From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 This is an archive of past discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project 2 Introduction 2.1 Discussion 2.2 Page structure (headings) 3 Fact Disputes 3.1 Sep 1 3.1.1 Cit. needed 3.1.2 Cits. proposed 4 Criticism section 4.1 Proposed Starting Place 4.2 Wording of Introduction 5 The Temperaments 6 Link Wars 7 Slow Down, Please and let's proceed carefully 8 Consultation Stage 9 Self-published external links proposal 9.1 Revised 9.1.1 Voting for Links Proposal 10 Proposal for Structure 10.1 Voting for Sttructure 11 Archived Discussion for Links Proposal and Project Structure Proposal

[edit] This is an archive of past discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project

[edit] Introduction

Let's begin discussion of the introduction section Wonderactivist 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Well, I guess somebody has to go first. Here is how I would edit the existing introduction:

"Waldorf education (also called Steiner education) is a worldwide school system based on the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual philosophy, Anthroposophy. Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development, which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit.[1] Its curriculum focuses on the arts, spiritual values and integrated learning. The typical Waldorf school is described as the school of the head, heart and hands.[2]

Waldorf education is practiced in Waldorf schools, homeschools, and special education environments. There are now close to 900 established Waldorf schools located in about sixty different countries throughout the world, as well as many younger initiatives, making this one of the largest independent school systems in the world."

I have tried to be sensitive to what is already there. I removed the word "movement" because it really isn't moving anywhere - the number of schools, despite inflated claims has really remained constant for the past 10 years at least and has only increased slightly in the past 20 years. The true number, according to my best information is about 865. If someone can confirm an accurate number that would be great. In any case "movement" sounds like brochure material and we don't want this to sound like a fluff piece. I've removed the "non-denominational" characterization as this is heavily contested and changed the copy to say "one of the largest" because I'm pretty sure Catholic and Christian schools are going to be up there once the non-denominational label is removed. I removed the word "science" and replaced it with "philosophy". I understand that Steiner called Anthroposophy "spiritual science" but if we are going to use that term it should be more clear in this introduction that it was Steiner's term. We could word it "and which grew out of his spiritual philosophy, Anthroposophy, Steiner's term for spiritual science." But then that would be clumsy and wouldn't be completely accurate either as he didn't coin the term. --Pete K 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also happy to participate in the project. I would take issue with the phrase "completely revamping", however. I believe that the article needs adjustment in its weighting of various aspects of the education, sub-articles continue to need to be established and general improvements could be made - all on the basis of the existing work. I am open to being convinced that more fundamental change is needed, however.

The number of schools is actually climbing quite rapidly; in Eastern Europe alone, there are 89 more schools now than there were in 1989 (when no schools existed because of Communist suppression). In Germany, the number has risen from 118 (1989) to 174. In the USA there has also been considerable increase over these years. There were as of March, 2006 921 schools in total world-wide; see this complete list; note that this does not include young initiatives that have not yet been accredited as Waldorf schools - at least 100 world-wide, probably more.

It is a movement in the sense also that it has manifold waves; there are the charter and public schools (not counted in the above numbers), there are teachers working within public and other private schools on the basis of Waldorf education.

How about which grew out of his spiritual philosophy Anthroposophy, or "spiritual science". The link to the article on spiritual science explains the use of this term by him and others of his time.

I'm looking forward to the cooperation! Hgilbert 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I should add: the existing introduction is more accurate, but the phrasing of the anthroposophy/spiritual science/spiritual philosophy section could be tweaked, though all three terms are clearly relevant and helpful and should probably appear somehow.

Hgilbert 04:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan. I was going to try to come back here and recommend simply putting "spiritual science" in quotes but my day has been busy. The quotes are fine with me. Yes, I understand that schools are being added, but schools are also closing - especially these initiatives of which you speak. Even long-established schools close. If we could get an accurate count of the schools it would help us to be accurate. I've only started hearing the 1000 number over the past couple of months. I suspect somebody just figures enough time has gone by and they add another hundred to the count. I think in these types of areas, it is incumbent on us to do a little research. I'll look at your list in a minute. Regarding the "movement" issue, I'm not convinced that this isn't fluff language. Yes, there are lots of things interesting to Waldorf people going on, but are we not giving the impression that it is suddenly gaining momentum by using this language? And should we be giving impressions like these in this article? I suppose we could always just say Waldorf "movement" (in quotes). --Pete K 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the page you quoted says 921. Can we agree on wording "over 900"? --Pete K 05:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I guess I had a very different vision of what a page about Waldorf ed would start with. According to Wikipedia: Guide to layout the opening should be like this

"Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject. Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included. Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere. In addition the colored highlighting of the links may mislead some users into thinking these are especially important points."

To me, in an article about Waldorf ed, the first paragraph is about Waldorf education - what is it and what are its major accomplishments. I'm not convinced yet that a number of schools is needed here - and certainly we don't need to argue about a number.

What really IS Waldorf education (not Waldorf schools because this article is broader than just schools). To me, going from your work:

"Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development." and then "Its curriculum focuses on the arts, spiritual values and integrated learning." Then to paraphrase, 'It is often characterized an education of the "head, heart, and hands."'

So first, we would say what it IS. Then in later sections we can talk about where it came from, about the schools and how many, and about its basis in anthroposophy. But Waldorf ed is not anthroposophy and many Waldorf educators do not follow anthroposophy, so it just doesn't go up here in paragraph 1.

In the second paragraph, I think we should say it was started by Steiner and when, out of his work in the spiritual philosophy, anthroposophy. We can include that it is practiced in school around the world, special education environments, and homeschools. Incarnation possibly belongs in the article on anthroposophy...or maybe in the section where we talk about stages of development. But we can talk about that later - for now, we need to agree on what Waldorf education is. <smile>

Just a small task - huh? Wonderactivist 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comments, I'll immediately change the word "revamping" to "updating." Sorry for the offense, and thanks for saying something. Wonderactivist 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good idea. The page is currently a battleground and seems to be heading downhill instead of getting better, . Ibyrnison 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we don't want to mention anything about cults in the opening part right? (just trying to keep this light - not serious). I agree that Anthroposophy doesn't necessarily belong in paragraph 1, but disagree with the statement "But Waldorf ed is not anthroposophy and many Waldorf educators do not follow anthroposophy" - as I'm quite sure this is not the case. To me, it would be like saying "Cathlic education is not Catholicism and many Catholic school teachers do not follow Catholicism". But I may be putting the cart before the horse. Let's stick with the topic at hand - paragraph 1. I agree with Wonderactivist's comments here - 1st paragraph sounds good. I don't know what "spiritual values" would mean to someone reading this, probably something different to each reader. "Spiritual themes" might be easier to grasp and would be closer to the truth. --Pete K 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see we have for the introduction:

• essence of educational approach. (Head/heart/hands, more particularly practical/physical, artistic/social, academic/conceptual, also as manifested in the phases of education)
• background in anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner as founder; possibly the spiritual background of its ideas of child development (body/soul/spirit, reincarnating child, anything else relevant)
• variety of provisions (home-schooling, special schools, etc.), scale of school movement and world-wide nature

What else needs to be there? Hgilbert 11:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good, but in the introduction I would not go into lengthy detail about the child development philosophy. This should be elaborated upon later in the article, the introduction should give broad overview. The private Waldorf schools are nondenominational and nonsectarian, but this info may belong in the "school" subsection, since the article addresses homeschools and Waldorf-method schools also. I think the introduction should describe what ages the education applies to, since this is a common question brought by people comparing Waldorf to Montessori and other alternative educations. The language regarding spiritual science is confusing. Could it be changed to say something like "based on the educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and further developed from a theoretical system Steiner termed spiritual science, or Anthroposophy"? Ibyrnison 14:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-denominational, nonsectarian? Waldorf is based in Anthroposophy which is based in esoteric Christianity. There's nothing non-denominational or nonsectarian about Waldorf. Waldorf schools are religious schools. It's nice that they think of themselves as non-denominational, but that's not the case at all. How can the non-denominational, nonsectarian claim be supported when there is a pending court case to determine exactly this? And that case is referring to the *public* Waldorf schools. The private Waldorf schools are even more religious. Let's not start the article off by obfuscating the truth, shall we? --Pete K 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only court case I'm aware of has been decided. Some (you?) would like to see the decision overturned, but as it is now, the decision holds. Obviously this is an area which some dispute, and this dispute was described in the article, though you may like to see some revision of that section. But organizations such as Young Mens Christian Association (YMCA) are also nonsectarian, as are many Carden Schools, which describe themselves as "nonsectarian Christian". Wikipedia has an article about "nondenominational Christianity", so it's not at all out-of-the-ordinary in that respect. If Waldorf schools have a particular style of religious teaching or practice, that probably should be described in the article.Ibyrnison 16:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - it should be described in the article, and that the non-denominational, nonsectarian stuff be moved to that section as well. It is a characterization that is incorrect and misleading - so it shouldn't be applied in the opening sentences of the article and then refuted elsewhere. --Pete K 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf schools are not associated with any religious denomination. They teach a wide variety of religious content drawn from many, many cultures and religions. It is true that in Egypt Muslim content from the culture comes in strongly, while in Israel Jewish content does so, and in majority-Christian countries Christian content does so. They remain nondenominational and nonsectarian.

In any case, remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." (from WP:Verifiability) Hgilbert 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"In any case, remember that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Yes, I see this is going to work to your advantage here. Waldorf schools, which are Anthroposophical schools are Christian based because Anthroposophy is based on Christianity. Their denomination is Christian. To deny this is dishonest. There are Anthroposophical churches called Christian Community churches. My daughter was baptised in one. They are based in Anthroposophy. Look at Steiner's Christian works. How many books did he write on Muslim or Jewish faiths? Calling Waldorf non-denominational is like calling Catholic schools non-denominational. The trappings are Christian, the festivals are Christian, the content of the curriculum is Christian. There's really no point in putting this tag in the opening paragraph as it will be edited until doomsday... um, excuse me... until the war of all against all. If you want to make this claim in the article with an opportunity for others to refute it, that's fine. It doesn't define Waldorf, it obscures what Waldorf really is. ----'''Pete K'''-- 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As our article talks about the excellent health of Waldorf students, I personally believe the assessment is bogus, we should perhaps included a bit about Steiner's views on vaccinations. Waldorf schools pretend to be on the anti-vaccination bandwagon as part of the anti-vaccination movement, but indeed the reasons for this are spirital and karmic, not "health" reasons. Here's a quote from Steiner supporting my assessment:

"Suppose that a great number of people had felt impelled - due to their unloving attitude to their fellow human beings - to absorb certain infectious substances in order to succumb to an epidemic. Let us further suppose that we could do something about this epidemic. In that case we would prevent the outer physical nature from expressing the unloving disposition while failing to remove the inner inclination to unlovingness. What we need to envisage now is the following: by removing the outer organ of unlovingness we actually incur an obligation of working into the soul in such a way as to remove its inclination to unlovingness. The organ of unlovingness is killed in the most complete sense - in the outer physical sense - through the smallpox vaccination. Spiritual scientific research has shown, for example, that smallpox developed during a time when the general inclination towards egotism and unlovingness reached a particular climax. That is when smallpox emerged in the outer organism. This is a fact. In anthroposophy it is our duty to speak truthfully.

This will enable you to understand why vaccination was introduced in our time. You will also understand why the best minds of our time display a kind of aversion against the practice of vaccination. This aversion corresponds to something within, it is the outer expression of an inner reality. What I would like to say is this: if on the one hand we kill the organ we incur an obligation to follow suit by working to transform the respective person's materialistic nature by means of a spiritually oriented education. This would be the necessary counterpart of our measure. Without it our work is incomplete. Indeed, we are merely accomplishing something to which the person in question will somehow have to produce a counterpart in a later incarnation when he has the smallpox poison within him while the inner characteristic predisposing him to smallpox has been removed. If we destroy the susceptibility to smallpox, we are concentrating only on the external side of karmic activity. "

Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges, Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b) pp. 30-54.

If we are to do any justice to this article, we should indeed describe why Waldorf schools do the things they do. ----'''Pete K'''-- 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page structure (headings)

I suggest that as a first step to creating a quality article the regular editors agree on structure. It will then be possible to work on each section in a focused manner. In my opinion the following sections (no more, no less) should be included. I invite all editors to make suggestions for further removal/addition of sections.

1 Description

  Intro. short description

2 History

  Steiner, Waldorf, Germany, anthroposophy

3 Educational philosophy

  The three stages of education, testing, festivals

4 Social mission

  camphill communities, creativity, independant thought

5 School organization

  How a waldorf school is typically run

6 Teacher training

  How a waldorf teacher is typically trained

7 Spiritual foundations

  How anthroposophy is involved in waldorf education

8 Criticism and debate

  The criticisms people make of the system (presented in a clear and non-hysterical fashion)

9 References

  High-quality references from particularly reputable sources (bearing in mind how contentious this subject has been)

10 Bibliography

  Not just a list of Steiners works (although that could be included on a seperate wikiarticle)

Thoughts?--Fergie 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start. I think there needs to be a section or discussion to the Waldorf lessons, curriculum, etc.Ibyrnison 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there actually a standardised curriculum? I though this was set by each individual school.

LOL! I think ALL this information should be presented in a "clear and non-hysterical fashion". Is this the first shot over the bow - at how critical commentary is going to be characterized in these discussions? --Pete K 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that you approve of the structure proposed or not? Any suggestions? --Fergie 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try not to get too hysterical here <G>. I don't think the Social Mission belongs here at all. That really belongs on the Steiner page. That there are Camphill communities and biodynamic farms and stuff has nothing really to do with Waldorf - they are Anthroposophical initiatives, not Waldorf initiatives. I'm also wondering how this section is related to "creativity" and "independent thought".

There are special schools both within the Camphill communities and outside them: Waldorf schools that provide special education (only). This and some of the other aspects currently mentioned in the article are certainly part of the social mission of the Waldorf schools.

As to how a Waldorf school is "typically" run, I don't think there is such a thing. If you look at 10 schools, you will get 10 different approaches to running the school. My own school has no college of teachers but has a leadership team, an advisory committee, a board of directors and a parent association. Others have a college of teachers of 3 or 4 that excludes almost everyone in the school - the 3 or 4 run the school however they like.

It certainly could be mentioned that there is variability in leadership structure. Nevertheless, the college of teachers is by far the most common structure; Highland Hall, the school that may be being referred to above, used to have one and may well again one day. As it is an unusual structure, it bears explaining.

I don't disagree with adding something about the curriculum as Ibyrnison suggested, but it has to be honest and must not fall back on the brochure language currently in the article. --Pete K 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The curriculum has an obvious place in an article about a pedagogical approach, especially since it is quite well-defined for Waldorf schools (though again with some variability and flexibility in implementation).

The general outline looks quite sensible; with the addition of a curriculum section, I'm all for it. Hgilbert 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Disputes

[edit] Sep 1

[edit] Cit. needed

On the article's talk page, questions have been raised about some of the assertions given in the article and whether the claims are verifiable.

I suggest that we assess the disputed material in an organized fashion, and either source it or it should be removed. I'll list some of the disputed text that I found challenged there today:

'The curriculum is highly challenging, structured, and creative. Waldorf schools, one teacher often aims to stay with a class as it advances from its first year all the way through to year eight, teaching the main subject lessons. Specialist teachers are utilized for subjects such as foreign languages, handwork and crafts, singing, orchestra (every Waldorf pupil learns to play an orchestral instrument), movement (eurythmy), games and gymnastics, and so on. Academic instruction is integrated with arts, craft, music and movement. As Steiner stated in The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy, "...the child should be laying up in his memory the treasures of thought on which mankind has pondered..'

"every Waldorf pupil learns to play an orchestral instrument"

"In both the elementary school and secondary school, most academic subjects are taught in blocks. For these blocks, instead of using commercial textbooks each pupil writes and illustrates a "main lesson book", a self-created 'textbook' based upon the content learned. Scope for independent creativity in these books progresses rapidly through the elementary years"

Some of these appear easily verified, and I will start from the top, but please if any of you have a reference to this material, please share it here. Ibyrnison 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The language is POV. A phrase like "The curriculum is highly challenging, structured, and creative" has no place in an encyclopedia as it is too subjective. Any assertion qualified with "some", "most" and "usually" is unverifiable and should be avoided. The description of how a child is taught reads like a manual. This means that there exists some source (so provide a citation), or that there is no source (in which case this is original research). --Fergie 14:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Gathered another:

"Steiner developed a 3-stage pedagogical model of child development that is utilised in Waldorf education"Ibyrnison 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you are missing the point. I am not, personally, interested in the "Waldorf Improvement Project" or whatever it's called, so I don't think I'll be adding my name to the committee here, but I wish you all well. I'd just like to point out that when I raised these examples on the main Discussion page, it was not out of concern that the 3-stage pedagogical model be verified in some way. I wished to point out that the entire article from start to finish consists largely of this sort of unverified, and usually hopelessly slanted, rosy description of things that are actually very controversial (such as, Steiner's "three stages" imply that at birth, the child is not fully incarnated). If you are really interested in addressing the overall bias of the article, you need to start from the top. Other than things like the dates of Steiner's life, the date the first school was opened, etc., there is virtually nothing in the article that we could not raise the same concern about. The overall slant is probably not fixable unless critics re-wrote the article, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to participate in trying to improve it.

Again my concern, and my motive for participating here, is mainly that the critical viewpoint be recognized - I am not personally concerned with whether the Advent Spiral is given too much or too little weight or whether it is correct that every school teaches foreign language or choral singing etc etc. You all who care can work that out among yourselves. I'm just afraid what I see happening now, this "Let's take her comment about foreign languages and drop in a citation" is not just a misunderstanding but actually shows lack of good faith. It appears to be sort of deliberately missing the point. These things were *examples*, the same as critics do not see it as self-evident that Waldorf encourages "creativity" (another example).DianaW 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Come again? I'm completely lost. Are these statements disputed as "original research", or not? Are there statements that you dispute instead of these? Is this a concern you have over the use of more careful language? "Students are taught algebra" instead of "Students learn algebra?" Both of those are valid concerns. The language needs to conform and be NPOV, and sources need to conform. How exactly is this showing a "lack of good faith" to address specific concerns which you raised? I'm trying to respond to legitimate concerns as has been raised in terms of wikipedia's editorial standards. The editors who come here with their own set of standards need to either get with the program or say what they want to say on some other website with rules they like better. Ibyrnison 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying not to interrupt your text, since it confuses you. Sources here do not conform to NPOV as they are all Waldorf sources, and are obviously going to praise Waldorf. "Lack of good faith" is shown in that, correct me if I am wrong but I suspect you know these are not NPOV sources, and it would seem that you *do* know what NPOV means. Do you think we don't know who Petrash is? "Lack of good faith" is also shown in deliberately avoiding the issues I actually raised. The issue is that the article needs to be dismantled claim by claim if "neutral" sources are required (there aren't any neutral sources saying many of the things this article says, at least not of the caliber that has been requested - scholarly articles, or articles by people with demonstrated, published expertise on the topic; there are only Waldorf sources). Alternatively, I proposed, the pro-Waldorf editors could cease trying to suppress critical viewpoints on Waldorf. The latter strikes me as a fine alternative and I see no reason why it is not agreeable to everyone. Finally, suggesting that I say this on some other web site would also seem to violate various wikipedia guidelines, like "Be civil."DianaW 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't yet identified any sources when you complained of my "lack of good faith". I didn't write these statements in the article either. Waldorf is first and foremost a "system of education"; that it is also a source of criticism from one particular organization which you appear to represent is far less significant to the thrust of this article. These particular statements which you have disputed required cit. checks, and an assessment for potential POV. The sources where the following quotes were found primarily came from the list of references in the Waldorf article. The Parent's Guide to Alternative Education is not on the list, it's a reference I'm using to add to an article here about Carden schools. If there is some problem with the Petrash reference, please explain and it should also be eliminated from the reference list.Ibyrnison 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cits. proposed

The curriculum is highly challenging, structured, and creative. --Replace introductory sentence with something less brochure-like?

Waldorf schools, one teacher often aims to stay with a class as it advances from its first year all the way through to year eight, teaching the main subject lessons sourced, Petrash: "In Waldorf schools, grade school encompasses grades one through eight and grade school teachers remain with the same group of students throughout all eight years."

Except that the source you've found says something even less accurate than what you're claiming already, so what use is that? If Petrash really says literally that "teachers reamin with the same group of students throughout all eight years," he's pretty well discredited as a source. This claim is inaccurate, as many people can attest; in many Waldorf schools, the same teacher rarely stays with a class through eight years. Most schools, to their credit, have given up making such an inflated claim, and have even recognized that the eight-year thing is not always advisable.DianaW 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Second independent source found, "Each Waldorf School teacher remains with one class throughout grades 1-8. " ERIC digest 123Ibyrnison 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Specialist teachers are utilized for subjects such as foreign languages, handwork and crafts, singing, orchestra (every Waldorf pupil learns to play an orchestral instrument), movement (eurythmy), games and gymnastics, and so on. sourced, "Parent's Guide to Alternative Education", "Each child learns to play the recorder or a similar flute and learns to sing.[] In almost all Waldorf schools children study a foreign language (such as German or French) and in many schools they study two. [] Handwork and crafts are usually taught in the afternoon. These special classes usually are taught by "subject teachers," rather than by class teachers. Waldorf students also learn eurythmy, an art of movement developed by Steiner in which specific gestures express the various vowels and consonants of speach as well as the elements of music. They have physical education, playing games and learning sports. Many schools teach a form of gymnastics called Bothmer gymnastics" Also "In the elementary years, Waldorf students learn about music through two different types of teachers. There are music specialists who teach the students once or twice a week throughout the grades, offering singing and instrumental music classes, as well as chorus and orchestra[]..each and every student receives basic instruction in playing a string instrument, either violin, viola, or cello."

Academic instruction is integrated with arts, craft, music and movement. sourced, Petrash, "A three-dimensional approach to teaching infuses all of the educational work in grade school. Movement is an important part of each lesson as children learn to think on their feet as well as behind their desks.[]After they sing and skip and actively recite together, they reconfigure the room and sit, ready to learn.[]Teaching of any subject, from science to history, can be enlivened and enhanced by incorporating art into the instruction."

Steiner developed a 3-stage pedagogical model of child development that is utilised in Waldorf education , sourced, Carolyn Pope Edwards, "His theory of child development elaborated three cycles of seven-year stages, each with its own distinctive needs for learning—an ascending spiral of knowledge. "

The issue I was raising here is whether it is really "used in Waldorf." What does it mean that it is "used in Waldorf?" *All* Waldorf schools? *Some* Waldorf schools? By *all* Waldorf teachers? (Almost certainly not the case; there are Waldorf teachers who do their best to avoid Steiner dogma, and the three-stage model is so seriously flawed that practically any good teacher will find he or she needs to ignore it or work around it at some point.)

It sounds like you're offering your own opinion here. If you have contrary information, source it and we can deal with the issue then.Ibyrnison 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The point I was making was that if Pete cannot make a general claim about something he can document with reference to 3 Waldorf school web sites (and I do think it is reasonable to ask for more than three), then on what basis are *any* general claims made about what is done in Waldorf? Waldorf defenders have tried this, oh, very frequently: "You can't make general claims about Waldorf when you've only had experience with one or two schools." Oh, we reply, but you can? Usually the respondent likewise has experience at Waldorf schools that he or she could count on one hand.

As editors, none of us are invited to contribute our own "general claims" formed from independent research. We need to eliminate the editorializing that's in the article, and remove any more of it if and when it appears.Ibyrnison 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So you've got a real problem here. You have barely a NPOV source in sight, you have very little but advertising, "original research" (things such as 16 year olds in Waldorf are "highly fluent" in a foreign language; that's clearly not published anywhere), and biased POV writing in the article; the whole article has a glowing-testimonial-from-true-believers-who-have-seen-the-light feel to it. I am seeing attempts to pretty this up but no real grasp of the problem. At the same time you absolutely cannot stand it for a minute when critical links and critical voices are added to this picture of paradise. Something's got to give.DianaW 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Present your case that the sources aren't credible, and then the problem can be dealt with. But the solution is to weed out the bad references, not balance them with uncredible critical sources. Our editorial efforts should be directed to improving the article's accuracy and scholarship.Ibyrnison 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In both the elementary school and secondary school, most academic subjects are taught in blocks. For these blocks, instead of using commercial textbooks each pupil writes and illustrates a "main lesson book", a self-created 'textbook' based upon the content learned. Scope for independent creativity in these books progresses rapidly through the elementary years" sourced, Trostli, "Teaching in main lesson blocks has become one of the most successful and distinguishing features of Waldorf education", Koetzsch, "For each main lesson topic, students create personal textbooks with handwritten text and colored drawings, maps, and diagrams.[]No textbooks are used." (Last sentence may be brochure-like. It's also common sense, since the work of students in most elementary schools can be said to "progress rapidly" over the years.)Ibyrnison 23:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And since it is "common sense," i.e., can be said of practically *any* student in *any* school, it is pretty content-free, don't you think? It sounds fine and says nothing. Yup, brochure copy.DianaW 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is probably a better way to word that conclusion.Ibyrnison 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Waldorf schools, one teacher often aims to stay with a class as it advances from its first year all the way through to year eight, teaching the main subject lessons sourced, Petrash: "In Waldorf schools, grade school encompasses grades one through eight and grade school teachers remain with the same group of students throughout all eight years.""

If this is an example of the citations you are providing, this isn't going to fly. Saying Jack Petrash said something without a citation to where and when he said it isn't a citation. Citing Waldorf sources that claim they teach pigs to fly isn't helpful either.

I've given a second source to the information. See aboveIbyrnison 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"In both the elementary school and secondary school, most academic subjects are taught in blocks. For these blocks, instead of using commercial textbooks each pupil writes and illustrates a "main lesson book", a self-created 'textbook' based upon the content learned. Scope for independent creativity in these books progresses rapidly through the elementary years"" I hope you're not going to forget to mention that the kids are copying everything word for word off the blackboard - including illustrations. "self-created" like a xerox machine creates. Giving half the story and citing someone else who is giving half the story is, again, going to produce a dishonest article that's not going to be helpful to anyone seriously researching Waldorf. If you think Waldorf literature is a good source for backing up Waldorf claims, you are wasting everyone's time here, IMO of course. --Pete K 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The source identified was not Waldorf literature, it's "A Parent's Guide to Alternatives in Education", which received a Library Journal star (given to "books of outstanding quality, significance, and/or popular appeal. Library Journal has several hundred starred books a year.") The reviewer described it, "An unbiased presentation that will be a welcome addition to most public libraries" link, which is exactly where I found the book. The book describes 22 different alternative educational methods, one of them Waldorf education. This sounds like a qualified source. Ibyrnison 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because the author took a stroll through a Waldorf school and got the tour? Give me a break. If he wrote about 22 different alternative schools, how much time could he possibly have spent in a Waldorf environment? Everyone's first impressions of Waldorf are great. And many if not most find out their impressions were wrong. And the reviewer? Had he ever been in a Waldorf school? I can probably find sources that say space people are living on the moon. This article should reflect what is REALLY happening in Waldorf schools, not the nonsense of a superficial overview of 22 alternatives to public education.

I have added [verification needed] and [citation needed] tags where necessary. Please read these keeping the thought in mind that they are intended to address the brochure tone of the entire article. Most of these broad, sweeping statements cannot be verified and represent original research on the part of the writers. I'm sure our friend Sune will revert the page and call it vandalism, - I hope the more level-headed among us will appreciate the effort that went into this. --Pete K 17:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this source. If you intend to automatically dismiss out-of-hand every single legitimate source offered, then remove the cit. tags from the Waldorf education article. If you don't genuinely want references, don't ask for them. Ibyrnison 17:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophist sources are not NPOV sources. It's like asking Scientologists if they approve of Scientology. If you're not going to provide legitimate NPOV sources, then what's the point in me asking for them. --Pete K 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Steiner said this: "We must be somewhat judicious when speaking of the connection between the Anthroposophical Society and the school, so as not to offend people and make them say: Now they have achieved what was intended from the beginning, an Anthroposophists' school. We must tell them that on the contrary we have extended Anthroposophy to be able to do things of a universally human nature, and show them that Anthroposophy is just the right [sic] to bring such things. We must also keep to this where individual details are concerned. We must not give the impression too strongly that we are expounding Anthroposophy. We must utilise Anthroposophical truth in school, not teach it theoretically. That was our original intention." [Steiner, 1924, Conferences with Teachers p. 76]

I believe it supports my contention that Anthroposophy is taught in Waldorf schools AND that this is intentional AND that the cover-up of this fact is also intentional AND that it was Steiner's idea to behave in this way. Does anyone object to me making these claims on the article based on this reference? --Pete K 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion is completely reasonable and should be included in the article. I for one, absolutely do not object.--Fergie 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Your assertion...should be included in the article"!!! See WP:OR!!! The quote can certainly be included.

I disagree that the passage quoted leads to the direct conclusion Pete K gives it. Steiner is asking the audience to refrain from drawing connections between the Society and the school because it isn't the goal of the Waldorf school to be an anthroposophist school, and comingling the two leads people to form the wrong conclusion. He clearly says that they are "not to expound anthroposophy" and "not teach it theoretically", as per "original intention" of the school. The anthroposophy is to be used, not taught. This is what I conclude reading it, which is the opposite conclusion formed by Pete. This is just one illustration why editors aren't allowed to editorialize in the articles.

Another linked reference, an article, Schooling the Imagination, has quotes from individuals which seems to support my conclusion while demonstrating that Waldorf still struggles to keep the two separate. "Waldorf teachers counter that they don't formally teach anthroposophy. This is true; in fact, their own rules prohibit them from doing so.[] But anthroposophy still 'leaks into the curriculum,' as Dan Dugan puts it. 'They try to hide it, but they can't,' Rebecca Bolnick, a recent graduate of the Sacramento Waldorf School, told me. " I think that any conclusions or opinions added to the article need to come from outside sources like this, not editors. Ibyrnison 16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to further add that it is a violation of the "no original research" policy to include such conclusions as this in any article. From Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, "Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position. " Ibyrnison 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You are clipping the quote. He says "We must not give the impression too strongly that we are expounding Anthroposophy. We must utilise Anthroposophical truth in school, not teach it theoretically. That was our original intention." If you're only going to read and reply to only the parts that support your view, then this will be a difficult process indeed. Please read the whole quote. This, BTW, is not new analysis. As you have quoted above, it is a problem apparent to both Waldorf critcs and Waldorf representatives for a long time. This view was supported by Eugene Schwartz in a lecture I tried to quote which was, again, swiftly removed by revisionist editors here. Anthroposophy is, in fact, taught at Waldorf schools in indirect ways exactly as Steiner describes above. --Pete K 19:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In the original German of the quote cited above, Steiner is quoted as saying "Wir muessen dagegenhalten, dass wir die Anthroposophie erweitert haben, um solche Dinge machen zu koennen, die allgemein menschlich sind, muessen zeigen, dass die Anthroposophie dazu geignet ist, etwas allgemein Menschliches zu bringen. Wir muessen das aber auch im einzelnen einhalten." - He is presenting something that supports another side of the debate, that anthroposophy actually is able to create something that has universally human value. He then says that "we must stick to this in the details, then." - That they must hold to this in the details of school life, not presenting anthroposophical ideas, but utilizing them to create a school, an education that works for children.

It is helpful to compare comparable passages from elsewhere in the conferences with teachers. Steiner says on March 30, 1923, for example, that "This could lead to showing the nature of Anthroposophy is such that its purpose is not to turn something it has founded into a specifically anthroposophical concern. Anthroposophy is there to develop the universally human element in such activities." In many other places (GA 81, p. 84-5, in GA 197 P. 80, in GA 211, p. 161, in GA 255b, p. 197, in GA260a, p. 436, and so forth), he emphasizes that the Waldorf school is formed by anthroposophy but does not teach anthroposophy. He is saying the same thing here, and recommending it as a defence against attacks against the school by people calling it anthroposophic. Hgilbert 00:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't refer me to the original German of the quote. I don't speak German and I'm not going to take your word for it as to what it says - nothing personal. Do you have an English quote translated in a way other than what has been PUBLISHED?

I'll suggest that everywhere where Steiner denies Anthroposopy is taught in schools - i.e. in public lectures, he was indeed following the advice he gave to teachers which was to DENY that Anthroposophy is taught in schools. But below is a very lengthy and very revealing passage that clearly shows what Steiner had in mind. For those who don't know, "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner" appears on almost every teacher traing reading list as required reading.

So, with that in mind, let's look at more of what Steiner had to say about teaching Anthroposophy directly to Waldorf students - this time not taking snippets out of context - Again from Faculty Meetings - pages 81-88 September 26, 1919:

"I do not wish to go into that now, but I mention it only to show you that we really must take religion seriously when we address it anthroposophically. It is true that anthroposophy is a worldview, and we certainly do not want to bring that into our school. On the other hand, we must certainly develop the religious feeling that worldview can give to the human soul when the parents expressly ask us to give it to the children. Particularly when we begin with anthroposophy, we dare not develop anything inappropriate, certainly not develop anything too early. We will, therefore, have two stages. First, we will take all the children in the lower four grades, and then those in the upper four grades. In the lower four grades, we will attempt to discuss the things and processes in the human environment, so that a feeling arises in the children that spirit lives in nature. We can consider such things as my previous examples. We can, for instance, give the children the idea of the soul. Of course, the children first need to learn to understand the idea of life in general. You can teach the children about life if you direct their attention to the fact that people are first small and then they grow, become old, get white hair, wrinkles, and so forth. Thus, you tell them about the seriousness of the course of human life and acquaint them with the seriousness of the fact of death, something the children already know.

"Therefore, you need to discuss what occurs in the human soul during the changes between sleeping and waking. You can certainly go into such things with even the youngest children in the first group. Discuss how waking and sleeping look, how the soul rests, how the human being rests during sleep, and so forth. Then, tell the children how the soul permeates the body when it awakens and indicate to them that there is a will that causes their limbs to move. Make them aware that the body provides the soul with senses through which they can see and hear and so forth. You can give them such things as proof that the spiritual is active in the physical. Those are things you can discuss with the children.

You must completely avoid any kind of superficial teaching. Thus, in anthroposophical religious instruction we can certainly not use the kind of teaching that asks questions such as, Why do we find cork on a tree? with the resulting reply, So that we can make champagne corks. God created cork in order to cork bottles. This sort of idea, that something exists in nature simply because human intent exists, is poison. That is certainly something we may not develop. Therefore, don't bring any of these silly causal ideas into nature.

To the same extent, we may not use any of the ideas people so love to use to prove that spirit exists because something unknown exists. People always say, That is something we cannot know, and, therefore, that is a revelation of the spirit. Instead of gaining a feeling that we can know of the spirit and that the spirit reveals itself in matter, these ideas direct people toward thinking that when we cannot explain something, that proves the existence of the divine. Thus, you will need to strictly avoid superficial teaching and the idea of wonders, that is, that wonders prove divine activity.

In contrast, it is important that we develop imaginative pictures through which we can show the supersensible through nature. For example, I have often mentioned that we should speak to the children about the butterfly's cocoon and how the butterfly comes out of the cocoon. I have said that we can explain the concept of the immortal soul to the children by saying that, although human beings die, their souls go from them like an invisible butterfly emerging from the cocoon. Such a picture is, however, only effective when you believe it yourself, that is, when you believe the picture of the butterfly creeping out of the cocoon is a symbol for immortality planted into nature by divine powers. You need to believe that yourselves, otherwise the children will not believe it. You need to arouse the children's interest in such things. They will be particularly effective for the children where you can show how a being can live in many forms, how an original form can take on many individual forms. In religious instruction, it is important that you pay attention to the feeling and not the world view. For example, you can take a poem about the metamorphosis of plants and animals and use it religiously. However, you must use the feelings that go from line to line. You can consider nature that way until the end of the fourth grade. There, you must always work toward the picture that human beings with all our thinking and doing live within the cosmos. You must also give the children the picture that God lives in what lives in us. Time and again you should come back to such pictures, how the divine lives in a tree leaf, in the Sun, in clouds, and in rivers. You should also show how God lives in the bloodstream, in the heart, in what we feel and what we think. Thus, you should develop a picture of the human being filled with the divine.

During these years, you should also emphasize the picture that human beings, because they are an image of God and a revelation of God, should be good. Human beings who are not good hurt God. From a religious perspective, human beings do not exist in the world for their own sake, but as revelations of the divine. You can express that by saying that people do not exist just for their own sake, but "to glorify God." Here, "to glorify" means "to reveal." Thus, in reality, it is not "glory to God in the highest," but "reveal the gods in the highest." Thus, we can understand the idea that people exist to glorify God as meaning that people exist in order to express the divine through their deeds and feelings. If someone does something bad, something impious and unkind, then that person does something that belittles God and distorts God into something ugly. You should always bring in these ideas. At this age you should use the thought that God lives in the human being. In the lower grades, I would certainly abstain from teaching any Christology, but just awaken a feeling for God the Father out of nature and natural occurrences. I would try to connect all our discussions about Old Testament themes, the Psalms, the Song of Songs, and so forth, to that feeling, at least insofar as they are useful, and they are if you treat them properly. That is the first stage of religious instruction.

In the second stage, that is, the four upper grades, we need to discuss the concepts of fate and human destiny with the children. Thus, we need to give the children a picture of destiny so that they truly feel that human beings have a destiny. It is important to teach the child the difference between a simple chance occurrence and destiny. Thus, you will need to go through the concept of destiny with the children. You cannot use definitions to explain when something destined occurs or when something occurs only by chance. You can, however, perhaps explain it through examples. What I mean is that when something happens to me, if I feel that the event is in some way something I sought, then that is destiny. If I do not have the feeling that it was something I sought, but have a particularly strong feeling that it overcame me, surprised me, and that I can learn a great deal for the future from it, then that is a chance event. You need to gradually teach the children about something they can experience only through feeling, namely the difference between finished karma and arising or developing karma. You need to gradually teach children about the questions of fate in the sense of karmic questions. You can find more about the differences in feeling in my book "Theosophy." For the newest edition, I rewrote the chapter, "Reincarnation and Karma," where I discuss this question. There, I tried to show how you can feel the difference. You can certainly make it clear to the children that there are actually two kinds of occurrences. In the one case, you feel that you sought it. For example, when you meet someone, you usually feel that you sought that person. In the other case, when you are involved in a natural event, you have the feeling you can learn something from it for the future. If something happens to you because of some other person, that is usually a case of fulfilled karma. Even such things as the fact that we find ourselves together in this *faculty* at the Waldorf School are fulfilled karma. We find ourselves here because we sought each other. We cannot comprehend that through definitions, only through feeling. You will need to speak with the children about all kinds of fates, perhaps in stories where the question of fate plays a role. You can even repeat many of the fairy tales in which questions of fate play a role. You can also find historical examples where you can show how an individual's fate was fulfilled. You should discuss the question of fate, therefore, to indicate the seriousness of life from that perspective.

I also want you to understand what is really religious in an anthroposophical sense. In the sense of anthroposophy, what is religious is connected with feeling, with those feelings for the world, for the spirit, and for life that our perspective of the world can give us. The worldview itself is something for the head, but religion always arises out of the entire human being. For that reason, religion connected with a specific church is not actually religious. It is important that the entire human being, particularly the feeling and will, lives in religion. That part of religion that includes a worldview is really only there to exemplify or support or deepen the feeling and strengthen the will. What should flow from religion is what enables the human being to grow beyond what past events and earthly things can give to deepen feeling and strengthen will.

Following the questions of destiny, you will need to discuss the differences between what we inherit from our parents and what we bring into our lives from previous earthly lives. In this second stage of religious instruction, we bring in previous earthly lives and everything else that can help provide a reasoned or feeling comprehension that people live repeated earthly lives. You should also certainly include the fact that human beings raise themselves to the divine in three stages. Thus, after you have given the children an idea of destiny, you then slowly teach them about heredity and repeated earthly lives through stories. You can then proceed to the three stages of the divine.

The first of these stages is that of the angels, something available for each individual personally. You can explain that every individual human being is led from life to life by his or her own personal genius. Thus, this personal divinity that leads human beings is the first thing to discuss. In the second step, you attempt to explain that there are higher gods, the archangels. (Here you gradually come into something you can observe in history and geography.) These archangels exist to guide whole groups of human beings, that is, the various peoples and such. You must teach this clearly so that the children can learn to differentiate between the god spoken of by Protestantism, for instance, who is actually only an angel, and an archangel, who is higher than anything that ever arises in the Protestant religious teachings.

In the third stage, you teach the children about the concept of a time spirit, a divine being who rules over periods of time. Here, you will connect religion with history. Only when you have taught the children all that can you go on, at about the twelfth grade, to - well, we can't do that yet, we will just do two stages. The children can certainly hear things they will understand only later. After you have taught the children about these three stages, you can go on to the actual Christology by dividing cosmic evolution into two parts: the pre-Christian, which was really a preparation, and the Christian, which is the fulfillment. Here, the concept that the divine is revealed through Christ, "in the fullness of time," must play a major role. Only then will we go on to the Gospels. Until then, to the extent that we need stories to explain the concepts of angel, archangel, and time spirit, we will use the Old Testament. For example, we can use the Old Testament story of what appeared before Moses to explain to the children the appearance of a new time spirit, in contrast to the previous one before the revelation to Moses. We can then also explain that a new time spirit entered during the sixth century B.C. Thus, we first use the Old Testament. When we then go on to Christology, having presented it as being preceded by a long period of preparation, we can go on to the Gospels. We can attempt to present the individual parts and show that the fourfoldedness of the Gospels is something natural by saying that just as a tree needs to be photographed from four sides for everything to be properly seen, in the same way the four Gospels present four points of view. You take the Gospel of Matthew and then Mark, Luke, and John and emphasize them such that the children will always feel that. Always place the main emphasis upon the differences in feeling.

Thus, we now have the teaching content of the second stage. The general tenor of the first stage is to bring to developing human beings everything that the wisdom of the divine in nature can provide. In the second stage, the human being no longer recognizes the divine through wisdom, but through the effects of love. That is the tenor, the leitmotif in both stages. This is the story of Moses and the Burning Bush."

It's pretty clear here that Steiner's intention is to teach Anthroposophy directly to students in exactly the way all subjects are taught in Waldorf. There should be NO doubt after reading this that Anthroposophy is taught in schools, that Steiner intended to teach Anthroposophy in schools and that Steiner intended for Waldorf teachers to deny this. --Pete K 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No point in debating the interpretation here. Irrelevant. It violates wikipedia policy to contribute editors' own interpretations or conclusions, so arguing here is pointless. Official policy (ie, no exceptions),

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."wp:NOR Ibyrnison 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, indeed, it is NOT irrelevant to debate interpretation here. If you don't want to involve yourself in this debate, please feel free not to. Everything in this article is an interpretation - and I suspect you saw how many issues I have with those interpretations. Steiner's own words constitute a "reliable source" in this case. That Anthroposophy is NOT taught in Waldorf schools cannot be stated in this article because, in fact, it isn't true and Steiner himself said, above, that is should be taught in schools. AND the material quoted above is in the teacher training materials. So any statement that says Anthroposophy is not taught in Waldorf is demonstrably FALSE and cannot be interpreted as true. Such statements must NOT appear in the article. I am quite sure leaving out such nonsense doesn't violate Wikipedia policy - especially because the claim is false. --Pete K 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, because it's your own interpretation. In the book "Faculty Meetings", this particular discussion is identified in the text as, "Lesson plan for the independent anthroposophical religious instruction for children", (the quote has curiously been left out of your lengthy quote above). There is an alternative, maybe more defendable, interpretation than yours. This particular school where the meeting took place did have religious classes, as was required by law. There were three to choose from: Catholic, Protestant, and "anthroposophical religion", and which of the religious classes the children attended was determined by their families. The religious instruction was arguably no secret to the parents since it was a mandatory course throughout Germany. Even in your quote, it says, "when the parents expressly ask us to give it to the children", meaning the anthroposophical religion course. Elsewhere in another meeting there is a description of how this class came to be--parent demand for that particular religious class offering in addition to the Catholic and Protestant. We're wasting a lot of time and space on this page discussing which interpretation is correct, and the truth is neither belong in this article because it violates the policy, which I linked above. Ibyrnison 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not left out the quote as you suggest above. The quote you suggest should be there may have been added after the copy I am working from was taken. This is common practice among revisionists. The work has also changed titles from the original "Conferences with Teachers". I don't believe I have mis-interpreted Steiner's words at all, and as I have had many years of experience in Waldorf, and know Anthroposophy to be present in every activity, I can state categorically that Anthroposophy permeates all Waldorf activities, based on my personal experience. I don't find a policy that doesn't permit quoting Steiner's own words and drawing interpretations from them. The entire article is interpretive. Not only is my interpretation reasonable, it is supported by common practice in Waldorf schools today in that Waldorf teaches Anthroposophy AND that Waldorf denies teaching Anthroposophy. --Pete K 14:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Starting Place

The proposed starting place has been given its own page in the archive Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project-Archive Proposed Starting Place

[edit] Wording of Introduction

To start, a response to proposed changes to introductory paragraphs: The way it reads now is better than it reads in this proposal. To begin with, there has been a long edit history on this article explaining why "schools" is an inadequate word for the movement. The article has undergone significant revision and restructuring to encompass this diversity, and returning back to "school" ignores very conscious decisions made earlier. "Movement" is in common usage in connection with new directions taken in education. "Back to basics" movement, the "democratic school movement", the "phonics movement", the "charter school movement", and "movement" is a perfectly apt word here in the article. These other proposed changes in the edit of those first two paragraphs aren't adequate, either, to outline the broad scope of the fuller article which follows them. The existing introduction is much better 'as is'. The only proposed change here that makes sense to me is changing "close to 1000" schools to something like "921 licensed Waldorf schools", or "registered", or whatever the proper word would be. Ibyrnison 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you like the way it reads NOW, perhaps you should consider that your position as part of the editing team is compromised. I think we have agreed that the article has a serious need for change - so a long history of agreements that produced the current article doesn't mean anything. "Movement" is brochure language - plain and simple. There is nothing moving - it's a term that attempts to get parents excited enough to jump on-board the "movement". And no, other education systems aren't adapting Waldorf methods to any great degree. There is no *new* direction taken by Waldorf - it does the same stuff any private religious school does, blend religion with academics in a warm environment. Waldorf people think that if they can find a source that agrees with them, they've started a movement. Nobody is running out to copy Waldorf, and Waldorf schools aren't growing at an alarming rate. Most Waldorf schools only have 20 kids per grade - if that. "Movement" is brochure talk suitable for a Waldorf puff-piece - and certainly not NPOV. Not even close. Call it what it really is - an independent private school system. --Pete K 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Please avoid making personal and judgmental comments.
2. Waldorf exists far beyond the independent private school system, as has been mentioned repeatedly: homeschooling, Waldorf-methods public schools and charter schools, Waldorf teachers in other school contexts, etc.
3. Movement is an accepted and widely-used term for this and other educational philosophies, as has been pointed out before. Definitions such as "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals" certainly apply. Hgilbert 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PeteK 'movement' is biased brochure language and 'independent private school system' is the more appropriate term --Fergie 06:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But not a comprehensive description.Hgilbert 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Which part of Waldorf Eduction lies outside of its independent private school system?--Fergie 08:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was relocated from one titled "Waldorf schools" to encompass a broader scope of the philosophy itself. It was argued that the private schools were just one aspect, and as part of the restructuring of this page, specifics about these private schools have been moved to a page dedicated to the discussion of the independent private schools. This article talks about how Waldorf is now applied in home and public schools in addition to the "independent private school system". I don't understand why 'movement' is POV--even PLANS uses the term to describe it on its website--but if it sounds promotional to some, it needs something different than "independent private school system" in the topic sentence of the opening paragraph or else the article needs to reshift its focus back on the independent private schools.Ibyrnison 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, nobody voted you moderator. If you find the comment above personal, that would be your problem, not mine. As far as "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals," this could also be used to define the word "cult" or any number of other words. "Movement" is not going to fly any more than "cult" would. If you guys are just interested in keeping the article as it is, just say so - I can see I'm wasting my time discussing things here when I could actually be editing the article freely. I thought this project was going to proceed on good faith until I saw the "non-hysterical" comment in the outline. If you think I'm going to "participate" with three Waldorf supporters to make another brochure article, forget it. I'm apparently only here to legitimize your efforts, so you can point to me and say "look, both sides agreed". Is a good-faith effort in the works here, or is this another whitewash that you're asking me to participate in? I'd rather edit the article directly and we can continue in this way - editing it back and forth forever. I've got time. Stop clinging to Waldorf-ism's like "movement" - we're not doing that again. We're not going to say Eurythmy is "movement" either - it's not. If you aren't interested in being realistic about what this article should say about Waldorf in a NPOV, then let others handle it for you. Your POV isn't neutral - you're Anthroposophists, Waldorf is your religion, you're Waldorf teachers, Waldorf is your livelyhood, get it? You can't be neutral about something so close to you. --Pete K 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My livelihood is not in Waldorf. I'm atheist, employed in payroll, working to finish a graduate degree. This article is not perfect, but it's much better than most others I've seen in the 'alternative education' category at wikipedia. Many of those are obviously promotional, even linking school's online brochures as resources to the article. I'd like to see this article be improved, but my feedback is going to be negative whenever I think the proposed changes are a step backward. And the editor who used the term "non-hysterical" in the outline has sided with you in this, so you are way off the page with these ad hominem arguments. Stop maligning fellow editors, it's unacceptable. Ibyrnison 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Better than the WORST articles on Wikipedia is not exactly the target I had in mind when I signed up for this project. Your opinion of what constitutes a "step backward" does not agree with mine. If taking out the warm-and-fuzzy PR language constitutes a step backward, then maybe it's you who is facing the wrong direction. --Pete K 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm in complete agreement. The PR language should come out. But the actual content should stay in. We can't eliminate content just because some editor thinks it makes the education sound good. At the same time, we have to be careful not to add or remove content based on evidence like, "'everybody' who visits a school knows", especially when "everybody" really means "I". Ibyrnison 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think I want to remove content that makes the school look good? Really? This is an incredible claim. My kids go to Waldorf. I've been involved in Waldorf since 1990. Please don't assume things about me. My intention here is to produce an honest article that shows Waldorf in a fair light, not a spotlight, a fair light. I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't agree that Waldorf has a religious bent... I assume they are being dishonest because it is very clear TO ME that it does. --Pete K 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is disingenous at best, Pete. Come on. You are known far and wide as an incredibly hostile critic of the schools. Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith; leave out your assumptions (of others' dishonesty, e.g.) at least here, please. Hgilbert 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this? No more "movement", but it also addresses the broader diversity where it's in practice.

"Waldorf education (also called Steiner education) is the term given to an educational philosophy and methodology first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and further developed from the philosophical system Steiner termed spiritual science, or Anthroposophy. The system was first developed for a new school Steiner helped to found in Stuttgart in 1919. The education is now practiced in approximately 920 independent private schools worldwide. The philosophy and methods have also been adapted for educators and caregivers in other settings, including home schools, day care centers and preschools, public schools and special needs providers." Ibyrnison 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd drop "term given to": "...is an educational philosophy and methodology..." and move the sentence about Stuttgart to a later paragraph. That leaves:

"Waldorf education (also called Steiner education) is an educational philosophy and methodology first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and further developed from the philosophical system Steiner termed spiritual science, or Anthroposophy." I'm not sure about what should follow; something about its approach, as at present, or something about the schools. In any case, the present final paragraph -

Waldorf education is practiced in independent Waldorf schools, Waldorf-method (government funded) schools,homeschools, and special education environments. There are now close to 1000 established independent Waldorf schools located in about sixty different countries throughout the world, as well as many younger initiatives, making this the largest independent nondenominational school system in the world.[3]

seems worth including. It is clearer.For example, there are far more than 920 independent private schools; as of March, 2006 921 had achieved a second level of accreditation, past the pioneer stage (which can last quite a few years). Can you merge the two possibilities? Hgilbert 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What about editing the first paragraph to read, "Waldorf education (also called Steiner education) is an educational philosophy and methodology first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and further developed from the philosophical system Steiner termed spiritual science, or Anthroposophy. It undertakes to educate what it terms the "whole child", incorporating a balance of physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against the backdrop of its well-defined stages of child development. Child development is viewed as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit.[1] Its curriculum focuses on the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning. Waldorf schools are commonly described as schools of the head, heart and hands."

The second paragraph is good, but we need to verify some of it. The only problem with "close to 1000" would be if is it's not sourced. Unless there is a better number spelled out in some source, we should use the published number given in the article's link, which I read earlier here is 921. And is there a source for the "largest independent school in the world" claim? The reference in the endnote doesn't say this, and I think an editor questioned it. Ibyrnison 19:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The "as well as many younger initiatives" pretty much covers any other schools Harlan. This is, again, more brochure talk - trying to boost the numbers. Again, the non-denominational thing doesn't work as anyone who has actually been to a Waldorf school can tell you. Drop the words "spiritual science" - the explanation of what "spiritual science" is (Steiner's clairvoyant musings) can be discussed later in the article. Waldorf is based on Steiner's philosophy, Anthroposophy. Stuttgart belongs later in the article, I agree. Special needs providers practice Anthroposophy, not Waldorf education. We talk about the curriculum and activities of Waldorf education - those don't occur in special needs environments like Camphill. Trying to stretch what Waldorf education is - in order to apply it to other environments beyond schools just makes this article more confusing. Waldorf education is primarily a school system with a course of study for homeschools. --Pete K 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Initiatives are registered and must be listed somewhere. If someone can find a count of them, I don't understand why they can't be included.
2. If editors contest the estimated 'close to 1000', the statement needs a source. I added the nondenominational term because it was a caveat I found given in one of the references which made the statement more plausible to me. I don't know if a system of just 1000 schools can accurately claim to be "fastest growing" in the world. It doesn't seem likely even though the statement is widely repeated on the internet. It seems like a slogan, so we need a source, otherwise the claim should come off.
3. "Spiritual science" is used properly here. It's the term Steiner used, and it should be hyperlinked to the article about "spiritual science" here at wikipedia for further background.
4. How did Camphill become included in this article? What do the references say about whether it is Waldorf education or anthroposophy?
5. We seem to coming to a consensus how to satisfy everyone and remove the word "movement" without reopening the debates about how "Waldorf education" differs from "Waldorf school system", so is there a reason to reargue that old dispute? Ibyrnison 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Close to 1000" is inflating the truth for no reason. Also, many Waldorf schools don't go to high school - most barely make it to the 8th grade. The article sounds like they all go to high school - and we even provide the 12th grade curriculum - as if it applies to all Waldorf schools. In my local area, one Waldorf school goes to 12th grade and the other three go to 8th. I don't disagree with an actual count, and if it turns out to be over 1000, that's fine. Inflating the number is what I'm against - and misrepresenting them as K-12 when most are not. The words "spiritual science" at the very least should be in quotes (I think we agreed to this last week). Why Wikipedia needs a separate article for "Spiritual Science" and another separate article for "Anthroposophy" is beyond me. Is somebody making a distinction between the two? If so, we shouldn't use them here interchangably. If not then one or the other article should probably be removed. What can one say about Anthroposophy that cannot be said about spiritual science? Camphill and those kinds of initiatives should be mentioned in the Steiner article, just like biodynamics and other ideas that sprouted out of Anthroposophy. Nobody is teaching people at Camphill based on the Waldorf curriculum. --Pete K 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are 26 initiatives in the US alone; see this link. Camphill schools do teach the Waldorf curriculum and use these methods; you probably don't realize that adult Camphill and children's Camphill communities are distinct entities.

Geisteswissenschaft, usually translated spiritual science for Steiner's work, is a term used in German by many philosophers: Dilthey, Husserl, etc. It is translated differently depending upon who uses it, however, which makes it hard to write an English language article about the "moral sciences"/"human sciences"/"Cultural sciences"/"spiritual sciences". Perhaps the article should have the name changed to "Human and spiritual sciences". Bit awkward. Any suggestions? Hgilbert 01:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Temperaments

I believe discussion about pedagogy needs to included the topic of the temperaments. Perhaps it is an oversite, but it is one of the foundations of the pedagogy. ----'''Pete K'''-- 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Wars

Maybe one of our next tasks should be to agree on the links that will be available here. The endless battles of adding and removing links is tiresome. Can we come to an agreement of what stays and what goes? --Pete K 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow Down, Please and let's proceed carefully

Hello Wonderful Wikipedians,

It is so nice to see that so many of us are very passionate about Waldorf ed and that we also have an incredible knowledge base here. I am trying to keep this project ruinning smoothly, and so I again have to ask that we all stay ontopic and in-focus. Perhaps we should all use the 30 minute rule - wait 30 minutes before responding to anything that you have read on this page.

Back to the intoduction, I am OK with some of the changes suggested, but quite frankly the amount of information posted here in two days is quite overwhelming. I was truly hoping for a stronger focus and I want to point out that Wikipedia does not get involved in court battles - period. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soap box.

I am very grateful for all that has been said here and the suggestions that have been made. I would like to ask everyone to hold back now for 2-3 days while I get outside input from non-biased Wikipedia editors and administrators on two things:

 1) The introduction as we seem to have reached a bit of consensus there.  
 2) The proposed "starting" structure.
 3) The best way to manage this project.  

As you will see on my talk page, we have now 3 very knowledgeable people willing to help us, Wiki knowledgeable, and I am extremely optimistic about the match between their unbiased editorial skills and your knowledge of Waldorf.

I anticipate that our next step will be several section pages within the Alt Ed section - but please everyone, let's wait for their guidance before taking any more steps.

This will hopefully become the key ingredient to this project's success!

Have a wonderful Monday (or holiday for my fellow Americanos) Wonderactivist 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ibyrnison 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consultation Stage

We are currently in a stage of consulting with unbiased Wiki administrators about project management and plan to proceed with our next steps in 2 or3 days.

At that point we will also surely have final project pages set up outside of my user. Wonderactivist 04:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) \

[edit] Self-published external links proposal

1. Remove all external links to references at Openwaldorf, Bob and Nancy, Waldorfworld, Waldorf Critics, and Waldorf Answers
2. Relocate court documents and list of available research to wikipedia source pages and link to the documents there
3. Add one wikilink to PLANS where discussed in article
4. Restrict all current and new entries in "External Link" section to conform to WP:EL Ibyrnison 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised

1. Remove all external links to references at Openwaldorf, Bob and Nancy, Waldorfworld, Waldorf Critics, and Waldorf Answers
2. Conform to editors' earlier elimination of sites such as Amwericans for Waldorf, Easeonline, Waldorf Survivors, Waldorf Questions, and Openwaldorf forums which were not independently published websites
3. Relocate court documents to wikipedia source Wikisource pages and link to the documents there (link to [[Wikisource:Main Page)
4. Explore alternatives to Waldorf Answer's list of research studies
5. Leave existing wikilink to PLANS where discussed in article text
6. Restrict all current and new entries in "External Link" section to conform to WP:EL Ibyrnison 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting for Links Proposal

I agree Wonderactivist 11:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Agree. Hgilbert 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting was not done per comments by admin, we have reached coinsensus and are proceeding Wonderactivist 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Structure

In our first weeks, this project generated a huge amount of comment. That's great in that it shows passionate interest, but if this is going to be workable, I propose the following:

  We limit our discussion to proposals at hand 
     - limiting ourselves to 1 or 2
  We proceed at a slower pace;
     allowing a full week for comment on a given proposal
  We strictly remove unfocused conversation to our Archives.  

This will allow us to proceed in a fashion where all can be heard, but that the project remains open to input from others without their having to read for several hours first. Wonderactivist 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Waldorf Project Proposals to debate this topic or make alternative suggestions Wonderactivist 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting for Sttructure

I agree Wonderactivist 11:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC) agree Hgilbert 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting was not done per the comments by admin - we have reached consensus, however and are proceeding Wonderactivist 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived Discussion for Links Proposal and Project Structure Proposal

Please begin our conversation on the proposal here Wonderactivist 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Links proposal is now on the project page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project Proposals - to be discussed here. Wonderactivist 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that I agree with this document as written, I guess it would be useful to see what links are left. I think it is important to link to something on special needs education and Waldorf, and to something on homeschooling and Waldorf as well - both to publications that meet the guidelines. perhaps we can search them out later. Wonderactivist 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the structure is fine. I think the proposal for external links is also fine. --Pete K 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I fully support the effort here to have a more systematic focus and eliminate extraneous discussions. Ibyrnison 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I also support the work to date. Hgilbert 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait a couple of days for more team comment and then adopt the structure and links if there is no objection. that will allow us to begin going through the proposed starting place section by section, beginning with finishing the intro. Does that sound ok? Also HGilbert has begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Waldorf Project-Archive Proposed Starting Place It is just fine to go ahead and start multiple discussions, to begin to get things into a solid proposal form. then maybe as we clear proposals we can bring them into the proposal process faster. Wonderactivist 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To my reading, the links and proposed project structure have been agreed to by consensus. Can we formally vote on them now on the front of this page? Wonderactivist 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Straw polls for due process but note Wikipedia:Voting is evil as to why we don't usually use them. If concensus is apparent, go for it.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will...

OK so it appears that the proposals for structure and links have been approved, so I'll put them on the main page under "already have reached consensus" but if anyone need to revisit them later, please do so. I will also move up the next two proposals so we can copncentrate on them - please let me know it anyone wants to do differently. Wonderactivist 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)