Waldorf/Steiner Schools

February 7, 2007 6:04 AM

Waldorf/Steiner schools - good, bad or ugly? Any personal experiences with this type of school that you can share would be very much appreciated!

I've been dating someone who is going to be transitioning to become a teacher in one of these schools. His training is completed and he should be starting teaching next fall. If things get serious with this guy, and it's looking as though they might, this school is going to be a part of my life as well. Many people in his social circle send their children to this school and consider themselves "anthroposophists." If this guy and I have children he would certainly expect them to attend a Steiner school.

I've been doing research on Rudolf Steiner and on Waldorf/Steiner schools and trying to learn as much as I can, but the information I'm getting is mixed. Anything you can share with me would be greatly appreciated!

posted by hazyjane to education (18 comments total)

I've been to one of their schools for 3 years, and so have a lot of people I know. You'll get a lot of different opinions, mainly because the anthroposophic/waldorf/etc movement is quite pluralistic. It ranges from friendly treehuggers to rabid sectarians to individualistic anarchists to conservative christians. It depends a lot on the school and the local community itself, at least it's that way in Germany.

Relationship-wise, if you're a convinced atheist, you and your date will have some rather interesting discussions. I'd try to talk about it, to find out more about where he is in the spectrum.
posted by dhoe at 6:45 AM on February 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

There was a FPP about Waldorf/Steiner schools a couple of years ago. I commented twice there and don't have a lot more to add here. If you have more specific questions, I'll try to respond.

It's true, where the school is will matter somewhat, and I can really only speak about one in Massachusetts (I attended K-2 through 8th grade).

If I have children with someone amenable to Waldorf, I'll probably send my kids there. (And I'm agnostic.) I found Waldorf people to be hippies with a twist for the most part, although there was portion of the parents who were mostly just interested in sending their kids to a private school. One thing I liked about my school was how many European students who were in the US for a few years attended. Parents tended to be very wholesome, at least that's how they seemed to me growing up.
posted by Amizu at 7:09 AM on February 7, 2007

My partner is 'a Steiner' (i.e. a product of one of his schools) and she has very clearly benefited from the Rudy teaching style and content. As I had more conventional schooling, we're continually coming across differences, in terms of knowledge and method of learning and indeed 'being' - which I gather is an anthroposophical concept in itself.

My partner is artistic (though not necessarily in the oil and canvas sense), very thoughtful in her attitudes, politically engaged and aware and much more in tune with the seasons and "nature" than I am. Though she nor other Steiners I know seem to have the (standard in the UK) dates and history of Greek Myth, Romans, Tudors, Industrial Revolution, WWII (because they weren't subject to the national curriculum) they get have their own not so much version but form of UK/world history.

I would say there are benefits to the Steiner system and would consider it for my children. Yes there are crazy parents (and crazy children), but I've met some of the wisest and most humane people I know through it.

Of course, each school is going to be different and schools in the UK differ markedly from schools in Germany and very much from US schools.

Another thing which is different is that mostly a teacher stays with a class from kindergarten up to leaving time, so has a much longer time to leave an impression (good or bad) on a child. In my experience, Steiner children are also taught to read/write at a later age as it is thought damaging/unnecessary to teach it as early as 4/5. This can mean that Steiner spelling/grammar may be erratic and colourful while that of the conventionally educated has stablised. It seems to come right in the end, in a kind of sudden snap!
posted by dance at 7:22 AM on February 7, 2007

My brother went to a Waldorf school for a while. My impression was that the school was goofy, but fine. They didn't allow kids to wear T-shirts with logos, because it was too commercial. They required no shoes indoors, but before kids went outside they had to put on shoes "to stay grounded, so they wouldn't get lost in the sky." And there was some strange dancing that was part of the curriculum. The kids learned academic stuff, though. It seemed like a nurturing environment that would really benefit some kids.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:36 AM on February 7, 2007

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious about the concept of Steiner school children not being taught to read early. What happens when a child spontaneously learns (as I did at two, so I could read the TV listings)? Do they have to hide the skill, or are they punished for reading? The nature worship sounds appealing, but life without the written word would be a very lonely place for a kid.
posted by Scram at 7:42 AM on February 7, 2007

As scram says, they are not big on early reading or technology. No computers in the classroom until grade 6?
posted by mattbucher at 7:50 AM on February 7, 2007

This article matches my own experiences pretty closely.
posted by Olli at 8:19 AM on February 7, 2007

strange dancing = eurythmy. The bane of my existence at Waldorf. People who love yoga would possibly like it. I thought it was weird and boring.

Scram - re: early readers - I actually don't remember anyone who could read in my class. I'm SURE they would not have to hide the skill or be punished for knowing how to read. The philosophy doesn't say it's bad to be able to read earlier than about 7, the philosophy says that it's bad to force that on children before they're ready (generally speaking) to be subjected to learning reading. Waldorf is generally about creating a nurturing space for children to grow, so punishing someone for reading would be very much against that idea. I am a quick learner and I'm not sure why I didn't learn until Waldorf taught us, but once they taught it I learned right away. (And am now a lawyer & amateur writer and AVID reader, so I don't believe learning at 7 held me back at all.) Steiner/Waldorf is against rushing children into tests and stress and pressure, and is for letting children play and relax until at least 1st grade. You were ready to read at 2, but most children aren't, and requiring reading too early is considered unhelpful in Steiner/Waldorf philosophy.
posted by Amizu at 8:30 AM on February 7, 2007

My friend found the Waldorf school he sent his kids to all too casual about the learning disability of one of his sons. He pulled them all out of the program, and his son, who was the only kid in his class not reading at Waldorf, is now slowly catching up to his peers with the benefit of some special attention.

It's my impression that, in some circles at least, Waldorf schools are more likely to have kids who are unvaccinated against childhood illnesses.
posted by Good Brain at 8:54 AM on February 7, 2007

Amizu, thanks for the thoughtful and interesting reply.
posted by Scram at 8:55 AM on February 7, 2007

The argument against early reading in general is one of two things. Argument one is that pushing kids to do things early is "not developmentally appropriate" (oh how I hate that phrase) and will ultimately turn them off of learning. I'm not sure how that works, inasmuch as early readers quickly discover that books are fun.

Argument two is that "their eyes are not developed enough yet to tell the subtle difference between characters like b, d, and p." This argument assumes that the problem small kids have with these figures is not caused by teachers who fail to point out the ways that they are different. At least one researcher has debunked the eyesight theory (see page 64 and 65).

I apologize for the fact that these are not Steiner/Waldorf specific reasons.
posted by ilsa at 8:58 AM on February 7, 2007

I was a Montessori/Steiner kid, and I'd send my children to similar schools. It's a little like the liberal arts ideal with a healthy dose of applied developmental psychology--we learned how to learn. I learned a lot about community, personal responsibility, and active intellectual development at those schools. I didn't learn a lot of discipline, and sometimes struggle to complete tasks on time as an adult. Still, I think it was a very valuable way to learn, since it didn't differentiate between "school learning" and "life learning." Everything was a lesson.

My schools weren't super-adherent to the Steiner method; it was more a loose interpretation of those values and educational goals. I've heard that some of the stricter schools are a little much to take, so it's good that you're both doing your research.

Overall, I thought these communities were warm and welcoming, and our teachers were incredibly passionate about our lives and our abilities. I think it would be very fulfilling to teach in a Waldorf or Steiner school.
posted by hamster at 9:09 AM on February 7, 2007

Thanks very much to everyone who has responded so far. The eurythmy thing kind of reminds me of that youtube video that was posted a few days / weeks ago, In My Language, in that both are interacting with the outside world and conveying their communications through movement and sound. Does anyone who is familiar with both agree?
posted by hazyjane at 9:59 AM on February 7, 2007

In talking with a friend's 12 year old son who had only ever attended a Steiner school, I used the word evolution. He said, "What's that? Is that, like, where things go around and around-- oh, no, that's revolution, what's evolution?"

So I'd say it all depends on how you would interpret that little scene.

Another friend of mine who attended a Steiner school K-12 and is currently taking classes at a Community College says would have gotten more out of it if she was artistic. She really struggled with an Intro to Biology class and expressed regret that she hadn't even touched a microscope before then.

Of course, I can't speak for every school or child.
posted by bobobox at 10:25 AM on February 7, 2007

we have a waldorf school around here, it is very popular with my peer group in that most of the kids go there and many of the adults teach there. i was considering becoming a teaching assistant, and here were my thoughts after i looked into it:

personally, i LOVE the multiculturalism, nature emphasis, spiritual aspects, and integration of a variety of things from dancing to needlework and building into the curriculum.

but there are some weird things about it, particularly all the rules. it seems that steiner, many years ago, had some interesting ideas and started a school. now absolutely everything has to be the way it was at his school. the rules include things like female teachers must wear skirts, which is almost enough by itself to send me running in the opposite direction. i can't remember a lot of other specific, but they are tiny little things about exactly how everyone must behave that are in many ways more demanding of conformity than public schools. oh, here's one-- they do a lot of craft projects, but the teacher models how to do the project and the kids are supposed to try to copy the teacher exactly. all the time, from what i gather, with no efforts to develop creativity.

some of those things may vary from school to school, of course. and i hope they do, because it's probably one of the best options around here, but it freaks me out.
posted by lgyre at 10:57 AM on February 7, 2007

Personal experience with four children going through a Waldorf: it all depends on the teacher-child relationship. That is, because the teacher stays with the class, when a child and twacher don't get along it's very hard for both; when they do work well together then it's a wonderful journey for both.

Almost none of the parents I've met have been anthroposophists -- they've ranged from strongly religious to committed atheist. I appreciate the thoughtfully spiritual and moral view the system has.

Ditto comments above on the lack of science experience, but again it depends on the teacher (and child of course): some kids got enough science, others not enough. Art was great for all.

The one thing I've regretted is that each class is treated as an individual age-group and the age-groups rarely mix. At other schools our kids mixed ages much better. I think this a Steiner-philoshophy issue, seeing each stage of development as somewhat self-contained.
posted by anadem at 10:57 AM on February 7, 2007

Our child attended a Waldorf preschool for toddlers (he was 2 at the time), and although our experience was positive I'm not sure how I would feel about sending him to a Waldorf school for primary education. The school's focus on storytelling and grounded, earthy things was refreshing. And it's hard to find fault with their avoidance of mass media and consumer culture. But on the other hand there is a dogmatic insulation from any potential discord that worries me. One afternoon I attended a music hour with the toddlers, and all the instruments -- hand made, wooden of course -- played only pentatonic notes (black keys, wind chimes). I am a musician and asked the instructor about this, and she told me that at this age soothing music is appropriate and that's why the instruments play only those notes. My feeling is that the range of musical experience the children were allowed to explore was so limited that you might never discover that your child has extraordinary aptitude.

I also have a friend who was an instructor at the same school and her son attended the school. Her son is dislexic, but she didn't discover this until grade four or something. That's awfully late to discover your kid can't read. He's older now, but not only is he behind the Waldorf children who started reading late, he's waaaay behind non-Waldorf kids who have been reading since age four.
posted by ldenneau at 11:05 AM on February 7, 2007

I look into the world, in which the sun is shining..wait, sorry.

I went to a Waldorf school, and my experience was primarily positive, but I do think it's very important to avoid painting with too broad a brush. Different schools are run in massively different ways, just as any other school. Like any other technique/philosophy there are some good places/people, some nutjobs, and a vast majority that lie somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

As I see it, Waldorf schools (and by that I really mean the one I went to) are very good if what your child needs is personalized attention and a well-rounded education. Class sizes are uniformly tiny (my class graduated 11) which makes for a very family-like interaction inside the grade, teachers are well acquainted with every student in the school, and slipping through the cracks is difficult.

The part about my time there that I find most compelling looking back was the broadness of the subjects that we covered. I know far more about Faust, Russian literature and art history than I ever would have had I been able to choose which classes to take. Math was so-so. Not to say that I didn't learn it, but it wasn't quite the same as my friends' experiences in, say, Stuyvesant.

Another little snippet that I didn't find amazing at the time was the sheer amount of science they crammed into that curriculum. We had so much hands-on lab time (being a tiny class and all) that I now realize is exceptionally rare.

Are there silly bits? Sure. The morning verse is very strange the first year or so, ditto Eurythmy. Main lesson books are a difficult concept to get across to your friends who are in more conventional programs. The popular culture massive highschool, prom, football team, big hallways image (e.g. Veronica Mars, Buffy) is still an alien thing to me, my entire school would have been outnumbered by the cheerleaders at one of those schools.

Likewise, some of my schoolmates had never been vaccinated, which I thought was strange at the time and worrying now. We certainly covered evolution, but again I have a sample size of one.

I'll stop rambling now, but I'm easily provoked into further verbal diarrhea so be careful.
posted by Skorgu at 12:53 PM on February 7, 2007