain silent in the face of the active anti-Christian
movement, including theosophy, anthroposophy, "Living Ethics" of Rerikh,
various manifestations of the so-called "Russian cosmism," and the cult of
the "New Age." The dissemination of the "Agni-Yoga" of Rerikh in Russia
that has emerged with the support of state leaders and structure, evokes
our horror. With full responsibility, pursuant to the bishops' council of
our church, we bear witness: the teaching of Rerikh is sectarian, and not
only incompatible with Christianity but also directly inimical to it.
26. We are disturbed by the active spread of various neopagan nazi
doctrines, teachings, and sects. Unfortunately, we must recognize that
these teachings often have penetrated the structures of government which,
in our opinion. can lead to the most lamentable consequences; after all a
large part of these sects and teachings are extremely politicized and they
bear an extremely aggressive, misanthropic character, and they have openly
penetrated the government. Among them we especially wish to note the
pseudopatriotic movement "Toward Theocracy" of General Petrov, which is
superstitious in its goals and purposes, as well as the sects "Radostei,"
"Troianov trop," "Cult of Ur," etc. We, who are specialists in the areas of
theology, religious studies, education, and culture testify with full
responsibility that any appeal to the so-called "ancient magical knowledge"
which supposedly existed in Rus long before Christianity is without basis
either from an historical, theological, or cultural point of view. We
emphasize that Russian culture, and Russian statehood and the life of our
people is unthinkable without Orthodoxy. It is our profound conviction that
the second neopagan experiment cannot be borne by either our country or our
nation.
27. We especially wish to emphasize the anti-Christian, occultic, and
anthroposophist basis of the "Waldorf Pedagogy." We express our extreme
dismay that this racist system, hostile to the teaching of Christ, which in
European countries is supported by only a few people and public
initiatives, has received state support in Russia. We think that the
actions of the Ministry of Culture of Russia, which established the state
academy of eurythmic arts, as well as the action of the Ministry of
Education of Russia, which supported with directives anthroposophy and
introduced into public schools the teaching of the Waldorf Pedagogy, were
illegal and wrong.
***
Adopted 13 January 1999, unanimously, by 72 participants of the conference,
representing
--ten dioceses of the Russian Orthodox church, priests and laity, led by
Bishop Antony of Barnaul and Altai
--administration of Altai territory in the person of A.V. Bronikov, advisor
for religious affairs under the head of the administration
--AGU, in the person of kandidat of historical sciences V.Ya. Barkalov,
assistant head of department of political science; kandidat of
philosophy M.M. Volobtsova, assistant head of department of theology
--administrations of security and internal affairs for Altai territory, in
person of supervisors of relations with religious organizations
--centers for opposing totalitarian sects: Center of the Holy Martyr
Irenaeus of Lyons, Moscow, headed by doctor of philosophy, kandidat
of theology A.L. Dvorkin; Center of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky,
Novosibirsk, headed by Archpriest Alexander Novopashin;
International Dialogue Center, in the person of president, Professor
Johannes Ogord, Denmark; vice-president A.L. Dvorkin, Russia.
***
posted by Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1385.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf without anthroposophy (was: OUCH! (Was: Re: new
charter in Ukiah, California))
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:02:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
(199907121930.MAA02654 lists1.best.com)
(199907140221.TAA00687 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907140801.BAA12542 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin, you wrote, (in part),
)There is a move in this country (UK) to "trademark" the name "Waldorf",
)so that it can only be used by "approved" Waldorf schools. The rationale
)is that the "good name of Waldorf" cannot be sullied by something that
)does not meet certain standards. I understand that something similar
)exists in the US. One may quibble about what those standards should be,
)but I would be surprised if they did not include something about there
)being a basis in anthroposophy.
AWSNA has copyrighted the name, and indeed they want the schools to be
based on Anthroposophy. See AWSNA position statement on PLANS web site.
)Was there not once a subscriber to this list (a Dr Mollett?) who had
)fallen foul of this somehow and was unable to use the word "Waldorf" for
)his school.
If I recall correctly, Mollet was warned by AWSNA not to use "Waldorf," and
for a short time called his program "whole language." Then, I think after
legal advice that he'd established the trade name before AWSNA claimed it,
resumed using Waldorf.
)So why don't those who want "Waldorf without anthroposophy" find another
)name for it? After all, it is only a label of identification.
Hear, hear!
)I also think that there is a phenomenon that schools which start without
)a very sound philosophical basis underlying them (by which I mean that
)the basis must be sound; the soundness of the philosophy will always be
)a subjective judgement) tend to fizzle after a few years. So, I would
)urge those who want to try for something slightly different to be
)extremely clear about what they are trying to achieve.
The power of Waldorf is in its being a comprehensive system backed up by a
world-view. That's hard to beat.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1385 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1386 --------------
001 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: Russian Orthodox statements about Anthroposophy and Waldor
002 - Bob Williams (danabob she - pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1386.1 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: Russian Orthodox statements about Anthroposophy and Waldorf
Date: 16 Jul 1999 11:46:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dan Posted:
)Excerpts from a report on a Russian Orthodox Church conference found at:
)http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/9903a.html
Interesting reading.
To me, in my capacity as an observer of society, anything that can cause the orthodox scientific, religious, and atheistic communities to team up to oppose it, has got to have something interesting about it. Rudolf Steiner may not have had this in mind when he strived for a unity of the driving forces of culture, but it nonetheless happens (however temporary and out of a fear of a loss of authority it may seem to be held together). *Orthodoxy* may be the key to it, but I don't think that orthodoxy as a concept is bad. It is a necessary part of society.
I just wanted to share this thought. I had it when I first was encountering Anthroposphy. (We talked about it in our graduate architectural seminar a few years back in regard to Rudolf Steiner and his design philosophy). All this was in relation to some writings by several authors (C.P.Snow, Karl Popper, Bill Hillier, and others) about *the two cultures*, arts and sciences, that the practice of Architecture attempts and /or fails to bridge. Interesting reading, and it probably helped me to recognize a potential benefit that waldorf ed. can have for society.
just my $.02
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1386.2 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:02:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John Morehead wrote in response to Sarina:
)Now there are many positive aspects of Waldorf education which I've noted
)in my first article (an increased emphasis on art and storytelling for
)example). But as I've argued (and I think demonstrated from Steiner's
)writings) the Waldorf pedagogy is *inseparable* from Anthroposophy and is
)necessarily religious. Now, if someone wants to utilize the artistic and
)cognitive elements of a Waldorf system, but then remove the distinctive
)Waldorf pedagogy, then that is not Waldorf even if one uses that name for it.
Bob Williams asks:
Is there a distinction to be made between pedagogy (the how and why) and
curriculum (the what)? Obviously religious curriculum is unconstitutional
in a state school, but is religious pedagogy? (I understand that there is
disagreement on the list about whether Anthroposophy is taught in the
curriculum. It seems clear that is is supposed to infuse every aspect of
the pedagogy.) If I am a Christian, and I teach conflict resolution skills
that I think fulfill Christ's teachings concerning how we should treat each
other, am I breaking the law? If I am teaching physics and as a Christian I
see the orderliness of physical laws as a manifestation of the supreme
architect and so strive to bring to my students an appreciation of the
subtlety and beauty of those laws, is my teaching unconstitutional? Or is
there a problem only if others are aware of my beliefs, or if there are a
group of us with similar beliefs?
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
P.S. John also wrote:
(snip)Likewise, if one wants to understand
)Anthroposophy and Waldorf one goes to the founder, Rudolf Steiner. The
)modifications and perspectives of Waldorf practitioners and advocates since
)Stiner are important and must be taken into consideration, but one must go
)to the source.
Bob suggests:
If I want to understand my local Montessori school, I can surely learn from
reading Maria Montessori, but my local school, and in fact most modern
Montessori schools, may look very different from her school earlier in this
century. Reading current writings might give me a more up to date view of
what is happening in the Montessori world. Visiting the school and talking
with the folks that run it might be even more enlightening.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1386.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:13:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) Bob Williams asks: If I am a Christian, and I teach conflict
) resolution skills
) that I think fulfill Christ's teachings concerning how we
) should treat each
) other, am I breaking the law? If I am teaching physics and as
) a Christian I
) see the orderliness of physical laws as a manifestation of the supreme
) architect and so strive to bring to my students an appreciation of the
) subtlety and beauty of those laws, is my teaching
) unconstitutional? Or is
) there a problem only if others are aware of my beliefs, or if
) there are a
) group of us with similar beliefs?
I don't think any of those scenarios in and of themselves would
offer any constitutional problem.
Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1386 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1387 --------------
001 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Test Scores (was Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah..)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1387.1 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Test Scores (was Re: OUCH! (Was: Re: new charter in Ukiah..)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:09:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Duane wrote:
)The Milwaukee schools have a public magnet school that uses a waldorf style
)curriculum that is sanitized for public consumption i.e. the word "God "
)is not
)spoken. Apparently the school is doing well and has parent and administrative
)support which is more than can be said of many of the schools in that
)district.
)If anyone has factual info that is unbiased I'd be interested in hearing it.
Dan responded:
)Test scores have been disappointingly low, and seem to rise only to the
)degree that the programs are de-waldorfed.
Bob Williams writes:
Dan, do you know the history of the Milwaukee magnet test scores? I assume
that the scores were very low before Waldorf was brought in. I also know
that a new program takes several years to get on its feet and start making
a difference with a community. If we are going to look at test scores for
validation of a new program (which seems dicey to me in this case), we
should look at trends over time.
As to the comment about scores rising to the degree that programs are
"de-waldorfed," the first Waldorf school was very involved in "teaching to
the test" especially at the high school level. Steiner recognized the
importance of these tests for many students and was adamant about thorough
preparation for the children. So perhaps as schools like the Milwaukee
school adapt their programs to maximize test scores, they are actually
"Waldorfing" their programs.
Personally, I think that test scores are an inappropriate goal for an
educational program. My interest in alternative education for my own
children (Waldorf, Sudbury Valley, etc.) stems from my desire to, among
other things, keep them away from the testing mania in the public schools
and in many competitive private schools.
Texas has had great success in raising their test scores but at what cost?
My sister reports (and she is very proud of her children's test scores)
that my nephews have been brought to tears by their teacher's test
performance admonitions. The boys have daily test preparation lessons from
the first day of school and are prepped for the specific test throughout
the school year. At my own public school in California, we are seeing the
increasing focus on test scores. Last fall, our entire focus in our before
school planning meetings was on test scores and how to boost them. Schools
in my district are being pressured to adopt test preparation materials that
drill test items systematically from day one. One of the math prep programs
(15 minutes a day) alone would run my school $14k a year. A recent article
featuring the reading program Success For All discussed a school in NY, I
believe, in which students given daily test preparation drill and low
scoring students are pulled out to work with the principal on test taking
skills.
Having students *focus on standardized tests as an end of education* would
seem to be a powerful means of teaching children to defer to authority and
a bureaucratic culture. (John Taylor Gatto quoted a Foreign Affairs article
in which the CEO of a large US multinational suggested that a key to
America's productivity was its relatively docile and compliant work force.
Either the CEO or Gatto went on to suggest that the school system was an
important factor in creating the deferrence to authority necessary for
smooth labor relations and continued productivity.)
In Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner, Steiner seems to have extremely
high academic expectations and be adamant about effective teaching. I would
submit that low levels of academic achievement are not part of Steiner's
vision of schooling-- neither is teaching children that the ultimate goal
in school is to line up and receive validation from the state.
Respectfully.
Bob Williams
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1387 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1388 --------------
001 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
007 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.1 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:15:48
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907170653.XAA12562 lists1.best.com)
At 12:02 AM 7/17/99 +0100, you wrote:
)Bob Williams asks:
)Is there a distinction to be made between pedagogy (the how and why) and
)curriculum (the what)? Obviously religious curriculum is unconstitutional
)in a state school, but is religious pedagogy?
Waldorf education in the California school districts in question is
religious in the how, the why and the what. And yes, my understanding is
that a religious pedagogy would be a violation of the Separation Clause,
especially in regards to Waldorf education where the pedagogy is
inseparable from the religious element.
I don't believe your analogy between a Christian teacher using an alleged
religious pedagogy in conflict resolution parallels Waldorf education. In
Waldorf, the pedagogy is based upon the notion of the child's spiritual
evolution, therefore material is withheld, and presented in a certain way
precisely because of this religious belief.
John Morehead
==============================================
John W. Morehead
Associate Director
Watchman Fellowship, California branch office
http://www.watchman.org/ca/index.htm
(watchman quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 631-7897
(916) 631-0413 - fax
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:23:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[John Morehead]
) religious in the how, the why and the what. And yes, my
) understanding is
) that a religious pedagogy would be a violation of the
) Separation Clause,
) especially in regards to Waldorf education where the pedagogy is
) inseparable from the religious element.
) I don't believe your analogy between a Christian teacher
) using an alleged
) religious pedagogy in conflict resolution parallels Waldorf
) education. In
) Waldorf, the pedagogy is based upon the notion of the child's
) spiritual
) evolution, therefore material is withheld, and presented in a
) certain way
) precisely because of this religious belief.
Based on your logic, I presume you would outlaw the teaching of any
of the martial arts which are based on an Eastern, spiritual understanding
of the human being (e.g., Aikido). Do I understand your thinking correctly?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.3 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:54:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907191217.FAA04220 lists1.best.com)
) Based on your logic, I presume you would outlaw the teaching of any
) of the martial arts which are based on an Eastern, spiritual understanding
) of the human being (e.g., Aikido). Do I understand your thinking correctly?
Based upon my reasoning, a course on yoga, centering, meditation or the
martial arts, which purposely imparts a spirituality or religious
element (i.e., pantheistic monism, etc.) then that technique should not
be promoted with the spiritual elements in the public educational
system. The New Age movement has been successful in introducing their
religious worldview in the educational arena.
John Morehead
Watchman Fellowship
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:14:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) Based upon my reasoning, a course on yoga, centering,
) meditation or the
) martial arts, which purposely imparts a spirituality or religious
) element (i.e., pantheistic monism, etc.) then that technique
) should not
) be promoted with the spiritual elements in the public educational
) system.
And what if such courses do not purposely impart a spirituality or
religious element?
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:23:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907191651.JAA06097 lists1.best.com)
On 19 Jul 99, at 9:54, John W. Morehead wrote:
) Based upon my reasoning, a course on yoga, centering, meditation or the
) martial arts, which purposely imparts a spirituality or religious element
) (i.e., pantheistic monism, etc.) then that technique should not be
) promoted with the spiritual elements in the public educational system.
Suppose that the spiritual elements are not directly taught to the
kids, but the teacher does have the students sit quietly and clear
their minds before beginning instruction in yoga or the martial arts,
because the teacher believes that this will (1) put the students in a
receptive frame of mind and (2) provide spiritual benefits for the
students.
Suppose that another teacher does the exact same thing, but does not
intend to provide spiritual benefits, and personally doubts that the
activity will have such benefits.
Is the activity unconstitutional in the former case but not the
latter, unconstitutional in both cases, or constitutional in both
cases?
) The New Age movement has been successful in introducing their
) religious worldview in the educational arena.
Please give specific examples. Thanks.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.6 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:38:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So nice to have you back, Steve. How was your vacation?
Sarina
----------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 10:23 AM
On 19 Jul 99, at 9:54, John W. Morehead wrote:
) Based upon my reasoning, a course on yoga, centering, meditation or the
) martial arts, which purposely imparts a spirituality or religious element
) (i.e., pantheistic monism, etc.) then that technique should not be
) promoted with the spiritual elements in the public educational system.
Suppose that the spiritual elements are not directly taught to the
kids, but the teacher does have the students sit quietly and clear
their minds before beginning instruction in yoga or the martial arts,
because the teacher believes that this will (1) put the students in a
receptive frame of mind and (2) provide spiritual benefits for the
students.
Suppose that another teacher does the exact same thing, but does not
intend to provide spiritual benefits, and personally doubts that the
activity will have such benefits.
Is the activity unconstitutional in the former case but not the
latter, unconstitutional in both cases, or constitutional in both
cases?
) The New Age movement has been successful in introducing their
) religious worldview in the educational arena.
Please give specific examples. Thanks.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.7 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:38:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
oops, sorry everyone - that should have been a private e-mail.
----------
From: Sarina McDonald (pandora aa.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 10:38 AM
So nice to have you back, Steve. How was your vacation?
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.8 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:46:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907191709.KAA16512 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)
) )
) ) Based upon my reasoning, a course on yoga, centering,
) ) meditation or the
) ) martial arts, which purposely imparts a spirituality or religious
) ) element (i.e., pantheistic monism, etc.) then that technique
) ) should not
) ) be promoted with the spiritual elements in the public educational
) ) system.
)
) And what if such courses do not purposely impart a spirituality or
) religious element?
)
) Bob
) .If they do not purposely impart a spirituality, but still contain one so
as to violate the Establishment Clause, it is a problem.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:39:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907192045.NAA26404 lists1.best.com)
On 19 Jul 99, at 13:46, John W. Morehead wrote:
) Tolz, Robert wrote:
) )
) ) ) Based upon my reasoning, a course on yoga, centering,
) ) ) meditation or the
) ) ) martial arts, which purposely imparts a spirituality or religious
) ) ) element (i.e., pantheistic monism, etc.) then that technique should
) ) ) not be promoted with the spiritual elements in the public educational
) ) ) system.
) )
) ) And what if such courses do not purposely impart a spirituality or
) ) religious element?
)
)
) If they do not purposely impart a spirituality, but still contain one
) so as to violate the Establishment Clause, it is a problem.
That's circular. You're saying that if the course contains a
spirituality so as to violate the Establishment Clause, that is a
problem, but if the course contains a spirituality in a way that does
not violate the establishment clause, that is a problem. In other
words, you're merely saying that a course which violates the
Establishment Clause should not be promoted in the public school
system. I'm sure most of us agree on that. The question is this:
when does a course which contains a spiritual approach violate the
establishment clause?
Reverence for the earth is a spiritual value. Teaching kids not to
litter helps teach them reverence for the earth. Nevertheless, few
would argue that teaching kids not to litter violates the
establishment clause.
But perhaps this will all be cleared up when you respond to my
question about the teaching of mental exercises in the context of
martial arts or yoga. (I'm also looking forward to seeing examples
of how the new age movement has introduced its religious world view
into public schools.)
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1388.10 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:45:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199907192045.NAA26404 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907192139.OAA13782 mail.cruzio.com)
On 19 Jul 99, at 14:39, Steve Premo wrote:
) You're saying that if the course contains a spirituality so as to
) violate the Establishment Clause, that is a problem, but if the
) course contains a spirituality in a way that does not violate the
) establishment clause, that is a problem.
That last part should read, "if the course contains a spirituality in
a way that does not violate the establishment clause, that is not
a problem."
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1388 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1389 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
010 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:01:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) ) .If they do not purposely impart a spirituality, but still
) contain one so
) as to violate the Establishment Clause, it is a problem.
)
) John
Then I come back to my original question: Do you oppose the
teaching of Karate, Aikido or Tai Chi in the public schools because they are
essentially based on spiritual principles? Would PLANS' expert witness
please provide a simple yes or no answer? (Just giving you some advance
preparation for your testimony in the fall)...
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.2 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:25:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907191723.KAA24846 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) Suppose that the spiritual elements are not directly taught to the
) kids, but the teacher does have the students sit quietly and clear
) their minds before beginning instruction in yoga or the martial arts,
) because the teacher believes that this will (1) put the students in a
) receptive frame of mind and (2) provide spiritual benefits for the
) students.
It would have to be examined by the courts to determine if it violated
the Establishment Clause if a dispute and litigation arose.
Frank Beckwith argues that New Age in public education contains certain
"beliefs and practices [which] parallel Western religious activities
[and] which the Supreme Court has deemed as violations of the
Establishment Clause if inculcated in public education. Recall the six
practices deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court:
(1) state- directed and required on- premises religious training,
in McCollum v. Board of Education; (2) state- directed and required
prayer, in Engel v. Vitale; (3) state- directed and required Bible
reading, in Abington School District v. Schempp; (4) state- directed and
required posting of the Ten Commandments, in Stone v. Graham; (5) state-
directed and authorized "periods of silence" for meditation and
voluntary prayer, in Wallace v. Jaffre; (6) state- directed and required
teaching of scientific creationism, in Edwards v. Aguillard. [50]
Beckwith continues and notes "Three experts in school law add,
'[r]eligious exercises, rituals, and celebrations... are against the
law, whether compulsory or voluntary.' [51]
The preceeding quote may be found at
(http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Separation_of_Guru.html)
) Suppose that another teacher does the exact same thing, but does not
) intend to provide spiritual benefits, and personally doubts that the
) activity will have such benefits.
)
) Is the activity unconstitutional in the former case but not the
) latter, unconstitutional in both cases, or constitutional in both
) cases?
I'm not an attorney nor an expert in Constitutional law. These matters
will be determined at least by a California court. I can provide
information in my area of speciality, religious studies, and have
addressed the religious foundation and content of Waldorf
education/Anthroposophy.
) ) The New Age movement has been successful in introducing their
) ) religious worldview in the educational arena.
)
) Please give specific examples. Thanks.
Wake County Public School System of Raleigh North Carolina provided a
Kundalini Yoga course for high school students and adults
Transcendental Meditation was promoted in the New Jersey public school
system in the 1970s
Other examples of problem programs include Holistic Learning, Whole Mind
Learning, The Centered Student, Self Concept, Project Aware, Discovery
Skills for Life, Confluent Education and a host of others. For further
information those intereste can request the packet on New Age in
education from Watchman Fellowship.
John Morehad
Watchman Fellowship
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:50:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907192220.PAA10861 lists1.best.com)
On 19 Jul 99, at 14:25, John W. Morehead wrote:
) ) JOHN MOREHEAD:
) )
) ) ) The New Age movement has been successful in introducing their
) ) ) religious worldview in the educational arena.
) )
) STEVE PREMO:
) ) Please give specific examples. Thanks.
JOHN MOREHEAD:
) Wake County Public School System of Raleigh North Carolina provided a
) Kundalini Yoga course for high school students and adults
)
) Transcendental Meditation was promoted in the New Jersey public school
) system in the 1970s
OK, I know what Kundalini Yoga and TM are. These seem to be fairly
isolated instances, and since the TM lessons were thrown out in
court, this does not really support your statement that a religious
world view has been successfully introduced into public education.
) Other examples of problem programs include Holistic Learning, Whole Mind
) Learning, The Centered Student, Self Concept, Project Aware, Discovery
) Skills for Life, Confluent Education and a host of others.
I have no idea what these are, or how they relate to a religious
world view.
) For further information those intereste can request the packet on
) New Age in education from Watchman Fellowship.
Well, OK, if you don't want to discuss it here I can't very well
insist. But since you made a statement to the effect that a
religious world view has been successfully incorporated into public
education, I thought you would be willing to back it up. If not,
then in spite of your credentials I have to take the statement with a
grain of salt.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.4 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:05:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907192158.OAA19863 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)
) ) -----Original Message-----
) ) ) .If they do not purposely impart a spirituality, but still
) ) contain one so
) ) as to violate the Establishment Clause, it is a problem.
) )
) ) John
)
) Then I come back to my original question: Do you oppose the
) teaching of Karate, Aikido or Tai Chi in the public schools because they are
) essentially based on spiritual principles?
No, because these can be taught apart from the spirituality. Waldorf
cannot as Steiner indicated in his writings.
Would PLANS' expert witness
) please provide a simple yes or no answer? (Just giving you some advance
) preparation for your testimony in the fall)...
Hope this answer suffices.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:32:18 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Bob Tolz]
) ) Then I come back to my original question: Do you oppose the
) ) teaching of Karate, Aikido or Tai Chi in the public schools
) because they are
) ) essentially based on spiritual principles?
)
[John Morehead]
) No, because these can be taught apart from the spirituality. Waldorf
) cannot as Steiner indicated in his writings.
)
[Bob Tolz]
) Would PLANS' expert witness
) ) please provide a simple yes or no answer? (Just giving you
) some advance
) ) preparation for your testimony in the fall)...
)
[John Morehead]
) Hope this answer suffices.
)
[Bob Tolz]
Not really. Do you believe that everything which labels itself as
"Waldorf" cannot be taught apart from the spirituality, simply by reason of
the name?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.6 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:44:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907200327.UAA00364 lists1.best.com)
One important aspect that is missed here is the element of magical thinking.
Karate can be taught as a method of self defense with little resort to
magical thinking. Waldorf pedagogy reflects a supernatural belief system.
I dont know how courts would view it, but to me that makes the arguement
against Waldorf teaching in public schools much stronger.
Alan Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
) [Bob Tolz]
) ) ) Then I come back to my original question: Do you oppose the
) ) ) teaching of Karate, Aikido or Tai Chi in the public schools
) ) because they are
) ) ) essentially based on spiritual principles?
) )
) [John Morehead]
) ) No, because these can be taught apart from the spirituality. Waldorf
) ) cannot as Steiner indicated in his writings.
) )
)
) [Bob Tolz]
) ) Would PLANS' expert witness
) ) ) please provide a simple yes or no answer? (Just giving you
) ) some advance
) ) ) preparation for your testimony in the fall)...
) )
)
) [John Morehead]
) ) Hope this answer suffices.
) )
)
) [Bob Tolz]
) Not really. Do you believe that everything which labels itself as
) "Waldorf" cannot be taught apart from the spirituality, simply by reason
of
) the name?
)
) Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:38:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Alan Fine]
)
) One important aspect that is missed here is the element of
) magical thinking.
) Karate can be taught as a method of self defense with little resort to
) magical thinking. Waldorf pedagogy reflects a supernatural
) belief system.
) I dont know how courts would view it, but to me that makes
) the arguement
) against Waldorf teaching in public schools much stronger.
)
) Alan Fine
I don't see the distinction.
Take a closer look at Tai Chi and Aikido. Both reflect what you
might describe as a supernatural belief system regarding body energies.
What is it that allows them to be taught without resort to magical thinking,
while at the same time you maintain that Waldorf methods may not?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.8 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:45:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907192146.OAA07198 lists1.best.com)
John Morehead wrote:
)I don't believe your analogy between a Christian teacher using an alleged
)religious pedagogy in conflict resolution parallels Waldorf education. In
)Waldorf, the pedagogy is based upon the notion of the child's spiritual
)evolution, therefore material is withheld, and presented in a certain way
)precisely because of this religious belief.
Bob Williams responds and asks:
John, although I have WE in the back of my mind whenever I post to the
list, in this case I was trying to explore a general principle rather than
to make an exact parallel with WE. Your latest article seemed to focus on
pedagogy, and I wanted to explore the distinction between pedagogy and
curriculum because I think the latter is often subsumed by the former in
most people's minds.
Now for another question:
If we take a Catholic or Christian educational system and remove:
references to God, specific devotional practices, and religious
instruction, in what sense would we still call it Catholic or Christian?
That is to say, what are the elements of a Catholic and Christian education
beyond curriculum? In what way,if at all, is the pedagogy religious as well?
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.9 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:27:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907192251.PAA08033 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) OK, I know what Kundalini Yoga and TM are. These seem to be fairly
) isolated instances, and since the TM lessons were thrown out in
) court, this does not really support your statement that a religious
) world view has been successfully introduced into public education.
Then you have at least two examples with others introduced below.
) ) Other examples of problem programs include Holistic Learning, Whole Mind
) ) Learning, The Centered Student, Self Concept, Project Aware, Discovery
) ) Skills for Life, Confluent Education and a host of others.
)
) I have no idea what these are, or how they relate to a religious
) world view.
These programs incorporate religious elements from a New Age worldview.
If you'd like additional information I'd be happy to mail it to you.
) ) For further information those intereste can request the packet on
) ) New Age in education from Watchman Fellowship.
)
) Well, OK, if you don't want to discuss it here I can't very well
) insist. But since you made a statement to the effect that a
) religious world view has been successfully incorporated into public
) education, I thought you would be willing to back it up. If not,
) then in spite of your credentials I have to take the statement with a
) grain of salt.
Come on, Steve. I don't think this forum is the best place for a long,
drawn out description of each of the programs listed above. You *don't*
have to take my word for it (or hint at questioning my credibility as
you've done). If you really want to examine it then request the packet
or get a hold of _Thieves of Innocence_ by John Ankerberg, John Weldon
and Craig Branch for additional examples and documentation. You don't
raise much of a criticism here so I guess I'll have to take it with a
grain of salt. :)
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1389.10 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:58:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907200327.UAA00364 lists1.best.com)
) [Bob Tolz]
) Not really. Do you believe that everything which labels itself as
) "Waldorf" cannot be taught apart from the spirituality, simply by reason of
) the name?
No. Where did I say simply because the name Waldorf is used that it is
therefore necessarily religious? As I've stated before, it is
theoretically possible to include some of the cognitive and artistic
elements of a Waldorf approach, without the Anthroposophical
spirituality, and no problem would exist. But as Steiner himself
indicates this would not be true Waldorf. In fact, Steiner went so far
as to say education was an illusion without the spiritual elements. So
it's not just the name Waldorf that causes the problem. I know of no
Waldorf schools that have successfully secularized it (the Sacramento
area schools in question haven't), but it is a possibility.
Now maybe I haven't communicated clearly here. I do not believe that we
should dismiss a teaching, methodology or idea simply because it may
have had its origin in a religion or religious worldview. That would be
an example of the genetic fallacy: dismissing an idea merely because of
its source. Nor am I opposed to the presentation or critique of religion
and religious ideas in public education in the context of imparting
information for analytical discussion. Please understand that I am
sympathetic to the appropriate discussion of such things in the proper
way and in the proper forum.
What I am opposed to is the promotion of New Age ideas/practices (which
would include Anthroposophy/Waldorf education) that inculcate students
in New Age thought, whether overtly or covertly.
Having said this, let me respond to the earlier inquiries regading the
teaching of the martial arts, in the public educational arena. While the
martial arts find their origin in connection with an Eastern
spirituality, one can practice the various self-defense forms without
reference to the spirituality. These can indeed be secularized, and I
have no problem with them being taught in a public educational forum
without the spirituality. If a martial arts student wanted the
self-defense plus the spirituality they should be free to take private
lessons to do so, so that they might have the free exercise of their
religious options.
But unlike the martial arts, the secularization of Waldorf education
cannot be done. Not if it is genuine Waldorf, as conceived and discussed
by Rudolf Steiner.
John
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1389 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1390 --------------
001 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1390.1 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:10:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907201435.HAA27652 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams wrote:
) Now for another question:
) If we take a Catholic or Christian educational system and remove:
) references to God, specific devotional practices, and religious
) instruction, in what sense would we still call it Catholic or Christian?
That would depend on the system in question. If one removed the above,
it would largely be secularized. However, Christian presuppositions
would still be in place and influencing instructional methods perhaps
(e.g. the Christian belief in the fallen nature of humanity and tendency
to evil rather than good).
)That is to say, what are the elements of a Catholic and Christian
)education beyond curriculum? In what way, if at all, is the pedagogy
)religious as well?
Other than the Christian doctrinal presuppositions which would serve as
background considerations and which *might* spill over into the
methodology or actions of the teacher, I don't know that a Catholic or
Christian school would have a religious pedagogy, although they surely
have a religious curriculum.
By contrast, Waldorf education has both a religious pedagogy *and*
curriculum.
Don't know if this helps much. Thanks for the question, respectfully
submitted, and the opportunity for helping me think.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1390.2 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:24:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907201033.DAA00362 lists1.best.com)
I don't know much about those disciplines. Possibly they should not be
taught in public schools either.
Alan Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 4:38 AM
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
) [Alan Fine]
) )
) ) One important aspect that is missed here is the element of
) ) magical thinking.
) ) Karate can be taught as a method of self defense with little resort to
) ) magical thinking. Waldorf pedagogy reflects a supernatural
) ) belief system.
) ) I dont know how courts would view it, but to me that makes
) ) the arguement
) ) against Waldorf teaching in public schools much stronger.
) )
) ) Alan Fine
)
) I don't see the distinction.
)
) Take a closer look at Tai Chi and Aikido. Both reflect what you
) might describe as a supernatural belief system regarding body energies.
) What is it that allows them to be taught without resort to magical
thinking,
) while at the same time you maintain that Waldorf methods may not?
)
) Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1390.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:42:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Bob Tolz stated:]
) ) Take a closer look at Tai Chi and Aikido. Both reflect what you
) ) might describe as a supernatural belief system regarding
) body energies.
) ) What is it that allows them to be taught without resort to magical
) thinking,
) ) while at the same time you maintain that Waldorf methods may not?
) )
[To which Alan Fine responded:]
)
) I don't know much about those disciplines. Possibly they
) should not be
) taught in public schools either.
)
[Bob Tolz]
Do you make that statement about those martial arts disciplines
simply because they may be derived from a system of beliefs which you might
understand to be magical/spiritual/religious? Even if the manifest effects
(as opposed to the unstated origin) of what is being taught evidence a very
effective and satisfying set of tools for achieving a desired aim?
If that's your position, I find it quite illogical. Assume for the
sake of argument that Aikido *is* based on a belief system which you might
find to be patently spiritual/religious/magical/un-secular. Assume also
that it is possible to teach the physical, self-defense techniques of Aikido
without any reference to that belief system. Do you really believe that
such self-defense techniques should not be taught in the public schools,
simply because of their origin?
I know more about Aikido than the other martial arts, through simple
osmosis: My wife used to take classes diligently until a back injury
prevented her from continuing, and I've probably seen all of
Aikido-practitioner Steven Seagal's movies. Seagal certainly put his Aikido
to effective, secular use in quite a few action movies, without much of a
hint of spirituality (though I understand he's on the New Age lecture
circuit now).
There is no logic to dismissing a practice which people find
effective, simply because its origins may be religious/spiritual. There are
other examples where an originally spiritual practice has been found to have
secular uses. Another which comes to mind is meditation-like practices,
which can be conducted in a purely secular way. I remember a couple of
decades ago the stir (I think there was even a cover article in the Sunday
NY Times Magazine) which was caused by Harvard's Dr. Herbert Benson
advocating the "Relaxation Response" which could be achieved, in a secular
manner, through practices akin to those followed by TM advocates but without
the guru-type accoutrements.
I disavow any knowledge of the actual facts in the school districts
which PLANS is suing. However, if the judge finds that the curriculum and
practices are used primarily for secular effect, because the parents,
students and teachers find them useful and effective or merely pleasing, and
that the schools are not teaching religious principles to the kids or
requiring religious indoctrination of the teachers, I can't see how the
judge can find the school districts' activities constitutionally
objectionable, regardless of the origin of the practices. And I don't think
it matters whether or not Steiner said that you can't take anthroposophy out
of Waldorf. After all, that's just one man's opinion.
By the way, I thought of you recently, Alan. Someone showed me a
book by a British psychologist about gurus, entitled "Feet of Clay: Saints,
Sinners, and Madmen : A Study of Gurus." It includes a chapter on Steiner.
Though I only skimmed it, it looks like something you'd find interesting.
You also might find the chapters on Freud and Jung intriguing. See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834952/o/qid=932564879/sr=8-3/002
-7387283-8125257
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1390.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:41:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907211438.HAA26126 lists1.best.com)
On 21 Jul 99, at 10:42, Tolz, Robert wrote:
) I disavow any knowledge of the actual facts in the school districts
) which PLANS is suing. However, if the judge finds that the curriculum and
) practices are used primarily for secular effect, because the parents,
) students and teachers find them useful and effective or merely pleasing,
) and that the schools are not teaching religious principles to the kids or
) requiring religious indoctrination of the teachers, I can't see how the
) judge can find the school districts' activities constitutionally
) objectionable, regardless of the origin of the practices. And I don't
) think it matters whether or not Steiner said that you can't take
) anthroposophy out of Waldorf. After all, that's just one man's opinion.
I think you're right about that. And it may be that the plaintiffs
will be unable to meet their burden of proof with respect to showing
that the teachers are using the techniques for their supposed effects
on the spiritual evolution of the students and not simply for secular
purposes. After all, I suspect that the faculty members know that
the spiritual side of anthroposophy should be downplayed in their
testimony.
The real test might come when some teacher takes the position that "I
like the techniques, and I find them helpful, but I think all that
stuff about Atlantis, etheric bodies, the heart not being a pump, and
so on is a load of crap." If a teacher makes such a position known
and is discriminated against with respect to teaching assignments,
the teacher would probably have a good cause of action for
discrimination on the basis of religion.
(Although I suspect that a teacher taking such a position would be
subject to discrimination, I'm getting pretty darn hypothetical
here.)
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1390 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1391 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - Bob Williams (danabob she - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - Bob Williams (danabob she - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
010 - "Duane Koons" (dkoons gun - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:41:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907201033.DAA00362 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907202332.QAA01835 lists1.best.com)
Bob Tolz wrote,
)) Take a closer look at Tai Chi and Aikido. Both reflect what you
)) might describe as a supernatural belief system regarding body energies.
)) What is it that allows them to be taught without resort to magical
)thinking,
)) while at the same time you maintain that Waldorf methods may not?
I've mentioned several times over the years that the U.S. Army taught me a
completely secularized Karate course. It included breath control, but no
meditation or spiritual anatomy. I agree that it might be possible to teach
"Waldorf methods" without Anthroposophy, but it would be very difficult.
All the supporting material and teacher trainers are Anthroposophical. In
'97 teacher Lynette Baker was let go from the largely secularized Harriet
Tubman Village School because she refused to travel to Rudolf Steiner
College for Waldorf courses.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.2 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:37:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On the martial arts mini thread:
John, if we leave out any overt religious practices and take into account
the "..lack of ability to recognize an esoteric religion by those who would
be more familiar with Western theistic religions," what would aikido or tai
chi with and without a spiritual element look like in your opinion?
I wonder if it is possible to stop them from covertly promoting an inherent
world view stemming from the religious view upon which they are based.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.3 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:43:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907201556.IAA05380 lists1.best.com)
Returning to my original question, if I as a non-anthropop teacher have a
public school program with the same elements as an anthropop public (not in
a Waldorf setting) teacher but the impulse/pedagogy from which we approach
our teaching is different, then is the anthropop's teaching
unconstitutional based on the religious pedagogy he/she employs?
In John's article, I believe that he establishes a connection between a
religious world view and Waldorf pedagogy. IMO, however, he has largely
skirted the curriculum issue, especially as it is manifested,in theory, in
public Waldorf programs. I posted the Christian ed question to better
understand how a Western theistic religion, of which most of us are more
familiar, might influence a pedagogy apart from curriculum. I wonder if
most people's reaction to religion in education is based on traditional
religious based ed. It's not clear to me if those systems are based on a
religious pedagogy, and since the powerful religious element of especially
public Waldorf is largely pedagogical, it may change the nature of the
discussion from that which centers around traditional religious ed systems
and public schools.
Now John's stated opposition to:
(snip)the promotion of New Age ideas/practices (which
)would include Anthroposophy/Waldorf education) that inculcate students
)in New Age thought, whether overtly or covertly
seems directed at curriculum. So, John, to explore the overt and covert New
Age promotion in public Waldorf, we would benefit from understanding other
examples which you have identified as New Age penetration of the public
system. Perhaps you could describe just one of the programs from your list,
hopefully one that especially represents the *covert* promotion of New Age
ideas/practices. (Incidentally, since none of us, so far, has heard of any
of these programs beyond TM and the yoga, their "successful" introduction
may not be too far reaching.) Your brief description may help us understand
your fears or prepare us to disagree with your perceptions.
Finally in the curricular area, you stated:
)In Waldorf, the pedagogy is based upon the notion of the child's spiritual
)evolution, therefore material is withheld, and presented in a certain way
)precisely because of this religious belief.
The question of material being withheld or presented in a (presumed)
questionable way returns us to the curriculum question. I'd love to have
examples to discuss on this point. I assume that you are referring to at
least delayed reading, delayed computers and media, and a focus on
imagination or "forming pictures" in studying all subjects. Are there
others?
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:00:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Dan Dugan]
) Anthroposophical. In
) '97 teacher Lynette Baker was let go from the largely
) secularized Harriet
) Tubman Village School because she refused to travel to Rudolf Steiner
) College for Waldorf courses.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
If one of my employees refused to travel to a place where I thought
they'd obtain the best training for what I wanted them to do, I'd let them
go too.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.5 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:14:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907211628.JAA20019 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams wrote:
)
) On the martial arts mini thread:
) John, if we leave out any overt religious practices and take into account the "..lack of ability to recognize an esoteric religion by
those who would be more familiar with Western theistic religions," what
would aikido or tai chi with and without a spiritual element look like
in your opinion?
What would it look like? I'm not sure I understand. The technique would
surely look the same. However, the instructor might incorporate a
religiously inspired breathing exercise as a means of bringing the
student into harmony with the Tao in a school with an Eastern spiritual
aspect. It might leave that out in one without a spiritual element.
) I wonder if it is possible to stop them from covertly promoting an inherent world view stemming from the religious view upon which they are
based.
It might indeed be difficult, but I'm not sure about impossible. An
effort should be made, especially in regards to Waldorf.
John
) .
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.6 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:42:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907211634.JAA23249 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams wrote:
)
) Returning to my original question, if I as a non-anthropop teacher have a public school program with the same elements as an anthropop
public (not in a Waldorf setting) teacher but the impulse/pedagogy from
which we approach our teaching is different, then is the anthropop's
teaching unconstitutional based on the religious pedagogy he/she
employs?
I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but I think the
answer is yes, in my understanding. A non-Anthroposphical teacher who
was teaching a religious pedagogy of Waldorf even without understanding
they were doing so would still be unconstitutional.
) In John's article, I believe that he establishes a connection between a religious world view and Waldorf pedagogy. IMO, however, he has
largely skirted the curriculum issue, especially as it is manifested,in
theory, in public Waldorf programs.
Correct. I did not skirt the curriculum issue, I did not address it and
focused on the pedagogical angle since Steiner felt that the essence of
Waldorf boiled down to his pedagogy.
) Now John's stated opposition to:
)
) (snip)the promotion of New Age ideas/practices (which
) )would include Anthroposophy/Waldorf education) that inculcate students)in New Age thought, whether overtly or covertly
) ) seems directed at curriculum.
A curriculum which flows necessarily from the pedagogy. The connection
is important.
)So, John, to explore the overt and covert New) Age promotion in public Waldorf, we would benefit from understanding other examples which you
have identified as New Age penetration of the public system. Perhaps you
could describe just one of the programs from your list, hopefully one
that especially represents the *covert* promotion of New Age
ideas/practices. (Incidentally, since none of us, so far, has heard of
any of these programs beyond TM and the yoga, their "successful"
introduction may not be too far reaching.)
I guess it depends upon how you define "successful". Many people are
unaware of New Age education in public schools, but this does not mean
it was not successful, IMO.
In response for your request for one example of New Age influence in
public education consider an article which ran in The New York Times
Magaine in the May 1, 1998 issue. In a cover story titled "Colorado's
Thriving Cults" there was an area which discussed how the New Age had
afected public education. Near a photo with the caption "Third graders
listen quietly while a teacher leads a 'visualizaton.' Vocal parents
groups have protested the encroachment of New Age practices in school
curricula," the article noted that "meditational techniques have become
*common fare* in the state's public and private schools" (emphasis
mine). The article went on to state the "Many Colorado schools, public
and private, utilize practices adapted from Eastern meditation under the
rubrics of 'centering, stress reduction, or guided visualization,'
usually with the aim of enhancing students' self-esteem and creativity,
or presenting an alternative to alcohol and drugs."
The New Age movement has identified the field of education as an area of
focus for cultural input and hopeful transformation. Popular New Age
writer Marilyn Ferguson, in her book The Aquarian Conspiracy, notes that
changing the education of a younger generation is a major focus in New
Age efforts to transform society. Consider the words of Jack Canfield,
former chairman of the California Task Force on Self-Esteem. He wrote in
New Age magazine in February 1978 that, "In a growing number of
classrooms throughout the world, education is beginning to move into a
new dimension. More and more teachers are exposing children to ways of
contacting their inner wisdom and their higher selves...New Age
education has arrived...An influx of spiritual teachings from the East,
combined with a new psychological perspective in the West, has resulted
in a fresh look at the learning process." This new psychological
perspective is often referred to as "integrative education" or
"transpersonal learning or education."
) Finally in the curricular area, you stated:
)
) )In Waldorf, the pedagogy is based upon the notion of the child's spiritualevolution, therefore material is withheld, and presented in a
certain way )precisely because of this religious belief.
)
) The question of material being withheld or presented in a (presumed)
) questionable way returns us to the curriculum question.
I don't know that it's legitimate to put the dichotomy between Waldorf
pedagogy and curriculum as you've done. The two go hand in hand. I am
more familiar with the pedagogy than the curriculum. I would hand off
specific examples of the curriculum for comment by Dan Dugan if he'd
care to respond.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:22:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) Bob Williams wrote:
) )
) ) Returning to my original question, if I as a non-anthropop
) teacher have a public school program with the same elements
) as an anthropop
) public (not in a Waldorf setting) teacher but the
) impulse/pedagogy from
) which we approach our teaching is different, then is the anthropop's
) teaching unconstitutional based on the religious pedagogy he/she
) employs?
)
[John Morehead replied]
) I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but I think the
) answer is yes, in my understanding. A non-Anthroposphical teacher who
) was teaching a religious pedagogy of Waldorf even without
) understanding
) they were doing so would still be unconstitutional.
John,
I agree that the question was a bit hard to understand, but I
thought the ultimate question Bob Williams was asking was different from
what you assumed.
I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular, non-Waldorf public
school setting. The question being put to you, I thought, was whether you
believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher to teach the secular
curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf Steiner's
pedagogy.
Even if that's not what Bob Williams was asking, I'd be interested
in what you had to say.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.8 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:27:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907211818.LAA09824 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular, non-Waldorf
)public school setting. The question being put to you, I thought, was
)whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher to teach the
)secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf
)Steiner's pedagogy.
I think I would answer yes, that it would be unconstitutional, since
Steiner's pedagogy results in an Anthroposophical curriculum. That's
where our basic disagreement comes from. Let's get specific. I don't
believe the Sacramento and Twin Ridges School districts in California
have created a purely secular curriculum precisely because this
curriculum flows from Steiner's religious pedagogy.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.9 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:57:24 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) Tolz, Robert wrote:
) )I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
) ) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular,
) non-Waldorf
) )public school setting. The question being put to you, I
) thought, was
) )whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher
) to teach the
) )secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf
) )Steiner's pedagogy.
)
[John Morehead]
) I think I would answer yes, that it would be unconstitutional, since
) Steiner's pedagogy results in an Anthroposophical curriculum.
[Bob Tolz]
It's hard for me to think you really believe what you just said: An
Anthroposophist cannot teach in a public school (even sans Waldorf
curriculum and trappings). Are you sure you meant to say that, or did I
understand you incorrectly?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1391.10 ---------------
From: "Duane Koons" (dkoons gundluth.org)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:11:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
A few months ago I was taken to task for suggesting that waldorf critics were
sometimes guilty of taking positions that discriminated against people who
supported waldorf education similar to other "___ists". John appears to think
that if a person's beliefs favor anthroposophy, then they are unfit to teach
in a public setting under any circumstance. Is this reasoning supported by
other critics on this list? If so why aren't you going after anyone who attends
church or manifests behavior that suggests they hold religious or spiritual
beliefs?
Could you clarify for us John what makes anthroposophist fair game for
discrimination?
Do the leaders of PLANS agree with John's reasoning?
I'll go back to lurking now. Duane
"John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com) on 07/21/99 01:27:14 PM
Please respond to waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
cc: (bcc: Duane Koons/VIROQUA/RGNL/GUNDLUTH)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular, non-Waldorf
)public school setting. The question being put to you, I thought, was
)whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher to teach the
)secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf
)Steiner's pedagogy.
I think I would answer yes, that it would be unconstitutional, since
Steiner's pedagogy results in an Anthroposophical curriculum. That's
where our basic disagreement comes from. Let's get specific. I don't
believe the Sacramento and Twin Ridges School districts in California
have created a purely secular curriculum precisely because this
curriculum flows from Steiner's religious pedagogy.
John
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1391 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1392 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
007 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
010 - Bob Williams (danabob she - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:19:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907212212.PAA01377 lists1.best.com)
On 21 Jul 99, at 17:11, Duane Koons wrote:
) A few months ago I was taken to task for suggesting that waldorf critics
) were sometimes guilty of taking positions that discriminated against
) people who supported waldorf education similar to other "___ists". John
) appears to think that if a person's beliefs favor anthroposophy, then
) they are unfit to teach in a public setting under any circumstance.
I suspect that this is not what John meant. Here is what he said:
) Tolz, Robert wrote:
) )I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
) ) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular, non-Waldorf
) )public school setting. The question being put to you, I thought, was
) )whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher to teach the
) )secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf
) )Steiner's pedagogy.
)
) John wrote:
)
) I think I would answer yes, that it would be unconstitutional, since
) Steiner's pedagogy results in an Anthroposophical curriculum. That's
) where our basic disagreement comes from. Let's get specific. I don't
) believe the Sacramento and Twin Ridges School districts in California have
) created a purely secular curriculum precisely because this curriculum
) flows from Steiner's religious pedagogy.
It looks to me as though John is saying that the curriculum taught by
an anthroposophist, if guided by Steiner's indications, would not be
a secular curriculum at all. Rather, it would be an anthroposophical
curriculum.
That, of course, does not answer the question posed by Robert. My
interpretation of John's post is that he misunderstood Robert's
question.
John can speak for himself, but I wanted to point out that there is
another interpretation of his comments than your interpretation,
which is apparently that John's opinions reflect a bigotry against
anthroposophists.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:22:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[John Morehead wrote]
) ) I think I would answer yes, that it would be unconstitutional, since
) ) Steiner's pedagogy results in an Anthroposophical curriculum. That's
) ) where our basic disagreement comes from. Let's get specific. I don't
) ) believe the Sacramento and Twin Ridges School districts in
) California have
) ) created a purely secular curriculum precisely because this
) curriculum
) ) flows from Steiner's religious pedagogy.
)
[... and Steve Premo commented]
) It looks to me as though John is saying that the curriculum taught by
) an anthroposophist, if guided by Steiner's indications, would not be
) a secular curriculum at all. Rather, it would be an anthroposophical
) curriculum.
)
[snip]
)
) John can speak for himself, but I wanted to point out that there is
) another interpretation of his comments than your interpretation,
) which is apparently that John's opinions reflect a bigotry against
) anthroposophists.
You're absolutely right that John can speak for himself, but it
seems to me that it is his conclusion that *any* curriculum taught by an
anthroposophist would ipso facto turn into a Steiner curriculum/pedagogy,
which would be unconstitutional.
The logic is: if A leads to B, and B leads to C, A must lead to C.
"A" in this case is "Anthroposophist teaches normal curriculum, but guided
by the Steiner world-view." "B" is that "any Anthroposophist who teaches
any curriculum from a Steiner world view is not giving a secular education,
regardless of the external trappings of the curriculum." "C" is that "a
non-secular curriculum is unconstitutional." This leads to my understanding
of John's comment as concluding that it is unconstitutional for any
Anthroposophist to teach in the public schools.
John? Comments?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:01:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907211438.HAA26126 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz, you wrote,
) By the way, I thought of you recently, Alan. Someone showed me a
)book by a British psychologist about gurus, entitled "Feet of Clay: Saints,
)Sinners, and Madmen : A Study of Gurus." It includes a chapter on Steiner.
)Though I only skimmed it, it looks like something you'd find interesting.
)You also might find the chapters on Freud and Jung intriguing. See
)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834952/o/qid=932564879/sr=8-3/002
)-7387283-8125257
This is an interesting book that gives Steiner good marks relative to most
of the gurus studied. It's available from the bookstore on the PLANS web
site.
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/Bookstore/Recommended_Reading.html
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:25:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907212212.PAA01377 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz wrote,
))I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
)) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular, non-Waldorf
))public school setting. The question being put to you, I thought, was
))whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher to teach the
))secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf
))Steiner's pedagogy.
If he was only "internally guided" and didn't express his religious beliefs
in his teaching, that would be the normal situation for all public school
teachers, wouldn't it?
However, not all teachers can do this. Our friends at the National Center
for Science Education are constantly dealing with teachers who feel that
their faith obliges them not only to omit teaching evolution (frequently
done, rarely noticed) but to actively teach creationism (only busted when
someone complains).
There's an interesting example of a teacher in a regular public school in
Northern California who bragged in Anthroposophical circles about how he
got Anthroposophy into his public school classroom.
"On the last day before vacation, I led the children in a Winter Solstice
Celebration. The room was cleared, except for a red covered table arranged
with a wreath of evergreen branches and mistletoe. A few sprigs of holly,
with its red berries, completed the circle which surrounded an angel
holding a lighted candle. A few crystals and some winter animals
complemented the arrangement. The children each had a candle and we
spiraled into the center, each lighting our candle. All the while we sang a
simple solstice song that goes, "Down with Darkness, Up with Light." The
simplicity and magic of the moment was very moving and powerful. Winter
Solstice, with its obvious astronomical importance, is the easiest aspect
of the Christmas season to emphasize in a public school. So, for a brief
moment, we all felt like ancient Druids worshipping the sun. This
celebration ended what was for this public school teacher a very special
month."
[Peterson, James W. "Christmas Season in a Public School." The Waldorf
Kindergarten Newsletter. Waldorf Kindergarten Association of North America,
Silver Spring, MD: Autumn, 1995, p. 22.]
Pretty good, eh? A full-fledged Anthroposophical "white magic" ceremony in
a public school, not even "Waldorf inspired."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:02:22 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) Robert Tolz wrote,
)
) ))I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
) )) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular,
) non-Waldorf
) ))public school setting. The question being put to you, I
) thought, was
) ))whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher
) to teach the
) ))secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf
) ))Steiner's pedagogy.
)
[Dan Dugan replied]
) If he was only "internally guided" and didn't express his
) religious beliefs
) in his teaching, that would be the normal situation for all
) public school
) teachers, wouldn't it?
[Bob Tolz]
Yup.
[Dan Dugan]
) However, not all teachers can do this.
[Bob Tolz]
I'm sure that's correct.
Do you agree with John Morehead that all Anthroposophists should be
barred from teaching in public schools because of the perception that they
will inevitably be teaching something religious?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:14:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) Robert Tolz, you wrote,
)
) ) By the way, I thought of you recently, Alan. Someone
) showed me a
) )book by a British psychologist about gurus, entitled "Feet
) of Clay: Saints,
) )Sinners, and Madmen : A Study of Gurus."
[Dan Dugan]
)
) This is an interesting book that gives Steiner good marks
) relative to most
) of the gurus studied.
[Bob Tolz]
My recollection of the brief skim-job I gave the chapter was that
the author thought that Steiner was truly more saintly than most of the
others studied in the book, but at the same time he felt that Steiner's
science was truly wacky.
Do I recall correctly that there are also chapters on Jesus, David
Koresh, Jim Jones, Gurdjieff and Rajneesh? Quite an eclectic collection of
gurus.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.7 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:39:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907212054.NAA18913 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)
) )
) ) Tolz, Robert wrote:
) ) )I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
) ) ) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular,
) ) non-Waldorf
) ) )public school setting. The question being put to you, I
) ) thought, was
) ) )whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher
) ) to teach the
) ) )secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf
) ) )Steiner's pedagogy.
) )
)
) [John Morehead]
) ) I think I would answer yes, that it would be unconstitutional, since
) ) Steiner's pedagogy results in an Anthroposophical curriculum.
)
) [Bob Tolz]
)
) It's hard for me to think you really believe what you just said: An
) Anthroposophist cannot teach in a public school (even sans Waldorf
) curriculum and trappings). Are you sure you meant to say that, or did I
) understand you incorrectly?
I didn't say they couldn't teach in a public school, Bob. I said *if*
they taught according to the Waldorf pedagogy it would result in a
religious curriculum. Surely an Anthroposophist can teach in a secular
way and with a secular curriculum, but not if they follow the pedagogy
of Waldorf education.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.8 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:43:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907212212.PAA01377 lists1.best.com)
Duane Koons wrote:
)
) A few months ago I was taken to task for suggesting that waldorf critics were sometimes guilty of taking positions that discriminated
against people who supported waldorf education similar to other
"___ists". John appears to think that if a person's beliefs favor
anthroposophy, then they are unfit to teach in a public setting under
any circumstance. Is this reasoning supported by other critics on this
list?
You misunderstand my statements, Duane. Please see my response to Bob. I
stated that an Anthroposophist *can* teach in a public school setting in
with a secular pedagogy and secular curriculum. However, if they teach
according to Waldorf's pedagogy it is necessarily religious, as
Steiner's writings clearly state.
) Could you clarify for us John what makes anthroposophist fair game for
) discrimination?
As my comments above indicate, this is not discrimination. If you'd care
to argue how this seems to be discrimination to you I'm open to
correction.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.9 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:47:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907220118.SAA13835 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)You're absolutely right that John can speak for himself, but it
) seems to me that it is his conclusion that *any* curriculum taught by an anthroposophist would ipso facto turn into a Steiner
curriculum/pedagogy, which would be unconstitutional.
That's not what I said. Please see my other responses concerning this
issue.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1392.10 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:54:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
First of all I would like to thank John and the others involved in this
discussion for putting up with my digest participation. We were blessed
with our third child last month and my wife looks askance at my partipation
in the saving of the free world. Secondly, I appreciate everyone's efforts
in deciphering my arcane sentence structures (thank you Mr. Tolz for
translating) and taking the time to consider my posts. Now onto some
business.
Yesterday, John Morehead wrote:
)I did not skirt the curriculum issue, I did not address it and focused on
)the )pedagogical angle since Steiner felt that the essence of Waldorf
)boiled down to )his pedagogy.
Bob Williams responds:
Precisely-- mt impression is that Steiner was intending to present an
academic curriculum that paralleled the standard curriculum taught in state
schools. the why and how were his main innovation.
John also added:
)I don't know that it's legitimate to put the dichotomy between Waldorf
)pedagogy )and curriculum as you've done.
(snip and reversal in order)
)A curriculum which flows necessarily from the pedagogy. The connection is
))important.
Bob Williams responds:
In some sense curriculum "flows" from any pedagogy. For example, Montessori
schools use specific materials to teach the concept of quantity and allow
free exploration of those materials based on an underlying pedagogy. (They
are still teaching a mainstream concept, though.) I'm not convinced,
however, that a religious pedagogy *necesarily* begets a religious
curriculum. I'd love to pursue this contention in further detail.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1392 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1393 --------------
001 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
010 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.1 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:55:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907221058.DAA09459 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
) Do you agree with John Morehead that all Anthroposophists should be barred from teaching in public schools because of the
perception that they will inevitably be teaching something religious?
I did not say that, Bob. Before you ask someone if they agree with my
statement, please make sure you've understood me correctly. I never
stated that Anthroposophists should be barred from public school
teaching, any more than a Christian should, or anyone else with
religious or spiritual views. You're lumping me in with an extreme form
of skepticism.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:28:18 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) I didn't say they couldn't teach in a public school, Bob. I said *if*
) they taught according to the Waldorf pedagogy it would result in a
) religious curriculum. Surely an Anthroposophist can teach in
) a secular
) way and with a secular curriculum, but not if they follow the
) pedagogy
) of Waldorf education.
)
) John
)
[Bob Tolz]
Forgive my confusion about your position, but the question I put to
you *did* clearly state that the Anthroposophist would be teaching a
*secular* curriculum. That's why I was astounded at your comment that it
would be unconstitutional. Your comment clarifies your position a bit, but
I'm not sure I've been making my question clear to you.
Let's assume for the moment that this hypothetical Anthroposophist
who teaches in the public schools *is* internally guided by Steiner's
pedagogy, because that person is a true follower/believer. The
Anthroposophist believes everything that Steiner said about
age-appropriateness, 7-year cycles, reincarnation and teeth.
Yet, notwithstanding that this Anthroposophist teacher is
*internally* guided by Steiner's pedagogy, he/she adheres to and applies the
standard and core curriculum that every other public teacher is required to
apply, without externally applying any of the internal philosophy in a way
which interferes with or challenges the secular curriculum.
With that understanding of the hypothetical facts, I will repeat the
question:
) ) )public school setting. The question being put to you, I
) ) ) thought, was
) ) ) )whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher
) ) ) to teach the
) ) ) )secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided
) by Rudolf
) ) ) )Steiner's pedagogy.
This is the question and hypothetical to which you responded that
you believed the scenario would be unconstitutional.
Now that I've made my (and I believe Bob Williams') facts and
assumptions clearer, is this an example where you would **not** find it
objectionable for the Anthroposophist to teach a secular curriculum in a
public school?
I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that your answer changes to a
thumbs-up, given what I've stated about the facts and assumptions, and given
that I'm stressing (as I thought I had done in the initial query) that we're
dealing with a purely **secular** curriculum.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.3 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:37:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907221646.JAA04813 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams wrote:
I'm not convinced,
) however, that a religious pedagogy *necesarily* begets a religious
) curriculum. I'd love to pursue this contention in further detail.
I'm not arguing that all religious pedagogies necessarily beget
religious curriculum. I am arguing that Waldorf pedagogy, as understood
and articulated by Steiner, necessarily results in a religious
curriculum, if it remains true to Steiner's conception.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.4 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:48:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907221724.KAA09193 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)Let's assume for the moment that this hypothetical Anthroposophist
) who teaches in the public schools *is* internally guided by Steiner's
) pedagogy, because that person is a true follower/believer. The
) Anthroposophist believes everything that Steiner said about
) age-appropriateness, 7-year cycles, reincarnation and teeth.
)
) Yet, notwithstanding that this Anthroposophist teacher is
) *internally* guided by Steiner's pedagogy, he/she adheres to and applies the standard and core curriculum that every other public teacher
is required to apply, without externally applying any of the internal
philosophy in a way which interferes with or challenges the secular
curriculum.
)
) With that understanding of the hypothetical facts, I will repeat the
) question:
)
) ) ) )public school setting. The question being put to you, I
) ) ) ) thought, was
) ) ) ) )whether you believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher
) ) ) ) to teach the
) ) ) ) )secular curriculum if that teacher was internally guided
) ) by Rudolf
) ) ) ) )Steiner's pedagogy.
My answer to your hypothetical scenario is that I think it would
certainly be possible for an Anthroposophist to teach in a secular
fashion in accordance with a secular curriculum. But there would be a
conflict between the Anthroposophists internal adherence to Waldorf's
religious/spiritual pedagogy, and this secular methodology.
Why would an Anthroposophist, who truly believes Steiner discovered a
revolutionary pedagogy based upon spiritual science, wish to teach in a
non-Waldorfian way? Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, why would
this hypothetical teacher take this avenue? It's surely possible, but
why?
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:14:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[John Morehead]
) My answer to your hypothetical scenario is that I think it would
) certainly be possible for an Anthroposophist to teach in a secular
) fashion in accordance with a secular curriculum. But there would be a
) conflict between the Anthroposophists internal adherence to Waldorf's
) religious/spiritual pedagogy, and this secular methodology.
)
) Why would an Anthroposophist, who truly believes Steiner discovered a
) revolutionary pedagogy based upon spiritual science, wish to
) teach in a
) non-Waldorfian way? Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, why would
) this hypothetical teacher take this avenue? It's surely possible, but
) why?
)
) John
)
[Bob Tolz]
Dunno. Perhaps because there are no private Waldorf schools within
commuting distance and relocation is not an option. I'm interested in
exploring with you the connection between the inner stuff and the externals,
so the *why* of it is not particularly relevant.
OK. You acknowledge that an Anthroposophist could teach a purely
secular curriculum, notwithstanding the fact that his/her internal guidance
system would suggest that the best interests of the child would be served by
other methods.
Next question. Will you acknowledge that a non-Anthroposophist,
someone completely unguided by Steiner's pedagogy but otherwise well-trained
and certified, could teach in a non-secular private Waldorf school? If you
need a *why*, assume that the governing board of the school needs a teacher
for a slot which does not require anthroposophical/Steinerian expertise.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:15:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907221910.MAA04459 lists1.best.com)
Next question. Will you acknowledge that a non-Anthroposophist,
)someone completely unguided by Steiner's pedagogy but otherwise well-trained
)and certified, could teach in a non-secular private Waldorf school? If you
)need a *why*, assume that the governing board of the school needs a teacher
)for a slot which does not require anthroposophical/Steinerian expertise.
)
) Bob Tolz
Well trained and certified in what? Handwork teachers, language teachers
and music teachers are not always Anthroposophically trained [in Waldorf
schools].
According to AWSNA, a Waldorf school needs to have a certain percentage of
Waldorf trained teachers to call itself Waldorf. (I believe that percentage
is 80%, but my memory could be fading...)
I believe that a "non-secular private Waldorf school" is a contradiction in
terms.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:56:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Debra Snell]
)
) I believe that a "non-secular private Waldorf school" is a
) contradiction in
) terms.
) Deby
)
[Bob Tolz]
Why do you say that? I'm mystified by your comment.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.8 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:18:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907221910.MAA04459 lists1.best.com)
Tolz, Robert wrote:
)
) ) Why would an Anthroposophist, who truly believes Steiner discovered a) revolutionary pedagogy based upon spiritual science, wish to
) ) teach in a) ) non-Waldorfian way? Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, why would) ) this hypothetical teacher take this avenue?
It's surely possible, but
) ) why?
)
) [Bob Tolz]
) Dunno. Perhaps because there are no private Waldorf schools within commuting distance and relocation is not an option. I'm
interested in) exploring with you the connection between the inner stuff
and the externals,) so the *why* of it is not particularly relevant.
But the "why" is relevant, Bob. If I understand you correctly, you seem
to think that Rudolf Steiner College and other Waldorf education
advocates are merely interested in promoting a "secularized" form of
Waldorf education in the public schools which merely incorporates
certain non-traditional aspects (e.g., cognitive and artistic) without
the Anthropsophical foundation in the pedagogy and practices in the
curriculum. I challenge your understanding here. I don't know that a
Waldorf teacher with an inner commitment to Steiner's pedagogy would be
all that interested in a secularized form of Waldorf education. So your
hypothetical situation may not be applicable in the real world.
) OK. You acknowledge that an Anthroposophist could teach a purely secular curriculum, notwithstanding the fact that his/her
internal guidance system would suggest that the best interests of the
child would be served by other methods.
Granted.
) Next question. Will you acknowledge that a non-Anthroposophist, someone completely unguided by Steiner's pedagogy
but otherwise well-trained and certified, could teach in a non-secular
private Waldorf school?
No, not if they are teaching Waldorf education. Consider the words of
Anthroposophical writer Gilbert Childs: "Waldorf teachers must be
Anthroposphists first and teachers second...it must never be
forgotten--and one must be emphatic about this--that the whole matter
and method in Steiner schools is aimed at developing within each child
the [Anthroposophical] consciousness that spirit permeates everything in
the world" (Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 1991, p. 166).
And the AWSNA has stated that "..Waldorf education is only possible it
its practitioners and administrators are free to work out a clear
recognition of and commitment to the development of the spiritual nature
of the human being."
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.9 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:47:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Moorehead wrote:
"In response for (Bob's) request for one example of New Age influence in
public education consider an article which ran in The New York Times
Magaine in the May 1, 1998 issue. In a cover story titled "Colorado's
Thriving Cults" there was an area which discussed how the New Age had
afected public education. Near a photo with the caption "Third graders
listen quietly while a teacher leads a 'visualizaton.' Vocal parents
groups have protested the encroachment of New Age practices in school
curricula," the article noted that "meditational techniques have become
*common fare* in the state's public and private schools" (emphasis
mine)."
Sarina sez:
Big deal.
I fail to see how visualization is so "New Age" that it should be banned
from public schools. Visualization has many benefits, as do relaxation
techniques and abdominal breathing, so I don't really give a hang where
they came from. Why should you?
I am a natural childbirth instructor, certified in the Bradley Method by
the American Academy of Husband-Coached Childbirth. Dr. Bradley was a
Christian, and the founders of the Academy, Marge and Jay Hathaway, are
too. Yet, we Bradley teachers instruct our childbirth students in
visualization techniques, which many women find helpful during labor. How
is that "New Age"? I am talking about using training in relaxation and
visualization to avoid drugs in labor, and it works! The Bradley Method
has an 80-90% success rate (based on response cards returned to the Academy
by students after their birth). Contrast that with Lamaze's 30% natural
childbirth rate...
I think you are way off base if you are advocating a ban on teaching of
this kind, because it is so useful in every day life. For example, I have
pretty good teeth, so it doesn't happen very often that I need to go to the
dentist for anything unpleasant. But the one time I did need a filling, I
found my relaxation techniques - learned in childbirth class and used
during labor - to be an enormous help, and was able to avoid "the gas." (I
had to drive myself home.) In fact, any time I feel myself getting tense, I
now have several tools to choose from, including visualization, to help me
deal with the situation. Children are told to solve their problems with
words, not violence, avoid drugs and alcohol, etc. But we have to give them
tools to be able to follow our advice! You can't just tell children what
*not* to do, you have to teach them what *to* do.
If that makes me "New Age," then drape me with tie-dye, stick a crystal in
my ear, and call me name to "Sequoia". (Check for Birkenstocks)
A little cranky today,
Sarina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1393.10 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:35:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907211818.LAA09824 lists1.best.com)
This thread is very important. To me the issue of trying to distinguish
between the curriculum and a religious inspiration begins by recognizing
that there is a material world and religious/spiritual/magical belief
systems distinct from the material world. A public school curriculum must
be based on the material world. A religious person can certainly teach in
public school and can certainly teach a proper secular curriculum if he is
willing and able to separate the material world from his spiritual/magical
world in his mind and his actions. For some faiths this might involve
restricting the subject which is taught. Someone from a Christian
fundamentalist perspective, for example, might be more suited for teaching
math than for teaching paleontology. When it comes to anthroposophy, it
would be particularly difficult to teach a secular curriculum, because the
distinction between the magical world and the material world is discouraged,
and because the magical aspects of anthroposophy pervade such a wide range
of subjects.
Alan Fine
---- Original Message -----
From: Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 12:22 PM
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
)
) )
) ) Bob Williams wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) Returning to my original question, if I as a non-anthropop
) ) teacher have a public school program with the same elements
) ) as an anthropop
) ) public (not in a Waldorf setting) teacher but the
) ) impulse/pedagogy from
) ) which we approach our teaching is different, then is the anthropop's
) ) teaching unconstitutional based on the religious pedagogy he/she
) ) employs?
) )
)
) [John Morehead replied]
) ) I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but I think the
) ) answer is yes, in my understanding. A non-Anthroposphical teacher who
) ) was teaching a religious pedagogy of Waldorf even without
) ) understanding
) ) they were doing so would still be unconstitutional.
)
) John,
) I agree that the question was a bit hard to understand, but I
) thought the ultimate question Bob Williams was asking was different from
) what you assumed.
)
) I thought he was positing the scenario where a card-carrying
) Anthroposophical teacher is teaching in a purely secular, non-Waldorf
public
) school setting. The question being put to you, I thought, was whether you
) believe it's unconstitutional for that teacher to teach the secular
) curriculum if that teacher was internally guided by Rudolf Steiner's
) pedagogy.
)
) Even if that's not what Bob Williams was asking, I'd be interested
) in what you had to say.
)
) Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1393 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1394 --------------
001 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Waldorf without anthroposophy
003 - Bob Williams (danabob she - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.1 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:36:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907201556.IAA05380 lists1.best.com)
Alan added to the discussion: (brief Bob W. comments in parentheses)
(snip)
)A public school curriculum must be based on the material world.
(I would argue that as a rule public as well as private school
*curriculums* are (excepting overt religious instruction). I'd love to
consider some examples if you disagree.)
)A religious person can certainly teach in public school and can certainly
)teach a )proper secular curriculum if he is willing and able to separate
)the material world )from his spiritual/magical world in his mind and his
)actions.
(What are some examples of this being done (mind and actions) successfully
and unsuccessfully in your opinion?)
)For some faiths this might involve restricting the subject which is
)taught. )Someone from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, for
)example, might be more )suited for teaching math than for teaching
)paleontology.
(How about: might choose to teach math over paleontology because they
decided that they could not in good faith present the required curriculum.
I'm not sure that this is a necessary decision based solely on religious
affiliation.)
)When it comes to anthroposophy, it would be particularly difficult to
)teach a )secular curriculum, because the distinction between the magical
)world and the )material world is discouraged, and because the magical
)aspects of anthroposophy )pervade such a wide range of subjects.
(Alan, what are some examples that would show how a real life Waldorf
trained teacher (remember, they may not be bound by every little thing
Steiner wrote), employing a Steiner influenced pedagogy, who has made a
commitment to teach a secular curriculum would be unable to do so because
"the magical aspects of anthroposophy pervade such a wide range of
subjects?")
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.2 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Waldorf without anthroposophy
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:39:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
(snip)
)So why don't those who want "Waldorf without anthroposophy" find another
)name for it? After all, it is only a label of identification.
Bob W. muses:
Notwithstanding the comments I made to Sally on this subject, I imagine
that there is a wide range of belief in Anthroposophy within the Waldorf
movement. I assume that most teachers entering teacher training are not
already card carrying Anthropops, and I assume that many are ignorant of
much of Steiner's thought. They are initially attracted for a variety of
reasons, many similar to those that attracted Dan and Deby. As their
training procedes they encounter ideas that they either buy, reject, or
ignore. Some experience such a disconnect that they leave. Others choose
some form of an Anthroposophical path. Still others take some and leave
some, discarding Steiner as they see fit. (Perhaps Stephen and others have
more than just musings to offer here.)
The graduating class is then made up of fledgling teachers with a range of
views. (I taught with a teacher who moved to public ed from the Marin
Waldorf School. She once made a reference to that "Anthroposophical crap"
although her pedagogy in my opinion was very nonstandard and was
influenced, IMO, very positively by her involvement with Waldorf.) Many of
those who pick and choose what they want from Steiner have gained a new way
to look at the world *regardless of whether they agree with Steiner* and so
stick with the movement (and its resources and reputation) in hopes of
finding a niche in which they can pursue their own conception of
education--which in the end is what all teachers do.
Perhaps that is why you have folks who want to stay with Waldorf but may
not buy every little thing Steiner was selling. (Didn't Steiner hang out
with Theosophists until the disconnect became too great? I assume he must
have had problems with the movement for a while before he made his split.)
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.3 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:42:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907221646.JAA04834 lists1.best.com)
Dan wrote:
)If he was only "internally guided" and didn't express his religious beliefs
)in his teaching, that would be the normal situation for all public school
)teachers, wouldn't it?
Bob W. responds:
I don't think that most public school teachers are conscious of being
internally guided by any articulated set of beliefs. I don't agree with
your suggestion that, normally, public school teachers are being internally
guided by religious beliefs but are keeping those beliefs safely under raps.
Dan goes on to say:
)However, not all teachers can do this. Our friends at the National Center
)for Science Education are constantly dealing with teachers who feel that
)their faith obliges them not only to omit teaching evolution (frequently
)done, rarely noticed) but to actively teach creationism (only busted when
)someone complains).
Bob W. asks:
What is the significance of this observation? Should we conclude that some
Anthropops or Christians or Buddhists could pull it off but others can't?
If that is the conclusion, where do we go then? Do we say, therefore, don't
let folks of faith teach because they are unreliable, or do we just prepare
to be vigilant in searching out those that promise to teach a nonreligious
curriculum but are deceitful? (Or do we say, as John seems to be implying,
folks of some faiths can pull it off, but the Anthropops can't because of
some things that Steiner said.)
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
(then do
)-Dan Dugan
[John Morehead]
)) ) I think I would answer yes, that it would be unconstitutional, since
)) ) Steiner's pedagogy results in an Anthroposophical curriculum.
)
)I didn't say they couldn't teach in a public school, Bob. I said *if*
)they taught according to the Waldorf pedagogy it would result in a
)religious curriculum. Surely an Anthroposophist can teach in a secular
)way and with a secular curriculum, but not if they follow the pedagogy
)of Waldorf education.
) Why would an Anthroposophist, who truly believes Steiner discovered a
) revolutionary pedagogy based upon spiritual science, wish to
) teach in a
) non-Waldorfian way? Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, why would
) this hypothetical teacher take this avenue? It's surely possible, but
) why?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.4 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:42:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907230344.UAA13073 lists1.best.com)
Excuse the typos from yesterday. I was one hand typing, trying not to wake
my third Bradley birthed baby (for Sarina). I'm going to jump around a bit
in this post to save bandwidth...if that's the proper term.
Bob Williams wrote:
)I'm not convinced,
)) however, that a religious pedagogy *necesarily* begets a religious
)) curriculum. I'd love to pursue this contention in further detail.
John replied:
)I'm not arguing that all religious pedagogies necessarily beget
)religious curriculum. I am arguing that Waldorf pedagogy, as understood
)and articulated by Steiner, necessarily results in a religious
)curriculum, if it remains true to Steiner's conception.
Bob W. asks:
Are you saying that as a religious pedagogy, you feel that the Waldorf
pedagogy has a different status than other potentially religious
pedagogies? I'm not clear that you have made the case that peculiarities in
Steiner's pedagogy make it *necessarily* affect curriculum in a unique way.
In any case, it is my impression that the public Waldorf movement is not
representative of Steiner's conception of "Waldorf" education. It seems to
me that you are clinging to the "if it's pure Steiner" caveat, and I think
we have to assume that public Waldorf does not fit that restriction.
John responds to Mr. Tolz:
)I challenge your understanding here. I don't know that a
)Waldorf teacher with an inner commitment to Steiner's pedagogy would be
)all that interested in a secularized form of Waldorf education. So your
)hypothetical situation may not be applicable in the real world.
Bob W. suggests:
John, *perhaps* (based on my musings on Stephen's post) your hypothetical
one teacher "with an inner commitment to Steiner's pedagogy" makes
argumentation easier but has little to do itself with the real world. There
may not be many, but I know of a couple who would be interested in a
"secularized form"-- although you might disagree on how secularized that
form might end up being.
John, responding to Mr. Tolz:
)My answer to your hypothetical scenario is that I think it would
)certainly be possible for an Anthroposophist to teach in a secular
)fashion in accordance with a secular curriculum. But there would be a
)conflict between the Anthroposophists internal adherence to Waldorf's
)religious/spiritual pedagogy, and this secular methodology.
Bob W. nitpicks:
Secular methodology? Can a methodology be secular? Do you have an example
of a religious methodology? I can imagine a religiously inspired
methodology but am unable to picture a methodology that is religious of
itself.
I assume you are using "secular fashion" and "secular methodology"
interchangeably, and this raises or returns to the question of whether
there is an inherent conflict between a religious pedagogy and secular
methodologies (although we haven't defined this term and its relation to
pedagogy and curriculum in the discussion so far). Was the memorizing of
poems with Mrs. Groch in second grade a secular methodology only if she
wasn't trying to strengthen your will forces?
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
P.S. John also posted:
) Why would an Anthroposophist, who truly believes Steiner discovered a
) revolutionary pedagogy based upon spiritual science, wish to
) teach in a non-Waldorfian way? Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, why
) would this hypothetical teacher take this avenue? It's surely possible, but
) why?
Bob Williams offers:
I have worked with two Waldorf teachers who currently work in the public
school. One needed more money; the other went through a divorce, has two
children and needed both more money and less work/stress. I believe they
both work to marry their beliefs about children and education (which may or
may not strictly mirror Steiner's-- see my musings on Stephen's post) with
the the stated goals of the public system. I personally don't think that
they fail the public system based on their knowledge of Anthroposophy or
Steiner's level of influence in their views. If they are failing the
system, I think someone should point that out and they ought to be held
accountable, just as the Christian who won't mention evolution should be.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:38:24 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Alan Fine]
)
) This thread is very important. To me the issue of trying to
) distinguish
) between the curriculum and a religious inspiration begins by
) recognizing
) that there is a material world and religious/spiritual/magical belief
) systems distinct from the material world. A public school
) curriculum must
) be based on the material world.
[Bob Tolz]
I can't argue with you.
[Alan Fine]
) A religious person can
) certainly teach in
) public school and can certainly teach a proper secular
) curriculum if he is
) willing and able to separate the material world from his
) spiritual/magical
) world in his mind and his actions. For some faiths this might involve
) restricting the subject which is taught. Someone from a Christian
) fundamentalist perspective, for example, might be more suited
) for teaching
) math than for teaching paleontology. When it comes to
) anthroposophy, it
) would be particularly difficult to teach a secular
) curriculum, because the
) distinction between the magical world and the material world
) is discouraged,
) and because the magical aspects of anthroposophy pervade such
) a wide range
) of subjects.
[Bob Tolz]
Now with those comments about the difficulty for an Anthroposophist
to teach secular subjects, you've lost me. This is quite different from the
Christian fundamentalist example, where I can agree with your comment that
such a teacher might be best off in a math class than a paleontology class.
Which subjects do you think an Anthroposophist would be an
inapproppriate choice of teacher? Can you be specific instead of using the
"wide range of subjects" gloss?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:36:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907221058.DAA09459 lists1.best.com)
) Do you agree with John Morehead that all Anthroposophists should be
)barred from teaching in public schools because of the perception that they
)will inevitably be teaching something religious?
I don't agree with that position and I don't think it's John's, either.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:34:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907221646.JAA04813 lists1.best.com)
)Bob Williams responds:
)Precisely-- mt impression is that Steiner was intending to present an
)academic curriculum that paralleled the standard curriculum taught in state
)schools. the why and how were his main innovation.
No. His curriculum was quite different. Compromises were made to meet state
requirements, and he promised that students could transfer to state schools
after, I think, third grade and sixth grade. The curriculum hasn't changed.
Waldorf was progressive in 1920 Germany. Boys and girls together, no
separate tracks for academic/vocational. By today's standards, it's
ultra-conservative.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.8 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: 23 Jul 1999 13:46:23 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Robert, John, Steve, Bob...
I am trying to follow your discussion.
I have a question/situation:
Part I
Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that if you tilt your head up and look up when you need to sneeze, this procedure will help you sneeze. (and, let's say medical doctors had confirmed this) The other teacher believes that tilting your head and looking up makes it easier for little fairies to run up your nose and tickle the inside. They both teach children to look up and tilt their heads. Is anything wrong?
Part II
Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that drawing exercises involving drawing circles and lines and spirals and waves will help develop small motor skills in children, leading to good eye-hand coordination and to good penmanship. The other teacher believes that these drawing exercises will do this and also help the fairies to tidy up the spiritual realm with the "good wind" that the children create. Is there anything wrong?
Part III
Let's say that some of the shapes in these drawing exercises are thought to have a greater tendency to instill in children a greater degree of drawing skills such as visual balance and proportion and visualization and planning. No one actually knows for sure if that's the case (no scientific studies) but both teachers have experienced through the years that this seems to be the case. They both teach these exercises. One of the teachers also believes these particular shapes in the exercises make the children more honest in later life. Is there anything wrong?
Can both teachers do all of these things, constitutionally speaking, or can only some teachers do some of these things while the others are barred?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.9 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:48:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907230832.BAA12613 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams wrote:
) Bob W. asks:
) Are you saying that as a religious pedagogy, you feel that the Waldorf
) pedagogy has a different status than other potentially religious
) pedagogies? I'm not clear that you have made the case that peculiarities in Steiner's pedagogy make it *necessarily* affect
curriculum in a unique way.
I'm simply acknowledging what Steiner stated in his own writings which
the Anthroposophical press considers to "constitute an authoritative
foundation for work in educational renewal, for Waldorf teachers,
parents and educators generally." Waldorf pedagogy, as Steiner created
it, is a religious pedagogy, period. If an Anthroposophist wants to
teach true Waldorf it is necessarily religious. If someone wants to
creat a pedagogy which incorporates cognitive and artistic elements
without any reference to Anthroposophical spirituality, then it's not
Waldorf education. I would refer you to Steiner's writings for
confirmation of this, particularly his _The Education of the Child and
Early Lecturs on Education_, and _The Child's Changing Consciousness as
the Basis of Pedagogical Practice_.
) In any case, it is my impression that the public Waldorf movement is not representative of Steiner's conception of "Waldorf" education. It
seems to me that you are clinging to the "if it's pure Steiner" caveat,
and I think we have to assume that public Waldorf does not fit that
restriction.
On the contrary, the public Waldorf movement does incorporate "Steiner's
conception of 'Waldorf' education.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1394.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:53:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[John Morehead]
)
) On the contrary, the public Waldorf movement does incorporate
) "Steiner's
) conception of 'Waldorf' education.
)
Could you elaborate on the facts that support that statement?
Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1394 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1395 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:55:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Luke Schelly]
)
) Part I
) Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that if you
) tilt your head up and look up when you need to sneeze, this
) procedure will help you sneeze. (and, let's say medical
) doctors had confirmed this) The other teacher believes that
) tilting your head and looking up makes it easier for little
) fairies to run up your nose and tickle the inside. They both
) teach children to look up and tilt their heads. Is anything wrong?
)
) Part II
) Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that drawing
) exercises involving drawing circles and lines and spirals and
) waves will help develop small motor skills in children,
) leading to good eye-hand coordination and to good penmanship.
) The other teacher believes that these drawing exercises will
) do this and also help the fairies to tidy up the spiritual
) realm with the "good wind" that the children create. Is
) there anything wrong?
)
) Part III
) Let's say that some of the shapes in these drawing exercises
) are thought to have a greater tendency to instill in children
) a greater degree of drawing skills such as visual balance and
) proportion and visualization and planning. No one actually
) knows for sure if that's the case (no scientific studies) but
) both teachers have experienced through the years that this
) seems to be the case. They both teach these exercises. One
) of the teachers also believes these particular shapes in the
) exercises make the children more honest in later life. Is
) there anything wrong?
)
) Can both teachers do all of these things, constitutionally
) speaking, or can only some teachers do some of these things
) while the others are barred?
)
I would think there's no problem. John Morehead and other critics
may differ.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:48:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907231750.KAA04704 lists1.best.com)
On 23 Jul 99, at 13:46, Luke Schelly wrote:
)
) Robert, John, Steve, Bob...
) I am trying to follow your discussion.
)
) I have a question/situation:
)
) Part I
) Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that if you tilt your head
) up and look up when you need to sneeze, this procedure will help you
) sneeze. (and, let's say medical doctors had confirmed this) The other
) teacher believes that tilting your head and looking up makes it easier for
) little fairies to run up your nose and tickle the inside. They both teach
) children to look up and tilt their heads. Is anything wrong?
No. Even if the teacher tells the kids about the fairies, that might
not be a constitutional problem, since fairies aren't generally seen
as religious figures.
) Part II
) Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that drawing exercises
) involving drawing circles and lines and spirals and waves will help
) develop small motor skills in children, leading to good eye-hand
) coordination and to good penmanship. The other teacher believes that
) these drawing exercises will do this and also help the fairies to tidy up
) the spiritual realm with the "good wind" that the children create. Is
) there anything wrong?
No, unless the teacher gives a spiritual explanation to the students.
) Part III
) Let's say that some of the shapes in these drawing exercises are thought
) to have a greater tendency to instill in children a greater degree of
) drawing skills such as visual balance and proportion and visualization and
) planning. No one actually knows for sure if that's the case (no
) scientific studies) but both teachers have experienced through the years
) that this seems to be the case. They both teach these exercises. One of
) the teachers also believes these particular shapes in the exercises make
) the children more honest in later life. Is there anything wrong?
No.
) Can both teachers do all of these things, constitutionally speaking, or
) can only some teachers do some of these things while the others are
) barred?
I see no problem with any of that. But if the teacher's entire
approach to education, including which subjects are taught, how the
subjects are taught, and the tools the students are allowed to use
are all done for the purpose of enhancing the students' spiritual
growth, and are different from the approach taken in secular or
mainstream classes, there might be a problem even if the teacher's
reasons are not given to the student. That's a thorny issue, though,
and I'm still undecided on that, particularly where there are also
secular reasons for taking that approach.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:20:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Steve Premo]
) I see no problem with any of that. But if the teacher's entire
) approach to education, including which subjects are taught, how the
) subjects are taught, and the tools the students are allowed to use
) are all done for the purpose of enhancing the students' spiritual
) growth, and are different from the approach taken in secular or
) mainstream classes, there might be a problem even if the teacher's
) reasons are not given to the student. That's a thorny issue, though,
) and I'm still undecided on that, particularly where there are also
) secular reasons for taking that approach.
[Bob Tolz]
Assuming there are good secular reasons for taking the approach, I
would think that it doesn't matter what the other internal guidance
mechanisms might be.
You're familiar with what a judge has to go through. Could you
imagine judges being required to look behind an on-its-face acceptable
practice to try to determine whether the teacher is motivated by some
particularly mode of reverence for the children?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.4 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:28:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907231948.MAA10879 lists1.best.com)
)Bob Williams wrote:
)) Bob W. asks:
)) Are you saying that as a religious pedagogy, you feel that the Waldorf
)) pedagogy has a different status than other potentially religious
)) pedagogies? I'm not clear that you have made the case that peculiarities
))in Steiner's pedagogy make it *necessarily* affect
)curriculum in a unique way.
John responds:
(snip)Waldorf pedagogy, as Steiner created
)it, is a religious pedagogy, period. If an Anthroposophist wants to
)teach true Waldorf it is necessarily religious.
Bob W. returns:
I agree that the pedagogy is religious. I have three thoughts on your
second sentence. First, what constitutes an "Anthroposophist?" Is it an all
or nothing label and does the sentence hold true for someone who would not
label themselves an Anthroposophist? Second, is public Waldorf "true
Waldorf?" Finally, what does the "it" refer to?..the curriculum?
(A point of agreement-- I would think that a true Anthroposophist following
all of Steiner's ideas and teaching in a private setting would probably
have a program that would be too religious for a public school But....)
John continues:
)If someone wants to
)creat a pedagogy which incorporates cognitive and artistic elements
)without any reference to Anthroposophical spirituality, then it's not
)Waldorf education.
Bob W. pursues the pedagogy term:
I'm not sure that cognitive and artistic elements are a part of a pedagogy.
They may be methodologies or areas of study suggested by a pedagogy...but
maybe I'm looking at the term too narrowly.
On the last part of John's post, I defer to the question posed by my
translator Mr. Tolz. (Reading his posts helps me understand what I myself
am thinking.)
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.5 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:34:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907231948.MAA10879 lists1.best.com)
Luke wrote:
)Part I
)Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that if you tilt your head
)up and look up when you need to sneeze, this procedure will help you
)sneeze. (and, let's say medical doctors had confirmed this) The other
)teacher believes that tilting your head and looking up makes it easier for
)little fairies to run up your nose and tickle the inside. They both teach
)children to look up and tilt their heads. Is anything wrong?
)
)Part II
)Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that drawing exercises
)involving drawing circles and lines and spirals and waves will help
)develop small motor skills in children, leading to good eye-hand
)coordination and to good penmanship. The other teacher believes that
)these drawing exercises will do this and also help the fairies to tidy up
)the spiritual realm with the "good wind" that the children create. Is
)there anything wrong?
)
)Part III
)Let's say that some of the shapes in these drawing exercises are thought
)to have a greater tendency to instill in children a greater degree of
)drawing skills such as visual balance and proportion and visualization and
)planning. No one actually knows for sure if that's the case (no
)scientific studies) but both teachers have experienced through the years
)that this seems to be the case. They both teach these exercises. One of
)the teachers also believes these particular shapes in the exercises make
)the children more honest in later life. Is there anything wrong?
)
)Can both teachers do all of these things, constitutionally speaking, or
)can only some teachers do some of these things while the others are
)barred?
Luke, I share the same thoughts on a theoretical level. I tend to see your
examples as acceptable. If the answer from others is that they would be
acceptable as well, then perhaps we need to go to the next level which is
to look at specific curriculum and methodologies that might be used in
public Waldorf to see how they pass the test.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.6 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:56:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907231948.MAA10879 lists1.best.com)
))Bob Williams responds:
))Precisely-- my impression is that Steiner was intending to present an
))academic curriculum that paralleled the standard curriculum taught in state
))schools. The why and how were his main innovation.
Dan retorted:
)No. His curriculum was quite different. Compromises were made to meet state
)requirements, and he promised that students could transfer to state schools
)after, I think, third grade and sixth grade. The curriculum hasn't changed.
)
)Waldorf was progressive in 1920 Germany. Boys and girls together, no
)separate tracks for academic/vocational. By today's standards, it's
)ultra-conservative.
Bob W. clarifies and asks:
I was thinking about core knowledge areas when I posted. From "Faculty
Meetings with Rudolph Steiner" I had the impression that they were studying
the same kinds of equations and areas of math, the same historical periods,
grammar, expository writing, reading,etc. that I covered in school
(although the level seems higher than I was exposed to). I know that there
were many innovations which he introduced that have since come into common
usage in the U.S. I was trying to speak to the idea that the curriculum was
off in some netherworld as a result of his pedagogy. If you have some
examples of how the content, the curriculum, the actual "what was taught"
represents some radical break from structures of knowledge studied at the
time, I'd love to consider them. My impression is that Steiner would have
liked to see his graduating students able to have knowledge of and the
ability to discuss the same types of topics he had studied in the
University. I don't have the sense that the curriculum left the students
with a knowledge base outside the mainstream, but that they were studying
many/most of the same things Steiner had studied as a student but in a
different way and, in the eyes of Steiner, for a different ultimate purpose.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:51:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
To John Morehead:
John,
Perhaps there's a lot of cross-noise on the list right now
concerning this issue, and you may have missed the question I put to you
which remains unanswered:
Query, is it possible for a non-anthroposophist teacher, with good
secular training and credentials, and without anthroposophical/waldorf
training, to teach in a private, non-secular Waldorf school? (We assume
that the people running the school either do not have an appropriate
candidate with anthroposophical/waldorf training, or they have determined
that such training is not necessary.)
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1395.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:00:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907201556.IAA05380 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907230826.BAA10163 lists1.best.com)
Alan wrote,
))For some faiths this might involve restricting the subject which is
))taught. )Someone from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, for
))example, might be more )suited for teaching math than for teaching
))paleontology.
A teacher might consider this, but a school may not. If you were trying to
build a non-Anthroposophical Waldorf school, obviously people with Waldorf
training and/or experience would be preferred as teachers. But one may not
discriminate against people who profess Anthroposophy when making this
decision. I see a problem here.
You'd have the same problem if you were trying to have a
"Catholic-inspired" charter school. It would be unlawful to turn away a nun
who wanted to teach, if she was best qualified.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1395 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1396 --------------
001 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - international youth conference
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - trial date postponed
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - karmic streams
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: trial date postponed
009 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: trial date postponed
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.1 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:54:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907201556.IAA05380 lists1.best.com) (199907241624.JAA20790 lists1.best.com)
A few people have picked up on this idea. I certainly agree that it should
be up to the teacher to work this out properly. I think my statement should
be reworded. "a Christian fundamentalist teaching in a public school might
have more difficulty teaching paleontology (in the required secular way)
than mathematics. I apologize for the implication that people from a
religious perspective should not teach in a public school.
Alan Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
) Alan wrote,
)
) ))For some faiths this might involve restricting the subject which is
) ))taught. )Someone from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, for
) ))example, might be more )suited for teaching math than for teaching
) ))paleontology.
)
) A teacher might consider this, but a school may not. If you were trying to
) build a non-Anthroposophical Waldorf school, obviously people with Waldorf
) training and/or experience would be preferred as teachers. But one may not
) discriminate against people who profess Anthroposophy when making this
) decision. I see a problem here.
)
) You'd have the same problem if you were trying to have a
) "Catholic-inspired" charter school. It would be unlawful to turn away a
nun
) who wanted to teach, if she was best qualified.
)
) -Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: international youth conference
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:16:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The Anthroposophical "International Youth Conference" themed "At the
Turning Point--Bringing Spirit into Action" is in progress (July 19-25) in
Santa Cruz, California. Any reports from the field?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: trial date postponed
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:55:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The judge said on June 18 that we'd have his decision on the schools'
motion for summary judgment "in a few days." So far no decision. Our lawyer
says the delay is normal, it was only that he got our hopes up by saying "a
few days."
The judge has granted a request from the schools for a continuance,
postponing the trial date till November 8. I guess if you don't have a
case, delay, maybe you'll think of something.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 23:40:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Rene Querido, former director of Rudolf Steiner College, made the following
statement to the Pedagogical Section of the Anthroposophical Society in
June 1993. The Pedagogical Section is composed of Waldorf teachers and
staff who are members of the secret First Class.
"Teachers are often asked if Waldorf schools are Christian, and even so
simple and direct a question cannot be answered by a brief "yes" or "no."
If the inquirer is thinking in terms of sectarian Christianity--in some
sense denominational--then the answer is "no." If, on the other hand, the
question is asked in conection with the deeper aspects of Christianity, an
answer might be "yes." Waldorf education as it arises out of Anthroposophy
is, in its very nature, a Cosmic Christ-centered impulse. This impulse is
expressed implicitly, not explicitly, in our work with the children in the
classroom."
[Querido, RenÈ M. The Esoteric Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic
Christ Impulse. Fair Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995. pp.
77-78]
Got that? "Waldorf education...is, in its very nature, a Cosmic
Christ-centered impulse." And, "this impulse is expressed implicitly...in
the classroom."
Now, the California Constitution says:
"No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any
sectarian or denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive
control of the officers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or
denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted,
directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State."
Please note: "nor shall any sectarian...doctrine be taught...directly or
indirectly." Isn't "implicitly" included in "indirectly"?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: karmic streams
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:54:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Rummaging in Querido, I found these gems:
"Rudolf Steiner urged us as members of the Anthroposophical Society,
shortly after the re-forging of the Society in 1923/24, to attempt
seriously to identify the karmic stream to which we belong."
"It appears that those souls described by Rudolf Steiner as "Platonic" were
mainly in incarnation during the Mystery of Golgotha, whereas those
characterized as Aristotelian beheld the events of Golgotha in the
spiritual world, between death and rebirth."
"[I]t is not only a matter for the individual teacher. We have to consider
that the children entrusted to our care--to the extent that they, too,
belong to one of these three streams*--will, in the course of their
development at school, manifest quite different characteristics in relation
to the central Christ event."
[Querido, RenÈ M. The Esoteric Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic
Christ Impulse. Fair Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995. p. 81.]
"In learning to understand a child, it is important to consider-in addition
to hereditary factors, which include race, ethnic background, and the
biological strands supplied by father and mother--what the soul has brought
with it out of supersensible realms. If we deepen this line of thought, we
shall take into account not only the prenatal "gesture," but also the
spiritual origins as they manifested themselves in previous incarnations.
In other words, just as we have applied certain questions regarding our own
spiritual origins, we should without jumping to quick conclusions also
consider to which spiritual streams our students belonged."
[ibid. p. 84]
* Querido explains that the third stream is the Irish, who witnessed the
descent of Christ interwoven with the elements.
So in addition to classifying children by their temperaments, folk souls,
and body types, teachers are supposed to know their karmic streams. I guess
this is "child-centered" education.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 07:00:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Dan Dugan]
)
) Got that? "Waldorf education...is, in its very nature, a Cosmic
) Christ-centered impulse." And, "this impulse is expressed
) implicitly...in
) the classroom."
)
) Now, the California Constitution says:
[Bob Tolz]
What Steiner or any of his devotees says about the
spiritual/religious nature of Waldorf education has absolutely no bearing on
a public school "incarnation" of Waldorf education if the people bringing it
to the public schools do not believe in, and do not implement, what Steiner
and his devotees say.
Are you saying that merely because something is called Waldorf it
has to be what Steiner said it must be? I thought that was a dead issue at
this point.
[Bob Tolz]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 07:10:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) [Bob Tolz]
)
) What Steiner or any of his devotees says about the
) spiritual/religious nature of Waldorf education has
) absolutely no bearing on
) a public school "incarnation" of Waldorf education if the
On re-reading the above, I think I overstated my point. What
Steiner will probably be considered by the PLANS case judge as being
relative, but it's not *proof* of the point which you're trying to make
without additional, explicit factual proof of what is happening *now* in the
school districts you're complaing about.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.8 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: trial date postponed
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 07:38:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Dan Dugan]
)
) The judge has granted a request from the schools for a continuance,
) postponing the trial date till November 8. I guess if you don't have a
) case, delay, maybe you'll think of something.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
That's an interesting observation about the reason for asking for a
continuance.
Did your attorney mention to you what the schools gave to the judge
as a reason?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.9 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:56:31
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907241346.GAA01500 lists1.best.com)
At 09:51 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
)) Query, is it possible for a non-anthroposophist teacher, with good
)secular training and credentials, and without anthroposophical/waldorf
)training, to teach in a private, non-secular Waldorf school? (We assume
)that the people running the school either do not have an appropriate
)candidate with anthroposophical/waldorf training, or they have determined
)that such training is not necessary.)
I thought I answered this earlier. But in my understanding, in the
"private, non-secular Waldorf school," a teacher must be trained in the
Waldorf pedagogy, probably at Rudolf Steiner College. So the answer is
"no," since the hypothetical teacher would have to have
"anthroposophical/waldorf training."
John
==============================================
John W. Morehead
Associate Director
Watchman Fellowship, California branch office
http://www.watchman.org/ca/index.htm
(watchman quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 631-7897
(916) 631-0413 - fax
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1396.10 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: trial date postponed
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:06:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907250856.BAA07667 lists1.best.com)
)The judge said on June 18 that we'd have his decision on the schools'
)motion for summary judgment "in a few days." So far no decision. Our lawyer
)says the delay is normal, it was only that he got our hopes up by saying "a
)few days."
)
)The judge has granted a request from the schools for a continuance,
)postponing the trial date till November 8. I guess if you don't have a
)case, delay, maybe you'll think of something.
)
)-Dan Dugan
Postponing the trial until November 8th? I heard that the schools were
confidant this case would be dismissed entirely. (The word from a Twin
Ridges Charter Counsel member to a concerned parent, "We have inside
information that this case will be dismissed".) Sounds like their
confidence level is diminishing a tad as the court date gets closer.
IMO, Twin Ridges School District has yet to take this case seriously. They
are busy sponsoring more public Waldorf schools, which would all be
affected if PLANS were to prevail. (Note: I have no personal opinion on the
odds of PLANS prevailing.)
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1396 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1397 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: trial date postponed
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: trial date postponed
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: trial date postponed
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: trial date postponed
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: trial date postponed
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - interesting site about Steiner
010 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:25:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Bob Tolz asked:]
) )) Query, is it possible for a non-anthroposophist
) teacher, with good
) )secular training and credentials, and without
) anthroposophical/waldorf
) )training, to teach in a private, non-secular Waldorf school?
) (We assume
) )that the people running the school either do not have an appropriate
) )candidate with anthroposophical/waldorf training, or they
) have determined
) )that such training is not necessary.)
)
[and John Morehead replied]
) I thought I answered this earlier. But in my understanding, in the
) "private, non-secular Waldorf school," a teacher must be
) trained in the
) Waldorf pedagogy, probably at Rudolf Steiner College. So the answer is
) "no," since the hypothetical teacher would have to have
) "anthroposophical/waldorf training."
)
I think that's factually incorrect, John.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: trial date postponed
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:27:45 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Debra Snell]
) Postponing the trial until November 8th? I heard that the schools were
) confidant this case would be dismissed entirely. (The word from a Twin
) Ridges Charter Counsel member to a concerned parent, "We have inside
) information that this case will be dismissed".)
[Bob Tolz]
I'm surprised. I think it's highly unlikely that a judge would
throw out the PLANS suit at this stage. But I've been surprised by judges
before.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 02:06:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907241346.GAA01500 lists1.best.com)
Bob Tolz, you asked John,
) Query, is it possible for a non-anthroposophist teacher, with good
)secular training and credentials, and without anthroposophical/waldorf
)training, to teach in a private, non-secular Waldorf school? (We assume
)that the people running the school either do not have an appropriate
)candidate with anthroposophical/waldorf training, or they have determined
)that such training is not necessary.)
Surely you know the answer to this, and your question is rhetorical. The
answer is yes, and it happens all the time because the movement is
expanding by leaps and bounds and there is a shortage of trained teachers.
They are trained in-service, and catch up on their Anthroposophical studies
in summer seminars.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.4 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: trial date postponed
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 16:11:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907252224.PAA15079 lists1.best.com)
)[Debra Snell]
)
)) Postponing the trial until November 8th? I heard that the schools were
)) confidant this case would be dismissed entirely. (The word from a Twin
)) Ridges Charter Counsel member to a concerned parent, "We have inside
)) information that this case will be dismissed".)
)
)[Bob Tolz]
) I'm surprised. I think it's highly unlikely that a judge would
)throw out the PLANS suit at this stage. But I've been surprised by judges
)before.
)
) Bob Tolz
I think the statement (alluding to their motion for summary judgement)
reflects more on TRSD's attitude toward our lawsuit than on the judge's
opinion. Before their motion for summary judgement hearing, I understand
that TRSD's representatives genuinely believed that the judge would
immediately dismiss the case. I haven't heard any utterances since the
hearing. Their request to postpone the trial until Nov. 8th is the first
indication on their part that they may in fact be going to trial at all.
In June, TRSD signed a three year lease for a new building where the
Waldorf school will open in the fall. Clearly it would prove to be
difficult to pay for the building if the school were to close. With the
signing of that lease, TRSD demonstrated their confidence that the Waldorf
program will prevail.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:41:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
)
) Bob Tolz, you asked John,
)
) ) Query, is it possible for a non-anthroposophist
) teacher, with good
) )secular training and credentials, and without
) anthroposophical/waldorf
) )training, to teach in a private, non-secular Waldorf school?
) (We assume
) )that the people running the school either do not have an appropriate
) )candidate with anthroposophical/waldorf training, or they
) have determined
) )that such training is not necessary.)
[Dan Dugan]
) The
) answer is yes, and it happens all the time because the movement is
) expanding by leaps and bounds and there is a shortage of
) trained teachers.
) They are trained in-service, and catch up on their
) Anthroposophical studies
) in summer seminars.
)
) -Dan Dugan
[Bob Tolz]
John Morehead disagrees with you (though I'm on your side on the
facts).
My question is not merely rhetorical. It is meant to explore the
issues and elicit agreement (to the extent possible) on the connection or
lack thereof between the inner pedagogy and the external curriculum.
John has agreed that it is not inevitable that an anthroposophist
schooled in Steiner pedagogy must necessarily impart anthroposophical
doctrine when teaching in a public school.
You have agreed (though John is not yet on board) that someone not
schooled Steiner pedagogy may teach in a non-secular Waldorf school.
It seems to me that these two sides of the coin demonstrate that the
pedagogy is not inextricably tied to the curriculum. What do you think?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: trial date postponed
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:44:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Debra Snell]
) close. With the
) signing of that lease, TRSD demonstrated their confidence
) that the Waldorf
) program will prevail.
) Deby
)
I'm not surprised that they feel that way. Even without knowing all
the facts, I've been willing to make a bet with John Morehead on the success
of the school districts that will impact my wallet substantially if I lose.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: trial date postponed
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 19:50:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907260040.RAA12250 lists1.best.com)
)
) I'm not surprised that they feel that way. Even without knowing all
)the facts, I've been willing to make a bet with John Morehead on the success
)of the school districts that will impact my wallet substantially if I lose.
)
) Bob Tolz
"Substantially" is relative. I'm not the gambling type.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.8 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: trial date postponed
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:32:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) I've been willing to make a bet with John
) Morehead on the success
) )of the school districts that will impact my wallet
) substantially if I lose.
) )
) ) Bob Tolz
)
[Debra Snell]
) "Substantially" is relative.
Especially in this case.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: interesting site about Steiner
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:37:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here's one page of a very interesting site by madman M. Alan Kazlev. Here
he analyzes Steiner's work in depth:
http://www.kheper.auz.com/topics/Anthroposophy/Steiner-cosmology.htm
You'll get dizzy following links around Kazlev's gigantic site!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1397.10 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:47:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907231750.KAA04704 lists1.best.com)
Luke Schelly wrote:
) Part I
) Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that if you tilt your head up and look up when you need to sneeze, this procedure will help
you sneeze. (and, le
)
) Part II
) Let's say there are two teachers. One believes that drawing exercises involving drawing circles and lines and spirals and waves will help
develop small motor
)
) Part III
) Let's say that some of the shapes in these drawing exercises are thought to have a greater tendency to instill in children a greater
degree of drawing skills s
)
) Can both teachers do all of these things, constitutionally speaking, or can only some teachers do some of these things while the others are
barred?
) .
Why would they be barred constitutionally?
John
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1397 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1398 --------------
001 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
002 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
003 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Capitol Alert: Charter schools pay off for some: Debate swirls
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
006 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Take two: Charter schools pay off for some
008 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Morse Waldorf test scores
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.1 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:16:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199907252004.NAA20376 lists1.best.com)
Dan quoted and then added:
)"Teachers are often asked if Waldorf schools are Christian, and even so
)simple and direct a question cannot be answered by a brief "yes" or "no."
)If the inquirer is thinking in terms of sectarian Christianity--in some
)sense denominational--then the answer is "no." If, on the other hand, the
)question is asked in conection with the deeper aspects of Christianity, an
)answer might be "yes." Waldorf education as it arises out of Anthroposophy
)is, in its very nature, a Cosmic Christ-centered impulse. This impulse is
)expressed implicitly, not explicitly, in our work with the children in the
)classroom."
)
)[Querido, Ren» M. The Esoteric Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic
)Christ Impulse. Fair Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995. pp.
)77-78]
)
)Got that? "Waldorf education...is, in its very nature, a Cosmic
)Christ-centered impulse." And, "this impulse is expressed implicitly...in
)the classroom."
)
)Now, the California Constitution says:
)
)"No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any
)sectarian or denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive
)control of the officers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or
)denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted,
)directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State."
)
)Please note: "nor shall any sectarian...doctrine be taught...directly or
)indirectly." Isn't "implicitly" included in "indirectly"?
Bob W. responds:
To echo what Mr. Tolz wrote, I'm not sure how strictly Mr. Querido's ideas
apply to public Waldof "inspired" programs. However, in response to the
quotes you offered, I have a couple of observations/thoughts.
First, Querido: "If the inquirer is thinking in terms of sectarian
Christianity--in some sense denominational--then the answer is 'no.'"
California Constitution: "No public money shall ever be appropriated for
the support of any sectarian or denominational school..."
Second, along with the question of whether "implicitly" is included in
"indirectly," I think perhaps we could also explore the distinction between
"taught" and "expressed." This might return us to the qestion of whether a
religious based pedagogy *necessarily* results in a religious curriculum--
or the "what is *taught*" to which the California Constitution presumably
is referring.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.2 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:27:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907261813.LAA08157 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams wrote:
) Bob W. responds:
) To echo what Mr. Tolz wrote, I'm not sure how strictly Mr. Querido's ideas
) apply to public Waldof "inspired" programs.
Bob,
Can you provide examples of these Waldorf "inspired" programs that do
not incorporate Steiner's Anthroposophical pedagogy?
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.3 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:31:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907261813.LAA08157 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams wrote:
) First, Querido: "If the inquirer is thinking in terms of sectarian
) Christianity--in some sense denominational--then the answer is 'no.'"
) California Constitution: "No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or denominational school..."
Waldorf education does not promote a "sectarian Christianity" in the
sense of a Protestant, Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic sense, but it
does indeed promote an allegedly "esoteric Christianity" which certainly
has as much of a belief system as any traditional denominational
Christianity. It could probably qualify as a "sect" of mystical
Christianity thus still violating the California Constitution.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.4 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Capitol Alert: Charter schools pay off for some: Debate swirls
over absentee education
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:47:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
(bold)This story was sent to you via ((http://www.sacbee.com/)
sacbee.com.
(/bold) =20
(bold)((http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/legal) Copyright © The
Sacramento Bee(bigger)
Charter schools pay off for some: Debate swirls over absentee
education(/bigger)(/bold)
(bold)By Steven A. Capps(/bold) Bee Capitol Bureau (italic)(Published
July 26, 1999)(/italic)
NEVADA CITY -- Superintendent Dave Taylor has a grand vision for his
tiny Twin Ridges Elementary School District, headquartered in the
pine-covered hills about 20 miles outside of town.
Taylor is offering the district what the population and economy of
rural Nevada County cannot -- huge growth in its student body, an
educational mother lode that will bring a pile of money from the state
based on the new enrollment figures.
And here's the beauty of it: Local taxpayers won't have to spend a
dime to build any new schools. In fact, they'll be saving money.
You can see the rest of this story at:
((http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert01.html)
http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert01.html(bold)((http://www.sacbee.co=
m/about_us/legal)
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee(/bold) =20
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:29:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[John Morehead]
)
) Can you provide examples of these Waldorf "inspired" programs that do
) not incorporate Steiner's Anthroposophical pedagogy?
)
) John
)
Perhaps you didn't follow Pandora's recent description of how she
uses Waldorf-inspired approaches in her own school without incorporating
Steiner's Anthroposophical pedagogy. I commend the archives for your study
(if that thread has made it into the archives yet).
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.6 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
Date: 26 Jul 1999 20:09:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I have given this thread a different heading to limit confusion
I (luke ) posed a three part scenario and asked:
)) Can both teachers do all of these things, constitutionally speaking, or can only some teachers do some of these things while the others are
barred?
John asked:
)Why would they be barred constitutionally?
This isn't necessarily an answer to your question John, but I was curious to find out what it is that makes a situation unconstitutional. (Perhaps my examples didn't come close to that line.) Is it the inspiration that creates the lesson that is unconstitutional? (I would say, no) The motivation(s) of the teacher that delivers the lesson? (again I would say, no) Or, is it the content of the lesson itself? (here i would say maybe, but it would have to be so clearly obvious that any other tangential lesson would seem minor) (like saying that reading Genesis from an old Bible in a Geology class has the actual educational benefit of developing arcane speech patterns). Maybe it is the recieved information the child takes away? (to me this is most definately, yes but I can think of no good way to actually judge this.) Perhaps it is some constellation of these areas that can make it unconstitutional.
I feel that Bob W. responded in a way (and I agree) that we might have to look at each and every aspect of the daily schedule of each and every class to determine if there is any conflict between things that are clearly unconstitutional (because they would be considered wholey and only of/for religious purposes) and those aspects that are/may be considered to be springing from religious or some unstandard source yet serve a decent educational value (even if it is an untested, maybe even unpopular, educational value to begin with). As an example, I think that I would not care if the source were as rediculous as 10,000 monkeys randomly typing up a curriculum, as long as the results of that curriculum were evaluated to see if it was useful (for me, this evaluation doesn't neccessarily mean standardized testing, but it doesn't rule it out either)
I think Steve was mentioning that it may be a different case when the whole program is soooo slanted to the unacceptable that it would be unconstituional. A death of a thousand cuts as it were. My question would be, how many cuts is too many cuts? And who gets to decide what the magic formula should be, based on what criteria? I like waldorf precisely because the themes of the school seem sooo intricately interwoven (counting and knitting and form drawing and eurythmy and singing and cooking and geometry = mathematics, a superset of both the sciences and arts). It would be a shame if educational systems were forced to be set up disjointed so that they purposely could not be an effective situational tool.
I think in the educational realm (which seems to me to be a system for the benefit of the future), conservativism in the ways we think about and explore how to educate children is a bad idea. Although I can imagine that most parents would want the "tried and true" method(s) (assuming that thriving in the world in the future just isn't going to be much different than it is today.)
I'm sorry if this is too rambly.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Take two: Charter schools pay off for some
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:44:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sorry about the duplicate copy, but my email program is not compatable with
links. For my shear pleasure, I've recopied it to fir my program.
Like I've said before, if something doesn't make sense - follow the money.
Deby
********************************************************************************
***********************
Charter schools pay off for some: Debate swirls over absentee education
By Steven A. Capps
Bee Capitol Bureau
(Published July 26, 1999)
NEVADA CITY -- Superintendent Dave Taylor has a grand vision for his tiny
Twin Ridges Elementary School District, headquartered in the pine-covered
hills about 20 miles outside of town.
Taylor is offering the district what the population and economy of rural
Nevada County cannot -- huge growth in its student body, an educational
mother lode that will bring a pile of money from
the state based on the new enrollment figures.
And here's the beauty of it: Local taxpayers won't have to spend a dime to
build any new schools. In fact, they'll be saving money.
If it sounds too good to be true, some say it is. The situation has thrust
the Twin Ridges district and other charter schools into the center of a
growing statewide educational controversy. At stake,
say both supporters and critics, is the integrity of California's public
education system.
The issue is over the origin of all these new students -- more than 2,000
if Taylor's plan pays out. None of the new students are from around here.
Most have never even visited the district,
maybe never even heard of it.
They're from Ukiah and Santa Rosa and Citrus Heights. Some of them live in
Aptos in Santa Cruz County, others up in Yountville in Napa County. But
under Taylor's plan, within the next two
years they all will be enrolled in one of six new schools run by the Twin
Ridges Elementary School District -- but located in their local areas.
The six schools are "charter schools," part of an experiment in educational
innovation devised by the Legislature in 1992.
Under the program, parents, teachers or anyone else who wants to form one
of the experimental schools draft a charter describing its goals and
methods, and present it for approval to
their local school board.
Once approved and operating, a new charter school collects regular
per-pupil funding from the state of California, paying a portion of the
money in administrative costs to the local districts
in which they were formed.
The schools are free from most state regulations and out from under the
control of local school boards. Collective bargaining is not required, so
many teachers are non-union and paid well
below union wages. And there is no residency requirement -- the charter
schools may operate outside the district in which they were chartered, as
in the case of the proposed new Twin Ridges schools.
The charter school movement grew out of calls for creation of a "voucher"
system for public education, in which parents wishing to put their children
in private school would receive a voucher
from the state to pay for all or part of the tuition.
Public school advocates have argued against the idea, saying it could
destroy public education by transferring public education funds to private
schools.
Under the state's charter system, it is illegal to convert a private
school to a charter school, so private schools remain privately funded.
But the law has led to a significant number of charter schools. There are
more than 200 now, with statewide enrollment expected to top 40,000. There
are more than 30 charter schools in the Sacramento area and nearby Sierra
foothill counties.
Some, like Bowling Green Elementary charter school off Florin Road in
Sacramento, operate virtually like public schools, except their charter
status allows them to experiment with course
content and longer school days.
"If you visited this school, it would look typical from the outside,"
principal Dennis Mah said. "But inside you can feel the sense of energy,
focus. There is a spirit of change here."
Some charter schools are built around parents who are- home-schooling
their children. The charter operators provide the- families with textbooks
and other instructional materials, and the expertise of teachers when
needed.
A company called Horizon Instructional Systems created a charter school in
the Lincoln area to provide a home-based school program. It's won praise
from local officials.
"If parents want to give their kids a quality education at home, now they
can do that," said Roger Yohe, superintendent for Western Placer Unified
School District.
"Now they have the support of a professional educator. They have access to
the most up-to-date, wonderful materials that the educational publishing
houses are manufacturing. How could you
criticize that?"
The current enrollment in the Western Placer district's traditional public
schools is 3,012, according to Yohe. There are 3,016 students enrolled in
the Horizon program.
Randy Gaschler, who founded Horizon and is expanding it to other areas,
said parents come to his program for a variety of reasons. One is safety.
"Every time you have a shooting at a school, we have a few more kids
wanting in," he said. "Even if it's a school that doesn't have a history of
violence, some kids are prone to getting beat up all the time."
Individualized educational programs are developed for all his students.
"There's no such thing as the typical program," he said.
About 5 percent of Horizon students engage in "distance learning," linking
students with their teachers via computer.
Under a bill signed Friday by Gov. Gray Davis, charter schools will be
prohibited from providing non-classroom study except in their immediate
counties or adjacent ones. Republicans, generally
supporting more freedom for charter schools, opposed the bill.
Two of the six new Twin Ridges schools will be restricted by the new law
because they were going to offer independent study courses for a portion of
their students, according to Taylor. The
other four were not.
While the legislation won't be a huge problem for Horizon, other schools
depend heavily on distance learners, like the Ready Springs Charter School
created by a district in Penn Valley, outside of Nevada City.
Of the 160 students enrolled in the Ready Springs Charter School, about
half are "distance learners," some from as far away as San Diego.
"This is such a shame," said Tessa McGarr, director of the school, who said
the bill could put her out of business. "They wanted us to use technology
to enhance the learning of students. That's what we've been doing."
Up in the Truckee area, the Prosser Creek Charter School also could face
trouble. Of the 370 students now taught through a combination of classroom
and independent study, about 150 are
in Sebastopol, Sonoma County, where local school officials would not
approve a charter.
But critics of the current charter system say there is not enough oversight.
"It's difficult to tell how they could be supervised if they're five
counties away," said Bob Cherry, associate director of the California
Teachers Association.
Vicki Barber, superintendent of schools for El Dorado County, recalled a
below-average student who transferred out of one of her two charter schools
to attend one farther north.
The student returned six months later with a transcript showing she had
completed half of her high school credits, including advanced mathematics,
with straight A's. She wanted to transfer her credits back to the El Dorado
County charter school, but when tested she couldn't even pass beginning
algebra.
"This type of a charter school has not done this young person any favors by
giving away units and not having the kind of credibility and integrity it
should," Barber said. "It hurts all of us."
The Twin Ridges district in North San Juan currently operates four local
charter schools in Nevada County -- a home-schooling program, a
Waldorf-style elementary school, an elementary school focusing on the arts
and a high school. Under the law, elementary school districts such as Twin
Ridges are allowed to operate charter high schools, as well as other types
of charte schools.
The controversy arose from the local board's recent decision to expand its
charter school program with six new schools outside Nevada County. Four of
the new schools are scheduled to open this fall, the other two in fall 2000.
The district will collect 10 percent of the $4,300 per student the state
pays for these new charter students. Taylor says the money will pay for
administrative services, such as bookkeeping and
insurance, and any left over will go into a pot of money helping all the
schools with various needs.
What it means for Twin Ridges is that a lot of the things the local
district used to pay for now will be paid for out of the charter monies.
That includes Taylor's $78,000-a-year salary.
"That's really what the benefit for the district is," Taylor said. "It
doesn't put thousands of dollars in the bank."
Taylor has come under fire from critics for taking advantage of the charter
school law, which they say was never intended to allow districts to operate
schools far outside their boundary lines.
"What Twin Ridges is doing is chartering schools in other areas without
regard to local conditions, then they're getting this administrative fee
which they claim is necessary," said Cherry of CTA.
But Taylor said the fees go to improvements at the charter schools,
including leasing -- at a cost of about $380,000 a year -- of a picturesque
70-acre site 10 miles outside of Nevada City that will be home this fall to
his charter high school, school of the art and Waldorf elementary school.
He has plans for a gymnasium and special education center at the site,
which sits atop Kentucky Ridge overlooking five man-made ponds stocked with
fish.
The high school will offer three foreign languages, frequent field trips
and cooperative instructional agreements with local businesses. Parental
involvement will be a key element of the program.
"The charter movement has been so hard for districts to adapt to," Taylor
said. "It really violates the status quo, actually giving control to
parents. People don't like that in the educational establishment."
But Cherry said it's too early to pronounce charter schools a success.
"There's some evidence they are, and some evidence they are not."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.8 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:11:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907261808.LAA01539 lists1.best.com)
Luke wrote:
)) Can both teachers do all of these things, constitutionally speaking, or
))can only some teachers do some of these things while the others are
)barred?
John asked:
)Why would they be barred constitutionally?
Bob W. replies:
...because in Luke's examples some teachers are following a "religious"
pedagogy, I believe.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:32:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In today's Sacramento Bee, staff writer Deb Kollars compiled the Stanford 9
test results for public schools in six counties and published results of
students in 4th and 10th grades. After mentioning the top scoring schools,
Ms. Kollars wrote:
"At the other end of the spectrum, two local schools - Fairbanks Elementary
in the Del Paso Heights Elementary District and the Still Center in
Sacramento City Unified - posted fourth grade reading scores at the 11th
percentile nationally, the lowest in theregion. The bottom fourth grade
math score dipped even lower with a Sacramento City school, Morse Waldorf
Elementary, which had a national percentile ranking of 8. It should be
noted, however, that Morse performed at much higher levels in other grades
and subject areas."
Morse Waldorf's fourth grade reading scores ranked 23, with the district
average ranking in the 38th percentile.
John Morse Waldorf school is the reason PLANS is suing Sac City Unified
School District.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1398.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:44:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) John Morse Waldorf school is the reason PLANS is suing Sac
) City Unified
) School District.
)
) Deby
[Bob Tolz]
But not because of reading scores.
Bob Tolz
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1398 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1399 --------------
001 - Lisa DeNike (Ldenike patu - RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
005 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
008 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.1 ---------------
From: Lisa DeNike (Ldenike patuxent.com)
Subject: RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:35:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Many thanks to the consistent research being done by Debra Snell and
Dan Dugan on how Waldorf schools in some regions perform on standardized
tests. Though I am on record as a big fan of the Waldorf school my two
children attend, I also keep a very wary and critical eye on what they are
learning and whether the curriculum is up to snuff. Fortunately for those of
us here in Baltimore, the teachers and curriculum are top-notch. (My third
grader learned things in math during the last school year that my sister, a
teacher and reading specialist in a fine public elementary school nearby,
claimed was on a much higher level than what my daughter's counterparts in
public school were learning.)
I appreciate knowing what is really going on, even when it is not
good.
-- Lisa
) ----------
) From: Debra Snell
) Reply To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 4:32
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Morse Waldorf test scores
)
) In today's Sacramento Bee, staff writer Deb Kollars compiled the Stanford
) 9
) test results for public schools in six counties and published results of
) students in 4th and 10th grades. After mentioning the top scoring schools,
) Ms. Kollars wrote:
)
) "At the other end of the spectrum, two local schools - Fairbanks
) Elementary
) in the Del Paso Heights Elementary District and the Still Center in
) Sacramento City Unified - posted fourth grade reading scores at the 11th
) percentile nationally, the lowest in theregion. The bottom fourth grade
) math score dipped even lower with a Sacramento City school, Morse Waldorf
) Elementary, which had a national percentile ranking of 8. It should be
) noted, however, that Morse performed at much higher levels in other grades
) and subject areas."
)
) Morse Waldorf's fourth grade reading scores ranked 23, with the district
) average ranking in the 38th percentile.
)
) John Morse Waldorf school is the reason PLANS is suing Sac City Unified
) School District.
)
) Deby
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 01:41:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907270017.RAA10533 lists1.best.com)
Luke, you wrote,
)Is it the inspiration that creates the lesson that is unconstitutional? (I
)would say, no) The motivation(s) of the teacher that delivers the lesson?
)(again I would say, no) Or, is it the content of the lesson itself?
)(here i would say maybe, but it would have to be so clearly obvious that
)any other tangential lesson would seem minor) (like saying that reading
)Genesis from an old Bible in a Geology class has the actual educational
)benefit of developing arcane speech patterns). Maybe it is the recieved
)information the child takes away? (to me this is most definately, yes but
)I can think of no good way to actually judge this.) Perhaps it is some
)constellation of these areas that can make it unconstitutional.
It's helpful that in California, there's case law that interprets our
church-state separation so that even the -appearance- of religious
indoctrination must be avoided. Reading Genesis would only be appropriate
in a course that explicitly analyzed and compared religious texts. This is
-not- the way religious texts (Bible, Zoroastrianism, Greek prayers, Norse
myths) are used in Waldorf. In Waldorf, teachers and students both are
supposed to be immersed in the belief system of the era being studied.
(snip)
)I think that I would not care if the source were as rediculous as 10,000
)monkeys randomly typing up a curriculum, as long as the results of that
)curriculum were evaluated to see if it was useful (for me, this evaluation
)doesn't neccessarily mean standardized testing, but it doesn't rule it out
)either)
I agree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The problem with
Waldorf is that it claims superiority without backing it up.
) I think Steve was mentioning that it may be a different case when the
)whole program is soooo slanted to the unacceptable that it would be
)unconstituional. A death of a thousand cuts as it were. My question
)would be, how many cuts is too many cuts? And who gets to decide what the
)magic formula should be, based on what criteria?
Here comes the judge, that's who.
)I like waldorf precisely because the themes of the school seem sooo
)intricately interwoven (counting and knitting and form drawing and
)eurythmy and singing and cooking and geometry = mathematics, a superset of
)both the sciences and arts). It would be a shame if educational systems
)were forced to be set up disjointed so that they purposely could not be an
)effective situational tool.
It isn't a dichotomy. You can have an integrated curriculum without
Waldorf, without Anthroposophy.
) I think in the educational realm (which seems to me to be a system for
)the benefit of the future), conservativism in the ways we think about and
)explore how to educate children is a bad idea.
One could argue that conserving the accumulated knowledge and values of the
culture is a main mission of education. But if you don't want conservative,
Waldorf is about as conservative as you can get, it hasn't changed since
1925.
)Although I can imagine that most parents would want the "tried and true"
)method(s) (assuming that thriving in the world in the future just isn't
)going to be much different than it is today.)
I recommend reading the arguments against "progressive education" presented
by E.D. Hirsch in "The Schools We Need: Why We Don't Have Them" which can
be found in the PLANS web site bookstore. Hirsch argues that the
progressive theories of the 1920s and 30s have been thoroughly tried and
found wanting, but the U.S. educational establishment is still committed to
them.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:35:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907271638.JAA19461 lists1.best.com)
))
)) John Morse Waldorf school is the reason PLANS is suing Sac
)) City Unified
)) School District.
))
)) Deby
)
)[Bob Tolz]
) But not because of reading scores.
)
) Bob Tolz
))
Clearly.
I think it is interesting to note that Oak Ridge Elementary school, the
school where parents successfully ridded itself of the Waldorf program,
scored in the 16th percentile in reading and 18th percentile in math.
Oak Ridge student population consists of 85% english as second language
families. I have no statistics on Morse Waldorf population since it's move,
but I am interested in learning. Do you think Sac City Unified
superintendent's office would have this information?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:56:23 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) I have no statistics on Morse Waldorf population
) since it's move,
) but I am interested in learning. Do you think Sac City Unified
) superintendent's office would have this information?
) Deby
)
Living on the right coast, I'd really have no way of guessing.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.5 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:05:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907271638.JAA19464 lists1.best.com)
John wrote:
)Bob,
)
)Can you provide examples of these Waldorf "inspired" programs that do
)not incorporate Steiner's Anthroposophical pedagogy?
Bob W. responds:
Thanks for the question, John. Actually, I wasn't trying to make the point
that public Waldorf "inspired" programs do not incorporate Steiner's
Anthroposophical pedagogy, but nonetheless, here are some off-the-cuff
remarks on that idea.
I don't have direct experience with any public Waldorf program, but I will
share an exchange with a third year teacher candidate in the San Francisco
Teacher Training Program. We were talking after the year end Santa Cruz
presentations, and I don't think that he was trying to downplay Steiner for
my benefit. He currently teaches in a North California "real" Waldorf
school. He said that his school was a kind of renegade Waldorf school for a
variety of reasons including how much Anthroposophy they drew on. He felt
that the Anthroposophy wasn't that big of a deal at the school.I offer the
anecdote as a sign that there may not be a monolithic "Steiner
Anthroposophical pedagogy" tied directly to literal readings of Steiner's
work that pervades every school associated with the term "Waldorf."
Remember, I'm not convinced that the pedagogy is the essential element in
determining the constitutionality of a program, but to continue with the
pedagogy angle, I wonder if you would consider the idea-- hinted at in my
musings on Stephen's post-- that teachers, especially, may be operating
from some hybrid pedagogy that doesn't conform to every one of Steiner's (
or Mr. Querido's) ideas. If so, what litmus test (related to Luke's idea)
would determine for you whether the pedagogy would be considered a real
example of "Steiner's Anthroposophical pedagogy?" How do we characterize a
school like the one in the anecdote above that may not be following Steiner
to the letter?
John also commented on:
)Bob Williams wrote:
)) First, Querido: "If the inquirer is thinking in terms of sectarian
)) Christianity--in some sense denominational--then the answer is 'no.'"
)) California Constitution: "No public money shall ever be appropriated for
))the support of any sectarian or denominational school..."
John:
)Waldorf education does not promote a "sectarian Christianity" in the
)sense of a Protestant, Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic sense, but it
)does indeed promote an allegedly "esoteric Christianity" which certainly
)has as much of a belief system as any traditional denominational
)Christianity. It could probably qualify as a "sect" of mystical
)Christianity thus still violating the California Constitution.
Bob replies:
John, I was having a bit of fun in my response to Dan. I was engaging in
semantic hairsplitting to make light of the practice of quoting someone and
limiting discussion to the literal meaning of the words quoted. Dan's
rhetorical question about the relationship of Querido's use of the term
"implicit" and the CA Constitution's use of the term "indirectly" reminded
me of the practice. My quoting of passages on sectarianism was meant to
follow a similar path by matching up wording. In general, I tend to think
that the appropriate way to discuss any school is by looking at what they
actually do and holding that up to some standard (as suggested by Luke)
rather than looking at what people say about the school or movement. (I'm
very aware of how much discrepancy there is between program descriptions in
the public school and what actually occurs in classrooms.)
Last night, I was meeting with my teacher candidate intern from San Jose
State. She said that her father was dead set against her having anything to
do with any public school because the whole system is corrupt and
worthless. I find the father's review overstated. That doesn't mean that I
think all public schools should be left alone because "they're doing the
best that they can" but rather that the real issues in public education are
not being addressed when people make generalizations. (Again, a point of
agreement: I'm onboard with the idea that even with a hybrid pedagogy, most
folks teaching in public and private schools associated with Steiner are
using some form of a religious pedagogy. We disagree, so far, on whether
that *necessarily* means that the kids are receiving an education that is
unconstitutional.)
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:45:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907271638.JAA19464 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907272157.OAA27252 lists1.best.com)
)Bob replies:
)[snip]In general, I tend to think
)that the appropriate way to discuss any school is by looking at what they
)actually do and holding that up to some standard (as suggested by Luke)
)rather than looking at what people say about the school or movement.
[snip]
So what do you think of using the test scores at John Morse Waldorf school
as a tool of measurement?
I can not see how Sac City Unified can justify spending *any* money to
fight PLANS legal battle based on their test scores alone. John Morse
Waldorf school has the lowest math scores in six counties,constituting a
very big region.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:05:49 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) )Bob Williams replies:
) )[snip]In general, I tend to think
) )that the appropriate way to discuss any school is by looking
) at what they
) )actually do and holding that up to some standard (as
) suggested by Luke)
) )rather than looking at what people say about the school or movement.
) [snip]
)
)
[Debra Snell]
) So what do you think of using the test scores at John Morse
) Waldorf school
) as a tool of measurement?
[Bob Tolz]
I could see how test scores might have some bearing on a political
decision as to how best to spend money, but I can't see how test scores have
anything to do with constitutionality.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.8 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:58:10 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907231434.HAA01988 lists1.best.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 8:38 AM
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Does the heart pump blood or doesn't it? Do bacteria cause illness or don't
they? Is the earth billions of years old or hundreds of thousands of years
old? Are colors various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum or not?
Are minerals inert or do they exert forces on us? Earth sciences, social
sciences, biology, physics, chemistry, all have anthroposophical spins that
would be improper in public schools. I honestly mean no disrespect when I
say that in the secular world, anthroposophy is not considered to have
anything whatsoever to offer in the sciences. An anthroposophist has to
accept this to maintain the grounding required for proper secular teaching,
or at least must accept that the anthroposophical perspective is not to be
taught.
Beyond the sciences there are more subtle problems. In Waldorf education is
Spanish considered to be as good a language for student development as
German or Russian? Is ballet as good for a student to learn as eurythmy?
How does the anthroposophist keep the openness of the secular approach?,
Im not sure an Anthroposophist would be inappropriate as a teacher, but he
would have to be centered enough to consistantly keep many of his beliefs
out of his classroom.
Alan Fine
) Which subjects do you think an Anthroposophist would be an
) inapproppriate choice of teacher? Can you be specific instead of using
the
) "wide range of subjects" gloss?
)
) Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:17:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907280316.UAA04351 lists1.best.com)
)[Debra Snell]
)) So what do you think of using the test scores at John Morse
)) Waldorf school
)) as a tool of measurement?
)
)[Bob Tolz]
) I could see how test scores might have some bearing on a political
)decision as to how best to spend money, but I can't see how test scores have
)anything to do with constitutionality.
But combined with a constitutional issue, it will be a consideration.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1399.10 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:19:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907231434.HAA01988 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907280409.VAA23883 lists1.best.com)
Boy, these issues are familiar ones. The Anthroposophists at my children's
school felt like they not only had these answers, but were compelled to
inform the parents. Admittedly, the teachers at my sons' school seems like
wanna-be-recognized-Anthroposophists who are still looking for recognition
by AWSNA. (I could have created a tougher challenge of a defense than they
have...)
Deby
)Does the heart pump blood or doesn't it? Do bacteria cause illness or don't
)they? Is the earth billions of years old or hundreds of thousands of years
)old? Are colors various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum or not?
)Are minerals inert or do they exert forces on us? Earth sciences, social
)sciences, biology, physics, chemistry, all have anthroposophical spins that
)would be improper in public schools. I honestly mean no disrespect when I
)say that in the secular world, anthroposophy is not considered to have
)anything whatsoever to offer in the sciences. An anthroposophist has to
)accept this to maintain the grounding required for proper secular teaching,
)or at least must accept that the anthroposophical perspective is not to be
)taught.
)
)Beyond the sciences there are more subtle problems. In Waldorf education is
)Spanish considered to be as good a language for student development as
)German or Russian? Is ballet as good for a student to learn as eurythmy?
)How does the anthroposophist keep the openness of the secular approach?,
)Im not sure an Anthroposophist would be inappropriate as a teacher, but he
)would have to be centered enough to consistantly keep many of his beliefs
)out of his classroom.
)
)Alan Fine
)
)
)) Which subjects do you think an Anthroposophist would be an
)) inapproppriate choice of teacher? Can you be specific instead of using
)the
)) "wide range of subjects" gloss?
))
)) Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1399 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1400 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
003 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
004 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
007 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
008 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - Re: education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
009 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: John Morse test scores
010 - "Duane Koons" (dkoons gun - RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:13:18 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Bob Tolz]
)
) ) Which subjects do you think an Anthroposophist would be an
) ) inapproppriate choice of teacher? Can you be specific
) instead of using
) the
) ) "wide range of subjects" gloss?
[Alan Fine]
) I honestly mean no
) disrespect when I
) say that in the secular world, anthroposophy is not considered to have
) anything whatsoever to offer in the sciences. An
) anthroposophist has to
) accept this to maintain the grounding required for proper
) secular teaching,
) or at least must accept that the anthroposophical perspective
) is not to be
) taught.
No question about it, but that doesn't mean they'd be inappropriate to teach
those subjects.
)
) Beyond the sciences there are more subtle problems. In
) Waldorf education is
) Spanish considered to be as good a language for student development as
) German or Russian?
)Is ballet as good for a student to learn
) as eurythmy?
What bearing does this have on whether an Anthroposophist is
appropriate/inappropriate to teach physical education?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:13:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) )[Bob Tolz]
) ) I could see how test scores might have some bearing on
) a political
) )decision as to how best to spend money, but I can't see how
) test scores have
) )anything to do with constitutionality.
)
[Debra Snell]
) But combined with a constitutional issue, it will be a consideration.
) Deby
)
A consideration by whom? The judge? I don't see how it's relevant.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.3 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:01:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907280617.XAA14590 lists1.best.com)
)Bob Williams replies:
) )[snip]In general, I tend to think
) )that the appropriate way to discuss any school is by looking
) at what they
) )actually do and holding that up to some standard (as
) suggested by Luke)
) )rather than looking at what people say about the school or movement.
) [snip]
)
)
[Debra Snell]
) So what do you think of using the test scores at John Morse
) Waldorf school
) as a tool of measurement?
Bob W. replies:
I think that test scores can be used as *one* form of measurement, but
their value comes from close analysis rather first impressions. In looking
at Morse's scores factors to consider would include: 1) how many classes at
a grade level (one poor teacher or an extenuating circumstance at that
grade level would affect scores), 2) student population (income, parent ed
levels, and primary language seem to be some of the biggest factors
affecting STAR results), 3) pre-Waldorf test results, 4), maturity of the
program (new programs tend to struggle), 5) what "It should be noted,
however, that Morse performed at much higher levels in other grades and
subject areas" means. As an additional aside, in our district, fourth grade
scores seem to reflect the lowest percentile scores of any grade level.
Given a close analysis of those factors, next you need to explore why the
score profiles look the way they do. What are the kids struggling with? I
am 100% against developing a program that is focused on test scores, but I
think that you can use test scores to help you better understand your
student population. Unfortunately, the public tends to take isolated scores
without context and make generalizations. In Bob's perfect world,
schools/districts would be honest in their self assessment and make a real
effort to evaluate and improve their programs. All of us would be focused
on improving schools rather than passing judgement (scores as tools, not
weapons).
Now if Morse is not involved in honest self assessment, they ought to have
their feet held to the fire. As a parent, I'd think twice about supporting
such a school. Without other information, I couldn't tell you if that is
the case at Morse.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.4 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:24:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907280617.XAA14590 lists1.best.com)
Alan wrote:
)Does the heart pump blood or doesn't it? Do bacteria cause illness or don't
)they? Is the earth billions of years old or hundreds of thousands of years
)old? Are colors various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum or not?
)Are minerals inert or do they exert forces on us? Earth sciences, social
)sciences, biology, physics, chemistry, all have anthroposophical spins that
)would be improper in public schools. I honestly mean no disrespect when I
)say that in the secular world, anthroposophy is not considered to have
)anything whatsoever to offer in the sciences. An anthroposophist has to
)accept this to maintain the grounding required for proper secular teaching,
)or at least must accept that the anthroposophical perspective is not to be
)taught.
)
)Beyond the sciences there are more subtle problems. In Waldorf education is
)Spanish considered to be as good a language for student development as
)German or Russian? Is ballet as good for a student to learn as eurythmy?
)How does the anthroposophist keep the openness of the secular approach?,
)Im not sure an Anthroposophist would be inappropriate as a teacher, but he
)would have to be centered enough to consistantly keep many of his beliefs
)out of his classroom.
Bob W. replies:
It would be convenient for the sake of discussion if all (or even most)
Waldorf or Waldorf inspired teachers held most the beliefs that you
ennumerated above. I'm not sure that that is the case. Now if a teacher did
hold all of those views, I'd agree with you that they should be very
careful about entering public education. I see most of those views as
extreme (Spanish, however, is the one language taught at our local Waldorf
in spite of anything Steiner might have thought, and I have opinions about
ballet based upon entirely non-Anthroposophical considerations) and would
not have my child involved in a school that was promoting those ideas. My
guess is that most parents might agree with me.
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:42:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907280409.VAA23883 lists1.best.com)
On 27 Jul 99, at 21:58, Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
) Does the heart pump blood or doesn't it? Do bacteria cause illness or
) don't they? Is the earth billions of years old or hundreds of thousands
) of years old? Are colors various wavelengths of the electromagnetic
) spectrum or not? Are minerals inert or do they exert forces on us? Earth
) sciences, social sciences, biology, physics, chemistry, all have
) anthroposophical spins that would be improper in public schools. I
) honestly mean no disrespect when I say that in the secular world,
) anthroposophy is not considered to have anything whatsoever to offer in
) the sciences. An anthroposophist has to accept this to maintain the
) grounding required for proper secular teaching, or at least must accept
) that the anthroposophical perspective is not to be taught.
This is true of the followers of any religion that has a creation
myth that is at odds with scientific cosmology. The most glaring
example, of course, is Christian fundamentalism.
The difference is that Christians *know* that their views are
religious, which might make it easier for them to understand that the
biblical view of creation is not a scientific theory. (Nevertheless,
there are plenty of Christians who are confused about this, and who
think that "creationism" is a form of science.)
But Anthroposophists believe that their creed is not a religion, and
that instead, it is a form of science. Further, many assert that
these beliefs are not really part of Anthroposophy. Instead,
Anthroposophy is an approach to knowledge, while the knowledge that
is obtained is "scientific." This might make it difficult for some
Anthroposophists to keep in mind that the beliefs in question are not
to be taught to the kids, particularly if the teacher has a weak
background in science in the first place.
On the other hand, I think most Waldorf teachers do know the
difference between Steiner and "materialist" science, and attempt to
teach only the latter in the classroom. That's what I hope, anyway.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:25:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907281413.HAA09916 lists1.best.com)
)) )[Bob Tolz]
)) ) I could see how test scores might have some bearing on
)) a political
)) )decision as to how best to spend money, but I can't see how
)) test scores have
)) )anything to do with constitutionality.
))
)[Debra Snell]
)) But combined with a constitutional issue, it will be a consideration.
)) Deby
))
)
) A consideration by whom? The judge? I don't see how it's relevant.
)
)
I was thinking along the lines of their budget. Jim Sweeny, Sac City
Unified Superintendent, seems very committed to increasing student
performance. He is frequently in the news stating that he will hold his
teachers/administrators accountable for poor student performance, etc. Sac
City does not appear *that* committed to Waldorf. They are committed to
student performance. Why spend money on legal fees to defend a school that
is not performing? If PLANS wins the summary judgement, I'll look for a
settlement offer. (Just my own opinion...)
Admittedly, I have no clue as to the student population. I am assuming the
Waldorf program has attracted more english speaking families, as was their
intent when they opened the program. That assumption could be wrong. I'd
like to find out because it is a factor which would certainly affect test
scores and the direction the trial takes.
Enough rambling,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.7 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: pedagogy vs. curriculum (was Re: OUCH!)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:24:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199907281543.IAA19038 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) This is true of the followers of any religion that has a creation
) myth that is at odds with scientific cosmology. The most glaring
) example, of course, is Christian fundamentalism.
...as opposed to Christian evangelicalism, but that topic is for another
list on origins....
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.8 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: Re: education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
Date: 28 Jul 1999 14:50:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dan Dugan posted:
)Luke, you wrote,
))Is it the inspiration that creates the lesson that is unconstitutional? (I
))would say, no) The motivation(s) of the teacher that delivers the lesson?
))(again I would say, no) Or, is it the content of the lesson itself?
))(here i would say maybe, but it would have to be so clearly obvious that
))any other tangential lesson would seem minor) (like saying that reading
))Genesis from an old Bible in a Geology class has the actual educational
))benefit of developing arcane speech patterns). Maybe it is the received
))information the child takes away? (to me this is most definitely, yes but
))I can think of no good way to actually judge this.) Perhaps it is some
))constellation of these areas that can make it unconstitutional.
)It's helpful that in California, there's case law that interprets our
)church-state separation so that even the -appearance- of religious
)indoctrination must be avoided.
The subtlety of that word slams right into the US constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance, which have God and Creator making an "appearance" in a basic and foundational way. Are you saying the that the pledge of allegiance should be banned as well as the study of the constitution? Would any social or political program that the state sponsored which sprang from a belief in the goodness or evilness of mankind be barred? I think that statement seems like using a shovel to extract a splinter when a tweezer would be more appropriate. (Perhaps the actual case law gets really specific)
)Reading Genesis would only be appropriate
)in a course that explicitly analyzed and compared religious texts. This is
)-not- the way religious texts (Bible, Zoroastrianism, Greek prayers, Norse
)myths) are used in Waldorf. In Waldorf, teachers and students both are
)supposed to be immersed in the belief system of the era being studied.
For the purpose of what? Getting a better understanding how an historical people could possibly come to believe and act and live the way they did? Sounds like a great way to learn. Sounds like Piaget would stand up and cheer for a program that tried *to understand through the structures of rationality of the people under study*. One can (and I would suspect most would agree) do this with trying to understand our societies relationship to sex before and after the wide spread knowledge of AIDS. One tries to get inside that frame of reference (as much as that is possible) to understand, not all of the situation, but at least the situation from that perspective.
Here is where I have a strong feeling that studying/evaluating the curriculum piece by piece can be very useful and yet very difficult. It seems as though it must be done from both a macro and micro perspective. Any singular class on the Old Testament or the Norse myths might be thought to be unconstitutional, although I feel, as I stated above, that it may be a very important way of gaining a richer understanding of that time period in and of itself. In a longitudinal perspective of the curriculum, however, each class topic relates and is bound together with the previous and the next in a sense of developing morals, codes, ethics, history, and consciousness that is inextricably tied to the time periods. You may feel that Greek and Roman myths are stupid and religious hooey of no useful value to todays society, but I would say that these myths are a fundamental part of understanding the culture and the society from which we are descended, and whose legacies and tragedie!
!
s we still carry around today in, for some, an unconscious collection of lenses that direct our public and private actions in our everyday life. It's civics, it's history, it's social studies.
)(snip)
))I think that I would not care if the source were as ridiculous as 10,000
))monkeys randomly typing up a curriculum, as long as the results of that
))curriculum were evaluated to see if it was useful (for me, this evaluation
))doesn't necessarily mean standardized testing, but it doesn't rule it out
))either)
)I agree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The problem with
)Waldorf is that it claims superiority without backing it up.
Firstly, the only people that I know semi-personally that make this claim (that Waldorf is superior) is you and Deby and David M.( the PLANS bunch) and some enthusiastic parents who really like it and are stating their opinion.
Secondly, just because you can't have the documentation and the evidence of your choice does not mean that there are no ways of understanding whether or not it is a worthwhile endeavor (I'm certainly not saying it is the best). Perhaps not hearing anything too strong one way or the other may be it's greatest value to society.
)) I think in the educational realm (which seems to me to be a system for
))the benefit of the future), conservativism in the ways we think about and
))explore how to educate children is a bad idea.
)One could argue that conserving the accumulated knowledge and values of the
)culture is a main mission of education.
I agree to a point. My mutterings above follow that logic, except that only conserving leads a society to be a museum of itself.
)But if you don't want conservative, Waldorf is about as conservative as you can )get, it hasn't changed since 1925.
If you keep chanting it maybe people will believe it. The constitution hasn't changed in years either (tweeked maybe, but not changed), yet i think it serves a useful dynamic purpose. Have you ever tried to bounce a ball off a wall of marshmallow?
I thought that sentence would probably be misunderstood. I am not against any conservative education. I think it must exist. But it does so as one of many ways that people explore the idea of education. The free market of ideas as it were. I am however of two consciences on this. I believe this and am excited about the possibilities, yet as I state it I feel concerned about the possible consequences for a society of children who may be damaged or poorly served by a widened field of thought and action. (Dammit nothing is ever easy.)
)Although I can imagine that most parents would want the "tried and true"
)method(s) (assuming that thriving in the world in the future just isn't
)going to be much different than it is today.)
I recommend reading the arguments against "progressive education" presented
by E.D. Hirsch in "The Schools We Need: Why We Don't Have Them" which can
be found in the PLANS web site bookstore. Hirsch argues that the
progressive theories of the 1920s and 30s have been thoroughly tried and
found wanting, but the U.S. educational establishment is still committed to
them.
Sounds like good reading. I think I watched an interview about this on Charlie Rose.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.9 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: John Morse test scores
Date: 28 Jul 1999 15:16:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Debra Snell asked:
)So what do you think of using the test scores at John Morse Waldorf school
)as a tool of measurement?
Not trying to be flip but...What is it that you are trying to measure?
Do you have any background on the J.M.W.S. Did it used to be a high scoring school and now is low scoring? Is it a new program with new teachers and/or new administrators? How have other schools with similar start-up scenarios or transition scenarios faired? Are there demographic concerns in this schools? Did the children coming into this year have any particular dificulties? I am sure there are many other factors that others could throw into the mix.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1400.10 ---------------
From: "Duane Koons" (dkoons gundluth.org)
Subject: RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:17:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Anyone else on the list have info regarding the performance of waldorf charter
schools on standardized tests? There must be several examples out there. e.g.
the Arizona schools, the Milwaukee magnet. Most of the graduates of our local
waldorf school have gone on to have very successful academic careers in area
high schools so I'd be surprised to find the Morse school results representative
of all waldorf schools. I'd certainly like more data to compare with my
subjective observations and remain open minded about the possibility that I am
wrong. (for the anti standardized test folks: relax, I understand their
limitations and don't need a lecture)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1400 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1401 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: John Morse test scores
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1401.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:55:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199907281914.MAA04556 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Jul 99, at 14:50, Luke Schelly wrote:
) Dan Dugan posted:
)
) )It's helpful that in California, there's case law that interprets our
) )church-state separation so that even the -appearance- of religious
) )indoctrination must be avoided.
)
) The subtlety of that word slams right into the US constitution and the
) Pledge of Allegiance, which have God and Creator making an "appearance" in
) a basic and foundational way.
Where is God or the Creator mentioned in the US Constitution?
You may be thinking of the line in the Declaration of Independence
that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with
certain inalienable rights. That is a valuable document, but it's of
no legal effect, and was written years before the Constitution.
) Are you saying the that the pledge of
) allegiance should be banned as well as the study of the constitution?
It would be interesting to see if the pledge of allegiance would
survive a legal challenge. My personal opinion is that the
legislation which added the words "under God" to the pledge is
unconstitutional.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1401.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: John Morse test scores
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:16:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907281919.MAA09511 lists1.best.com)
) Debra Snell asked:
)
))So what do you think of using the test scores at John Morse Waldorf school
))as a tool of measurement?
)
)Not trying to be flip but...What is it that you are trying to measure?
The success of the Waldorf program in a public setting.
) Do you have any background on the J.M.W.S. Did it used to be a high
)scoring school and now is low scoring?
John Morse Waldorf school is a magnet school, first introduced at Oak Ridge
school in Sacramento. The parents rallied and protested Oak Ridge's
conversion. Sac City Unified's board of trustees eventually relented to the
parents wishes, demagnetized Oak Ridge and moved the Waldorf program to an
unused school building. In June, JMWS finished it's second year.
Rudolf Steiner College has provided the training for public school teachers
who work in the school. This training was funded by a large federal grant
which has been a big cash cow for RSC.
How have other schools with similar start-up scenarios or transition
scenarios faired?
No idea.
Are there demographic concerns in this schools? Did the children coming
into this year have any particular dificulties? I am sure there are many
other factors that others could throw into the mix.
I don't know but I agree there are many factors to consider.
DS
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1401.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:40:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907282019.NAA20823 lists1.best.com)
)Anyone else on the list have info regarding the performance of waldorf charter
)schools on standardized tests? There must be several examples out there.
)e.g.
)the Arizona schools, the Milwaukee magnet.
I know Dan was following some test scores for the public Waldorf programs,
perhaps he still is.
Most of the graduates of our local
)waldorf school have gone on to have very successful academic careers in area
)high schools so I'd be surprised to find the Morse school results
)representative
)of all waldorf schools.
I agree that one can not make a blanket statement about all Waldorf
schools. Maybe Waldorf w/out Anthroposophy *doesn't* work. (g) (Actually,
PLANS has evidence of Anthroposophy in the Morse teacher training materials
and classroom activities.)
I'd certainly like more data to compare with my
)subjective observations and remain open minded about the possibility that I am
)wrong. (for the anti standardized test folks: relax, I understand their
)limitations and don't need a lecture)
Hopefully Dan can help out here. I see the limitations of standardized
testing, but I also see a need for a standard way to measure public
schools.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1401.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Morse Waldorf test scores
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:23:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907271638.JAA19461 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907271732.KAA29322 lists1.best.com)
)Oak Ridge student population consists of 85% english as second language
)families. I have no statistics on Morse Waldorf population since it's move,
)but I am interested in learning. Do you think Sac City Unified
)superintendent's office would have this information?
The STAR99 reports on the web split out "Limited English Proficiency"
students, those figures might tell you something.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1401.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:29:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199907271638.JAA19464 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199907272157.OAA27252 lists1.best.com)
Bob Williams, you wrote,
)Remember, I'm not convinced that the pedagogy is the essential element in
)determining the constitutionality of a program, but to continue with the
)pedagogy angle, I wonder if you would consider the idea-- hinted at in my
)musings on Stephen's post-- that teachers, especially, may be operating
)from some hybrid pedagogy that doesn't conform to every one of Steiner's (
)or Mr. Querido's) ideas. If so, what litmus test (related to Luke's idea)
)would determine for you whether the pedagogy would be considered a real
)example of "Steiner's Anthroposophical pedagogy?" How do we characterize a
)school like the one in the anecdote above that may not be following Steiner
)to the letter?
I'm sure that "not following Steiner to the letter" is the rule in both
private and public Waldorf schools. There are always some super-devotees,
though, and even among the "normal" teachers little bits of Anthroposophy
are bound to leak through in almost anyone's classroom.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1401.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:48:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) I'm sure that "not following Steiner to the letter" is the
) rule in both
) private and public Waldorf schools. There are always some
) super-devotees,
) though, and even among the "normal" teachers little bits of
) Anthroposophy
) are bound to leak through in almost anyone's classroom.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Dan,
Your comment, together with the discussion to date on these issues,
made me ponder a question, which I suppose is best posed to you?
Is it the PLANS position that Waldorf does not belong in the
particular schools which have been sued? Or that Waldorf does not belong in
public schools in general?
To answer those questions best, do you need to know specific facts
about each school?
Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1401 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1402 --------------
001 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE:education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
002 - Bob Williams (danabob she - Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1402.1 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE:education scenarios (was ped. vs cur.)
Date: 29 Jul 1999 20:36:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Steve posted:
)You may be thinking of the line in the Declaration of Independence
)that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with
)certain inalienable rights. That is a valuable document, but it's of
)no legal effect, and was written years before the Constitution.
You are correct. I was mistaken.
I thought the purpose of the D. of I. was to legitimize the (poilitical) independence movement by saying that there are rights that people have that have been bestowed upon them by a creator (which must be spiritual mumbo jumbo for some). Educating children about the goodness or the rightness of this policy (nay, even mentioning it at all) is out and out religious indoctrination and entanglement of at least the 'appearance' magnitude (to take a side i don't agree with); so it must be barred from the California school system too.
So would a lot of history on Civil and Human Rights I guess, if it were based on anything other than some scientifically provable idea. Most societal arrangements are based on nothing more than a shared belief in or striving for something. It's all religious in that light it seems.
Rambling on..
Luke
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1402.2 ---------------
From: Bob Williams (danabob shell16.ba.best.com)
Subject: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:56:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dan asked:
Please note: "nor shall any sectarian...doctrine be taught...directly or
)indirectly." Isn't "implicitly" included in "indirectly"?
Bob W. continues to ponder Dan's words:
If as a result of being male, I "express" my masculinity in the classroom,
am I indirectly teaching masculinity? If I am a Christian and in the
classroom I "express" my religion through my scripture led actions and
thoughts, am I indirectly teaching that religion? Perhaps in some sense I
am because everything that a teacher is and does is picked up by the
children, but is this what the California Constitution is referring to and
does it set up some scary ramifications?
Quoting Steiner from John Morehead's latest article on the PLANS site:
"It [religion] must permeate the teaching of every subjectäNo education can
be conducted without a religious foundation; school is an illusion
without religion."
My sense is that Steiner is saying that, no matter how objective one thinks
a curriculum is, the structure and presentation of the curriculum will
contain the seed of some world view. I tend to be sympathetic to that idea.
I believe that teachers are always teaching an attitude toward a subject.
For example there are lots of different attitudes one can inadvertantly
foster in teaching about the American Revolution-- attitudes about History
as a discipline, about national identity, about wealth and economic
justice, about regional character, about religion, etc. When we choose to
have students read from a multicultural or a "great books" canon, when we
use the exhortation "when you get a job," when we choose a poem for
students or have them read someone like John Muir, when we make a thousand
and one little choices as a teacher or school, we are in some sense
teaching a world view.
I wonder if Dan's comment "... even among the "normal" teachers little bits
of Anthroposophy are bound to leak through in almost anyone's classroom" is
linked to this idea. I also wonder at what point "world view leakage" bumps
into the CA Constitution's "No public money shall ever be appropriated for
the support of any sectarian or denominational school..."
Respectfully,
Bob Williams
P.S. John. regarding your mention of visualization as an example of New Age
penetration of public schooling, I tend to agree with Sarina's general
comments. The subsequent quotes didn't develop any specific example but
certainly suggested that you are very concerned about the topic. I might
offer that if we were seeing the success of the New Age in public ed 22
years ago (the Jack Canfield quote was from 1978), I would expect it to be
much easier to point out today after more than two decades of entrenchment.
It is easy to overestimate the progressiveness of public ed. IMO, Canfield
style New Age is much more prevalent in business and our day to day culture
(witness the success of Canfield's book "Chicken Soup for the Soul") than
it is in the curriculum of most public schools.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1402.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf "Cosmic Christ-centered"
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:11:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199907291845.LAA10128 lists1.best.com)
Bob Tolz, you asked,
) Is it the PLANS position that Waldorf does not belong in the
)particular schools which have been sued? Or that Waldorf does not belong in
)public schools in general?
It cannot be publicly funded.
) To answer those questions best, do you need to know specific facts
)about each school?
No, it's a general principle, because of the spiritual foundation of
Waldorf education. I have visited several public Waldorf schools, and they
differ tremendously, ranging from indistinguishable from a private Waldorf
school (Novato) to 90% looking like a public school (San Diego). There was
Anthroposophy in both places, though.
Monitoring a school for religious content when the teachers are being
trained by missionaries is self-defeating. How could it be done? Thought
police in the faculty meetings? Informers? Ridiculous.
School boards have decided to trust Rudolf Steiner College and the charter
faculties to mind the Constitution. This, as it has turned out, is
impractical. You can't trust Waldorf teachers to keep Anthroposophy out of
the classroom because they honestly don't know what it is they're teaching.
In Goethean Science, for example, a teacher following the common handbooks
will introduce the Anthroposophical world-view.
Think about a Catholic-inspired charter school. You take all the pedagogy
and curriculum from a happy and high-performing Catholic school, and just
replace the Catholic stuff with neutral material. It could work. But what
if most of the people who applied to be teachers were priests or nuns?
People who'd committed their lives to a Catholic spiritual path? Would they
keep Catholicism out of the classroom? There would be places like in
history where it would tend to leak.
The Waldorf situation is similar to the "nuns and priests" analogy because
of the special Waldorf training. Teachers in a Catholic school don't have
to take any special Catholic courses to teach there. Imagine if a fully
qualified Catholic school teachera had to take a "foundation year" of
Catholic theology in preparation for a second year of Catholic teacher
training!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1402 ---------------