• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Waldorf school

Bulloney.

I spend quality time with my buddy and his children. Every year for the last seven we have gone back packing in the summer. Last year we went to Baxter State Park and I told him his children were putting me at risk by not being vaccinated. Mumps, wooping cough, scarlet fever, whatever you can be vaccinated against I want your children to be vaccinated against.

Waldorf is woo.

I see, so you do like to get stuck on causal links between woo and phenomena.
You just don't like to examine these links critically before dismissing the phenomena.
Why not a lower incidence of allergies because Waldorf children spend more time outdoors from a young age (see your friends kids) being exposed to allergens which helps prime their immune system.
As some have noted on this thread Waldorf parents tend to be more involved with there children and from my experience as a parent sitting in front of a TV or video game does not qualify. One inevitably ends up spending more time outdoors.
BINGO. No anti-vax woo link required.
 
It seems to me that this discussion has hit on one of the major problems for the skeptic: how do we react when invalid reasoning leads to correct conclusions? It seems perfectly clear to me that the reasoning behind the Waldorf approach is deeply flawed. However, given that this approach exists, it's reasonable to assess the evidence for and against it as a teaching methodology. And, as at least one poster has pointed out, the evidence indicates that the Waldorf approach has measurable benefits, and suggests that it's generally a good approach. The problem is that pseudoscience is not necessarily wrong; it may be right for the wrong reasons.

A psychic can make a lucky guess about where the body is hidden in a murder enquiry. It's perfectly reasonable to attack the method of the psychic, and to demonstrate by studying past performance that the approach is no better than guesswork. It's insane, though, to insist that the body was not found where it actually was found, on the grounds that the methodology was incorrect.

The impression I'm getting from this thread and from the little related reading I've done on Waldorf schools is that they work well, possibly because of the approach they use and possibly due to the higher socio-economic status and level of involvement in their children of the parents involved. If the evidence says they work well, then go with the evidence, and at the same time maybe look into why they work well. If that's a different reason to the one their creator rationalised, then we've learned something useful. In the meantime, some children have been given a good education. That, it seems to me, is the way a reasonable skeptic should proceed.

Dave
 
It seems to me that this discussion has hit on one of the major problems for the skeptic: how do we react when invalid reasoning leads to correct conclusions? It seems perfectly clear to me that the reasoning behind the Waldorf approach is deeply flawed. However, given that this approach exists, it's reasonable to assess the evidence for and against it as a teaching methodology. And, as at least one poster has pointed out, the evidence indicates that the Waldorf approach has measurable benefits, and suggests that it's generally a good approach. The problem is that pseudoscience is not necessarily wrong; it may be right for the wrong reasons.

A psychic can make a lucky guess about where the body is hidden in a murder enquiry. It's perfectly reasonable to attack the method of the psychic, and to demonstrate by studying past performance that the approach is no better than guesswork. It's insane, though, to insist that the body was not found where it actually was found, on the grounds that the methodology was incorrect.

The impression I'm getting from this thread and from the little related reading I've done on Waldorf schools is that they work well, possibly because of the approach they use and possibly due to the higher socio-economic status and level of involvement in their children of the parents involved. If the evidence says they work well, then go with the evidence, and at the same time maybe look into why they work well. If that's a different reason to the one their creator rationalised, then we've learned something useful. In the meantime, some children have been given a good education. That, it seems to me, is the way a reasonable skeptic should proceed.

Dave

Nice post
 
thanks for this topic, another of my prejudice is gone.

i always belived Waldorf schools are total woo and i always have been told that too, and the few people i knew they attended such a school didnt impress me at all.

but after actually reading about it, i learned they perform above average.
 
There is much woo to Waldorf schools and the basis in anthroposophy are frankly, frightening and heavily racist. They, of course deny this and have their talking points to deflect attention from this nasty little fact but Steiner was a racist whackaloon nonetheless.

Este
 
There is much woo to Waldorf schools and the basis in anthroposophy are frankly, frightening and heavily racist. They, of course deny this and have their talking points to deflect attention from this nasty little fact but Steiner was a racist whackaloon nonetheless.

Este

evidence?
 
evidence?
You can start here and I will be back with some of his direct quotes. Waldorf or Steiner-educated teachers are indoctrinated with this rubbish. Not a system that I would care to support in spite of the pretty toys and eschewing of television.

Este
 
Estellea,
The reason I dislike "woo" is because it doesn't actually work.
Homeopathy doesn't work.
Prayer for healing doesn't work.
Dowsing doesn't work.

But when something works for my purposes, I don't care what the people who made it think.

Trappist monks driven by a belief in a God make jam.
While their background is silly, their product works very well as a tasty thing to put on toast.

Dr. Bronner makes soap based on a number of insane theories.
It works very well as soap, it smells nice and leaves me feeling tingly clean.

Waldorf schools, in every independent test, do work much better than public schools. Single programs with the same kids and parents show marked improvement when switching to Waldorf methods.

You could say there's a secondary concern, that since children are involved, there's a danger of indoctrination into non-critical thinking and woo-ish ideas, but even the critics maintain that the background philosophy is not taught to the students.

So aside from the notion of the "taint of woo" what is your practical, measurable problem with these schools? I mean, if a background of woo were enough to dismiss something entirely, I'd have to discount everything intelligent said by a Christian, and that would be silly.
 
Last edited:
You can start here and I will be back with some of his direct quotes. Waldorf or Steiner-educated teachers are indoctrinated with this rubbish. Not a system that I would care to support in spite of the pretty toys and eschewing of television.

Este

darn, you made me read those 3 pages, and what is the evidence in there?
nothing, just more claims about him beeing a racist.
 
You can start here and I will be back with some of his direct quotes. Waldorf or Steiner-educated teachers are indoctrinated with this rubbish. Not a system that I would care to support in spite of the pretty toys and eschewing of television.

Este

from your link
This story has been corrected and clarified since it was originally published.
I wonder why.
 
Estellea,
The reason I dislike "woo" is because it doesn't actually work.
Homeopathy doesn't work.
Prayer for healing doesn't work.
Dowsing doesn't work.

But when something works for my purposes, I don't care what the people who made it think.

Trappist monks driven by a belief in a God make jam.
While their background is silly, their product works very well as a tasty thing to put on toast.

Dr. Bronner makes soap based on a number of insane theories.
It works very well as soap, it smells nice and leaves me feeling tingly clean.
So it doesn't matter that instructors are indoctrinated with the belief that blacks are sub-human, Aryans are the epitome of human existence and special needs children are not even human? Not to mention the obsession with woolies and discouraging of vaccinations because it makes you a better human and if you die or become permanently damaged as a result of disease, well, that's supposed to happen: http://www.openwaldorf.com/health.html Are you aware that EU Steiner Schools are hotbeds for diseases that spread to other communities, particularly measles?

Waldorf schools, in every independent test, do work much better than public schools. Single programs with the same kids and parents show marked improvement when switching to Waldorf methods.
So can you say that once parental socio-economic status, educational levels and involvement are controlled for, that Waldorf schooling is significantly better than other private school options? Is that true for all public schools in a comparison?

You could say there's a secondary concern, that since children are involved, there's a danger of indoctrination into non-critical thinking and woo-ish ideas, but even the critics maintain that the background philosophy is not taught to the students.
Oh, so again, instructors aren't treating children any differently even though they are being instructed with racist propaganda? You know that the children are also not being indoctrinated to woo by being treated with homeopathy and herbal remedies? Oh, of course, one can opt out of that part, sometimes.

Here one of the pioneering organizations in South Africa for adult education in disadvantaged communities.

http://www.novalis.org.za/about/mission

Wonder how this is based on racist Steiner :rolleyes:
I'm not sure what this has to do with Waldorf.

Yeah, check out the racist Waldorf schools in South Africa

http://www.maxstibbe.co.za/gallery.htm
Are you that naive? Just because they have some black children in their classes, Steiner-educated instructors are magically not taught heinous racism? He does allow for the possibility that blacks can 'evolve' into 'higher beings' such as Aryans though. :rolleyes:

thanks, that was an interesting read.
And hardly an independent source. Let's take a look at some of Steiner's beliefs that are still being used today.

Those decadent, icky French are race-mixing and it's going to make them even more decadent and WEAK:

"No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." (Steiner, 1923, CT-3 pp. 87-88)

Special Needs Children? Why they're just little demons masquerading as humans:

"The girl L.K. in class 1...is one of those cases that are occurring more and more frequently where children are born and human forms exist which actually, with regard to the highest member the ego, are not human at all but are inhabited by beings who do not belong to the human race...They are very different from human beings where spiritual matters are concerned. For instance they can never memorise sentences, only words. I do not like speaking about these things, as there is considerable opposition about this. Just imagine what people would say if they heard that we are talking about human beings who are not human beings. Nevertheless these are facts. Furthermore, there would not be such a decline of culture if there were a strong enough feeling for the fact that some people, the ones who are particularly ruthless, are not human beings at all but demons in human form.

"But do not let us broadcast this. There is enough opposition already. Things like this give people a terrible shock. People were frightfully shocked when I had to say that a quite famous university professor with a great reputation had had a very short period between death and re-birth and was a re-incarnated negro scientist.
"But don"t let us publicise these things." (Steiner, 1923, CT-4 pp. 36-37)


But shhhhh, let's not say these things out loud lest people think we're weird or something.

The Steiner apartheid values are still being taught in Europe and could be in the U.S. so in spite of his nifty childhood development and educational ideas, his core ideals are deeply rooted in racism against all but Aryans and these instructors are teaching children in Waldorf schools. Until Waldorf openly rejects Steiner's core beliefs and moves to distance themselves from that, I will never support their educational philosophy.

Este
 
So it doesn't matter that instructors are indoctrinated with the belief that blacks are sub-human, Aryans are the epitome of human existence and special needs children are not even human?

You're going to have to point me to the teacher's instruction handbook that contains that. Steiner himself may have had some crazy views, but I have no reason to believe that teacher are obligated to embrace everything he said. Blind hero worship seems antithetical to the Steiner model. And it contradicts their official position.

Taken from the wikipedia article:
The Anthroposophical Society in America has stated:
We explicitly reject any racial theory that may be construed to be part of Rudolf Steiner's writings. The Anthroposophical Society in America is an open, public society and it rejects any purported spiritual or scientific theory on the basis of which the alleged superiority of one race is justified at the expense of another race.


Not to mention the obsession with woolies and discouraging of vaccinations because it makes you a better human and if you die or become permanently damaged as a result of disease, well, that's supposed to happen: http://www.openwaldorf.com/health.html Are you aware that EU Steiner Schools are hotbeds for diseases that spread to other communities, particularly measles?

From your link:
Waldorf's official position on immunization is that there is no official Waldorf position on immunization. Instead, Waldorf says that immunization should be informed by medical professionals, and ultimately parents should decide whether or not to immunize their own children.

As for the "hotbeds of disease", you'll need to provide a link to a published study. All I can find when searching for Steiner School and Disease are studies showing a reduction in allergic outbreaks.

So can you say that once parental socio-economic status, educational levels and involvement are controlled for, that Waldorf schooling is significantly better than other private school options? Is that true for all public schools in a comparison?

I'm not sure if it's significantly "better" than all other private school options. It probably isn't. I never said it was the best option, but from an educational and personal development viewpoint, it seems to be a very good option.

Oh, so again, instructors aren't treating children any differently even though they are being instructed with racist propaganda? You know that the children are also not being indoctrinated to woo by being treated with homeopathy and herbal remedies? Oh, of course, one can opt out of that part, sometimes.

I suppose the burden is on you to show that they are being indoctrinated into something. I'm open to evidence, but all accounts I've seen, from even critics seem to say that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
Estellea, I suppose the fact that I have been living with a coloured for the past 18 years and we have two children which we plan on sending to a Waldorf school means nothing to you.
 
You're going to have to point me to the teacher's instruction handbook that contains that. Steiner himself may have had some crazy views, but I have no reason to believe that teacher are obligated to embrace everything he said. Blind hero worship seems antithetical to the Steiner model. And it contradicts their official position.

Taken from the wikipedia article:
The Anthroposophical Society in America has stated:
We explicitly reject any racial theory that may be construed to be part of Rudolf Steiner's writings. The Anthroposophical Society in America is an open, public society and it rejects any purported spiritual or scientific theory on the basis of which the alleged superiority of one race is justified at the expense of another race.
Oh please, Wiki can be useful for certain things but certainly not this. Did you read any of the Anthroposophy entry? It is a stunning example of denialism and double-speak. There is no denying what Steiner's philosophy was and they are still pretending or trying to lead you to believe that there are just some meanies out there that are attempting to misconstrue Steiner's clearly racist, apartheid beliefs.

Here is a list of some required readings for Waldorf instructors and is by no means, exhaustive.
http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-History-Civilizations-Babylonia-Cultural/dp/B0017QPQF0

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA010/English/GA010_index.html

http://www.amazon.com/Health-Illness-German-Rudolf-Steiner/dp/0880100206

http://www.amazon.com/Theosophy-Introduction-Supersensible-Knowledge-Destination/dp/1564598063

Steiner’s HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS
http://tinyurl.com/yc9n9o9

Rudolf Steiner, FROM BEETROOT TO BUDDHISM
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/fbtbrvw.htm

Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Spirits-Selected-Rudolf-Steiner/dp/1855840189

Rudolf Steiner, UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN BEING
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Human-Being-Selected-Writings/dp/1855840057

Rudolf Steiner, ROSICRUCIAN WISDOM
http://www.amazon.com/Rosicrucian-Wisdom-Rudolf-Steiner/dp/1855840634

Anthroposophy" by Steiner
http://tinyurl.com/ydgrxty

The fact that instructors would read these and not walk away, at best, they are tacitly accepting Steiner's philosophy and are too morally impaired to object and at worst, are wholly embracing it. In either event, I wouldn't want them in charge of a large part of my children's lives.


From your link:
Waldorf's official position on immunization is that there is no official Waldorf position on immunization. Instead, Waldorf says that immunization should be informed by medical professionals, and ultimately parents should decide whether or not to immunize their own children.
Oh come now, you're cherry-picking. How about:
Typically Waldorf schools do not encourage parents to immunize their children against the following diseases.

* Hepatitis B
* Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis
* Tetanus and Diphtheria
* Haemophilus influenzae Type b
* Inactivated Polio
* Measles, Mumps, Rubella
* Varicella
* Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV)
And, of course, you needn't be concerned if your child dies from disease, IT WAS MEANT TO BE:
Serious complications in childhood illness which produce permanent damage or even death are probably deeply founded in the destiny of the person concerned.

As for the "hotbeds of disease", you'll need to provide a link to a published study. All I can find when searching for Steiner School and Disease are studies showing a reduction in allergic outbreaks.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=8043

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=2098

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/04/austrian_anthroposophy_waldorf.php

http://jech.bmj.com/content/55/9/685.extract

http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/0804_MIR_Measles_Outbreak_in_Austria.pdf

Children that are exposed to a repertoire of antigens are less prone to allergic and autoimmune disease, e.g. the hygiene hypothesis, so this observation is not exclusive to anthroposophic communities.
I'm not sure if it's significantly "better" than all other private school options. It probably isn't. I never said it was the best option, but from an educational and personal development viewpoint, it seems to be a very good option.
If you don't mind your children being taught by bigots or morally-devoid instructors, I guess so. Me, there are other educational options that aren't steeped in controversy that will provide excellent opportunities for child development.

I suppose the burden is on you to show that they are being indoctrinated into something. I'm open to evidence, but all accounts I've seen, from even critics seem to say that's not the case.
See my above list of teacher materials, at the very least, instructors don't see all students as equal depending upon their race. How can that not pervade the way they teach and interact with students even if the students themselves aren't being indoctrinated?

Este
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom