To Diana
Reading and writing: age, first grade methods,
look-say approach
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:13 am
Subject: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
I'll break this in half, as it got long. The
more important part (to me) is the second part – where I
address what I believe is a fallacy that "early readers
burn out after fifth grade."
Patrick
asked:
What is your reference for Rudolf Steiner's
supposed statement that children should not write before 14?
Did you mean read before 14?
(Steiner is explaining his basic method, where
children see the letter evolve from a picture, i.e., the letter
"K" from a picture of a king, or the vowels from eurythmy-related
gestures: perhaps this is what you mean, Patrick, by Steiner's
phonics method? He explains first that letters "mean nothing"
to children and "the child feels something demonic in the
letters, and rightly so" . . . "You must begin with
the picture" . . .)
"People will object that the children
then learn to read and write too late. This is said only because
it is not known today how harmful it is when the children learn
to read and write too soon. It is a very bad thing to be able
to write early. Reading and writing as we have them today are
really not suited to the human being till a later age –
the eleventh or twelfth year – and the more a child is blessed
with not being able to read and write well before this age, the
better it is for the later years of life. A child who cannot
write properly at thirteen or fourteen (I can speak out of my
own experience because I could not do it at that age) is not
so hindered for later spiritual development as one who early,
at seven or eight years, can already read and write perfectly."
(RS, Kingdom of Childhood, Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press,
revised translation 1995, pp. 26-27).
In my opinion this is likely the basis of
the Waldorf approach to reading. Parents are repeatedly told
children should not read and write "early" and Waldorf
parents are almost always on board with this; yet rarely is it
explained that "early" as defined by Steiner is seven
or eight!
My reference for Steiner's comment that
children should be able to write simple sentences in the first
grade will be found in the volumes, Meetings with Rudolf Steiner.
I don't have that one. I'd love the complete
quotation and citation.
I did not say that "Waldorf first
graders spend most of the year copying the alphabet."
I know you didn't say that – you said
the opposite, and I was refuting what you had said. Sorry that
wasn't clear. You said they don't, I replied that everyone knows
that they do. Of course they do other things besides copying
the alphabet and saying that they also do "auditory discrimination,"
would seem to me to go without saying, so as a refutation of
the statement that Waldorf children spend most of first grade
copying the alphabet, it seems disingenuous to me. Copying the
alphabet is the focus of first grade, it is the basis of many
main lessons, and I am not in the dark about what is the "norm"
in Waldorf schools, Patrick. That is the norm. It doesn't mean
they don't also whistle Dixie, but if we're actually trying to
discuss the focus of the curriculum (and how it contrasts with
a typical first grade curriculum elsewhere), to say that they
spend first grade copying the alphabet is a fair, descriptive
and informative statement.
It's what parents need to know. Parents will
certainly realize that in most first grades, much more is done
towards learning to read than laboriously copying each letter
of the alphabet for weeks at a time – whether this goes
till January or June. It should really go no later than, say,
the end of September, since most first graders already know the
alphabet, even in a Waldorf school. (Whether you think they should
or not, fact is, many if not most do.) This is a deliberate delay
and it's not done because anyone thinks it helps children learn
to read – it's done because Steiner said it was good to
delay reading as long as possible. That is what parents need
to be told – not that Steiner had a phonics method!
during the introduction an equal amount
of time is spent in recognition and auditory discrimination.
Well Good Lord I would hope so. Otherwise
you might as well be trying to train monkeys. Of course, most
of them recognize the letters and probably know most of the sounds,
before first grade. I don't think we actually disagree that Waldorf
teaches the alphabet in first grade, Patrick. No one is likely
to take that to mean without learning the letter sounds.
The rest of the year is spent writing sentences
and words that have meaning and practicing and learning digraphs
and blends.
I'm glad this is what you do in your class,
and I have had other Waldorf teachers tell me this is their approach.
I do not doubt there are Waldorf schools moving in the direction
of encouraging literacy, and there have certainly always been
individual Waldorf teachers doing so. I applaud this. However,
it is far from accepted in the Waldorf world. I've also had Waldorf
teachers tell me they were fired for doing this. In no other
school system can you be fired for trying to teach kids to read.
Countless Waldorf parents report that their children did nothing
but copy, without having a clue what the words might say, all
year long, in not only first but also second grade and later.
A third grade Waldorf teacher bragged on the SJU list once that
she had her third graders go around reading aloud – one
word at a time – one word per student. (Of no use to third
graders having trouble reading, and a torture session for those
who already read.)
Yes, part of what we do could be compared
to the "look say" method.
It's very difficult for me not to guffaw at
look-say and talk of the "gestalt" of a word, as in
your earlier post. Words don't have a "gestalt," Patrick.
This is a good way to foster illiteracy. A child who tries to
memorize every word by its "gestalt," or its appearance
as in look-say – and many children do try to do this, as
they think that this is what reading is, if no one's taught them
otherwise – will run out of steam by about third or fourth
grade (well, later in Waldorf, I guess), as their memory overloads.
If they don't know how to sound out unfamiliar words phonetically,
or, for instance, recognize related word forms, like figure out
what "nationality" might mean because they already
know the word "nation" (and many children do need word-building
principles like this explained to them), then "look-say"
will only serve them so long, for as long as they need to know
only perhaps a few hundred, short, one- or two-syllable words.
The other parts of what we do are included
in two other common methods known colloquially as "phonics"
and "the spelling method". Steiner outlines these methods
in two books entitled, "A Child's Changing Consciousness"
and "Soul Economy and Waldorf Education."
I'll look at those, I have both of those (though
complete citations with page numbers would be helpful), and will
see what you are referring to as "Steiner outlining these
methods." I can't say that I recall reading anywhere where
Steiner outlines a phonics method. I wonder if you have ever
studied phonics outside of reading Rudolf Steiner? It would be
hard to confuse what Steiner advocates with "phonics"
as understood by other educators. Do you actually tell parents
Steiner had a phonics method? The only Waldorf teachers I've
known yet who knew about reading instruction learned it in non-Waldorf
teacher colleges or education programs, or sought outside help.
In the world of reading instruction, Rudolf Steiner is not cited.
Many methods are debated, and fads come and go of course, but
Steiner isn't one of them. He had no expertise in teaching children
to read. (Perhaps we could poll listmates again. Anyone know
of any evidence Steiner ever taught a child to read?)
Do you mind if I ask what your own training
consists of? Do you have teacher training outside of Steiner
or anthroposophical institutions?
at the Sacramento Waldorf school at least,
reading comprehension scores on standardized tests showed that
on average, our classes rank in the 80th percentile or above.
I am very glad to hear it; however, there
remains no documentation of the effectiveness of Waldorf methods,
and much reason to doubt their effectiveness. The appropriate
comparison, to determine how good this rank of your school really
is, would be with comparable private schools in the area with
comparable demographics. If you know of such data, please let
me know. I would need to know a lot more about these statistics
to comment on them. For instance, what grade or grades are you
talking about? What percentage of these children actually learned
to read at the Sacramento Waldorf school, versus another school
which they attended before they came to the Waldorf school? Or
knew how to read before they entered first grade? Etc. (If many
children join the school after the early grades, most of them
will probably already know how to read.)
That is, by the way, not the highest scores
in the class but the class average! It is simply not true that
our methods do not work.
Which is it? Your classes rank in the 80th
percentile or above – or this is the class average? Do you
know what year these data came from?
It may well be true that your methods don't
work. I'd need to see some convincing evidence you actually taught
these kids to read. A lot of times, the parents have taught the
kids to read, or tutors have taught the kids to read, or the
kids have taught themselves. Sometimes Sesame Street or Sponge
Bob has taught the kids to read. With virtually any method, or
non-method, some kids will learn seemingly effortlessly with
little adult involvement, and no matter how good the method,
it appears some kids will struggle. (The truer test of the method
is of the middle ground.)
Of course, all that is true in any non-Waldorf
school as well, so the test would need to compare Waldorf with
non-Waldorf schools, controlling for many variables such as socioeconomic.
(And please don't take personally my statement that I'm not convinced
you taught your students to read. I tutor kids in reading and
I don't know whether I could fairly claim to have taught anyone
to read or not – I often wonder. I'd like to think so, but
there's lots of other input that could also explain kids' progress.
I often have no idea what kind of help they're getting at home,
for instance.)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 7:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Reading and writing: age,
first grade methods, look-say approach
Diana:
Words don't have a "gestalt,"
Patrick. This is a good way to foster illiteracy.
And you know this how Diana? Are you aware
that also in the Hebrew schools they teach in a very similar
manner if not the same manner as Waldorf regarding this point.
Each letter has its own gestalt and we learn it as we write.
I am now studying this alphabet and I sense into the letters
as I write them. It becomes very beatiful in this manner as well
as a happy experience. I can imagine if I had been taught this
in school I could imagine my happy go lucky self over joyed to
learn such a thing. It truly brings a smile to my face, the sense
of wonder that I had innately within me would have indeed been
prolonged before it was taken away by the world. That's actually
how I feel about it. I feel as if I am now getting back to the
childhood of my self these last ten years.
It's funny reading alot of what you are saying
and how it seems to me you assume most of the schools are as
you and the critics say. Your group is a very small group compared
to all the Waldorf schools in America not to mention the world.
Not to say there are not valid points, there are I am sure, and
have heard, but to act as if what you are saying regarding the
negative aspects of the school apply to most, apart from the
spiritual aspect, I would say is an exageration from what I have
seen on your list and the other parents that give you positive
stories. I think it is important to keep it in right juxtoposition
with the whole.
Keep the wonder in childhood is what I say,
we grow up very fast and without a sense of wonder we will be
longing for something that we may not find ever or possibly when
we pass our thirties and recognize something missing. And usually,
from what I have seen, it is the wonder and joy of self that
has been taken. How very very sad to push a child to the extent
the schools do today. I wish a child would just find art and
love and song and dance for the first few years if school. I
think it is great a child, from a loving home and attentive parents,
is not taught all this stuff to early. There is plenty of time
and lots of great ways to bring a child to learning versus the
same old same old we have been taught. Why push the child to
read before seven or eight. Let it come naturally. And yes, the
parents should definetly be made aware.
Happy Monday,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:51 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Reading and writing: age,
first grade methods, look-say approach
Dear Diana,
You speak with the high tone of an expert
on Waldorf education. I don't know why you think you are more
qualified to speak on this matter that I am. From what I gather
from my limited knowledge of you, you have not attended a Waldorf
teacher training course nor have you taught in a Waldorf classroom.
It seems that most of your knowledge has come from your participation
on various lists, conversations, and through reading. From what
you say you have gained as a knowledge of Waldorf education,
I can only reasonably assume that either you have chosen to ignore
some and have given weight to others because it fits your preconception
or your population is skewed. What you say is not the norm. I
believe I have a right to say this given my twenty years in Waldorf
education both as a class teacher who taught three classes, one
six through eight, one first through eighth, and one first through
sixth. I have taught summer continuing education courses as a
Waldorf educator for nine years and trained teachers full-time
for three years. I have observed in the classrooms of dozens
of teachers, mentored many of them, and acted as a consultant
for boards and schools. What I have said in my posts is the norm.
You have likely run across a few uninformed and unmentored teachers
some of whom perhaps have a fanatical streak. It also appears
that you have run across other, more reasonable ones, but have
chosen to think that they are in the minority. The passage you
quote from Kingdom of Childhood is generally interpreted to mean
that a child is better off not learning to read and write early
than to receive early instruction in these skills. The annals
of history are full of individuals who were great contributors
to humanity who did not learn these skills early including Thomas
Edison, Albert Einstein, Robert Frost, and Rudolf Steiner. You
may disagree that such early instruction can be harmful or at
least counterproductive, but there are many, including many non-Waldorf
educators and thinkers who agree with that statement. In that
passage he is also making a personal statement about himself.
The point of the passage is not that you withhold all instruction
in reading or writing until 11, 12, or 14, but that you should
put the abilities and achievements of your students in perspective.
In other words, be patient with them; there are benefits to late
blooming. You will note the phrase, "reading and writing
as we have them today." He advocates the teaching of reading
and writing using different methods. These methods do not force
the child, but allow each to go at his or her own pace. The Waldorf
methods allow for a child to read and write each according to
his or her interest. It is true that we do not foster early intellectual
development. It is true that we encourage play, art, and "will
activities" as superior to intellectual activity in the
early years. It is also true that competence in thinking can
be taught using non-intellectual means. It is important of course
that the intellect be developed -- but at the right time. In
our training courses, teachers are taught to differentiate between
those children "who choose to wait" and those who have
true learning disabilities. There were not as many children with
learning disabilities in Steiner's day as there are now. Modern
life has brought it about that children are not well integrated
in their muscular and nerve-sense systems. This must of course
be recognized and remediated. The teachers are now taught and
given assessment tools whereby they can help in these children.
Not all children have these difficulties of course.
You asked for certain clarifications. Here
they are:
1. When I said that the classes ranked in
the 80th percentile in reading and reading comprehension and
added the phrase, "the class average", I was trying
to make clear that this was the ranking for the whole class not
the top third or so. The top the third was well into the 90th
percentile. This has been the case for the 17 years I worked
there. We discuss these sorts of things in teachers meetings.
I have never known a class to go below the 76th percentile in
these categories in my twenty years of teaching.
2. No, I do not believe that a child who teaches
himself to read, will later on not enjoy it. My youngest, who
taught himself to read early on, enjoys reading and is quite
a good writer. He is in a public high school now and doing well.
My eldest recently won a scholar athlete award also at a local
public high school.
3. You seem to have misunderstood me when
I said that in my experience children with early instruction
tend to burnout. I was not speaking about Waldorf students who
have been there since kindergarten. I am speaking about children
who come into the school from the public sector. This has also
been borne out in conversations that I have had with public school
teachers. This is a known phenomenon to them. Not all students,
of course, but enough to be significant and worrisome. Our Waldorf
students tend to go the other way. The trend is up with no dips.
One of the parents of a student I taught in first grade recently
told me that her daughter had made a perfect score on the English
section of the S. A. T. Not that I rank this above other accomplishments.
I am just as proud of those students of mine who became firemen,
homemakers, and goldsmiths. My point is, our method works, each
according to his own.
4. I don't know any teacher who thinks that
he taught a child to read. Given the right tools and situations,
it dawns on them. Decoding is only a step toward grasping the
gestalt of a word. Gestalt is not a Steiner word by the way,
it is my own terminology. A successful decoding process results
in a sight word. Reading is a complex process and I don't know
of any burden on the memory from knowing too many sight words!
No, I have not been trained at any University on reading instruction.
I have been trained in Waldorf education at a good institution.
I have also taken seminars on the subject from mainstream educators
and have done a fair bit of reading and private research.
As for the rest, I am running out of time
and must answer you in another post when time is allowed me.
Patrick
P.S. I think that your concern for the middle
ground as a proving ground for teaching effectiveness should
be allayed by the fact that our classes in the seventh and eighth
grade do well on standadized reading tests. Again I can only
speak from my experience, as you say no data, to my knowledge
has been compiled.
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
I wrote:
Words don't have a "gestalt,"
Patrick. This is a good way to foster illiteracy.
Dottie:
And you know this how Diana?
Would you like references? (sigh) I think
such a discussion is probably beyond the interest or patience
of most here, and fairly off topic for this list. I shouldn't
have said "words don't have a gestalt." Perhaps they
do. It's a very interesting way to relate to words, artistically
and spiritually. Perhaps it is helpful and inspiring, but I think
probably more so for adults such as yourself learning a foreign
language. Even then, I would question whether it will help you
read text in this language better than another method might.
I suspect (correct me if I am wrong) you are learning Hebrew
more as a spiritual experience than for practical reasons, such
as reading books in Hebrew. That would, in a roundabout way,
actually be my point, regarding Waldorf. Experiencing the "gestalt"
of a word is very nice if you want a spiritual experience out
of it. I suspect the experiences you are having in your Hebrew
class closely approximate what is supposed to be going on in
a Waldorf main lesson.
But for teaching children to read, "look-say,"
which is what relating to a word to experience its "gestalt"
boils down to, is long since discredited, and I could probably
find you hundreds of references on this, if you were really interested.
It encourages children to guess at unfamiliar words, or gives
them the very misleading idea that if they stare at it long enough,
summon enough human feeling, perhaps, or try to think of words
that look kinda similar ("house" and "horse,"
for instance, commonly confused by beginning readers relying
on "gestalt"), an unfamiliar word will eventually reveal
its meaning (magically, I guess). It would be nice if it worked
(I would agree that it would be very much more spiritual than
"succumbing to dead conventions," as per Detlef) -
but it does not work. Look-say teaches a child that reading
is memorizing as many words as you can and guessing at new ones,
based on their looking kinda like some other word you think you
remember once seeing. This is a recipe for frustration and failure
– both of which go a long way toward destroying a child's
"wonder," not to mention his/her confidence. I'm all
in favor of keeping wonder in childhood, and think teaching a
kid to read is a great way to do this.
Diana
P.S. I'll get back to Patrick and others tomorrow.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 12:43 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Reading and writing: age,
first grade methods, look-say approach
Part II
Dear Diana,
It looks to me as if you are trying to turn
our conversation into a debate of styles of teaching reading.
You seem to think that the Waldorf methodology is identical to
the "look-say" method of reading. You, therefore, are
taking the opposite stance in support of phonics instruction.
As you know, this debate has long been waged in reading education
from about 1810 onwards. It was in 1810 that the "look-say"
approach was introduced as a way to teach deaf mutes to read.
It was in contrast to what was called the alphabetic method derived
from Greek education which can be compared to a phonetic approach:
in other words, training the student with regard to the sounds
and shapes of the letters and moving from that to reading whole
words, sentences, etc. Phonics as it is now understood is a more
complete and detailed approach than the one used at that time.
Horace Mann picked up the idea, the "look-say" method,
and brought it into public education. From that time the pendulum
has swung widely in support of one method or the other and took
up political overtones in the 1950s. The "look-say"
method has since been modified somewhat and given different names,
most notably "language experience" and the "the
whole language approach." Educators have waged what has
been called "the reading wars" for decades. A third
method has emerged called, "the writing road to reading"
which is a method employing phonetic instruction and the act
of writing and reading what has been written as the basis, simply
put. Given this is a background, I wish to put our discussion
in perspective. The Waldorf approach to teaching reading is not
the same as the "look-say" method. You cannot categorize
it in this way. If one wants to compare it to to any of these
three modes of instruction one cannot because it is not one,
or the other, or the other! One can rightfully say that it uses
elements from all three although not in a derivative sense. The
Waldorf method is its own method derived from an intuitive knowledge
of the human being and its relationship to language. In one sense
it acts as a redemption of purely mechanical phonics. For example,
we are not merely teaching of the alphabet in the beginning --
of course we know that the children mostly know the alphabet
when they arrive -- we are helping the children form an artistic
relationship to the abstract forms. We are also paying attention
to the different sounds evoked by these shapes. Through our methods
the shapes "live and speak." We do not neglect the
categories of digraphs and blends, etc. discovered in phonics
texts. By writing meaningful sentences and paying attention to
shape, sound, and meaning, we can also be compared to the approach
known as "the writing road to reading." We also utilize
the basic methods of the "look-say" approach, but only
as an aspect of our teaching. We do this not because we're advocates
of that approach, but because we believe that one must begin
with wholeness, with an holistic approach. And do not label us
with another method of the same name. I repeat, we have our own
method arising out of the knowledge of the human being. What
I'm trying to impart to you is that I believe that you are tilting
at windmills. Each one of the aforementioned methods has an aspect
of truth in it. But each is a fragment and not the whole. Of
course one must learn the mechanics of language. One can do this,
however, without using mechanical means and definitions. In other
words, and in short, we use all three, none to the exclusion
of the other. When Steiner spoke of these three -- in the books
I mentioned -- he related each one to an aspect of the human
being. He made no statement of preference for one or the other
but gave it in such a way that teachers, in freedom, could draw
their own conclusions. (I must apologize for not being able to
give you the exact reference at this time but because of my health
conditions I cannot get to my office where the books reside.)
What he was very specific about was that education is fundamentally
an artistic process and all instruction must be permeated with
this. The main problem I have with your argument is that you
seem to be limiting Waldorf education -- at least with regard
to reading instruction -- to, as you call it, a discredited approach.
The enemy you are fighting is, in this case, but a phantom.
Sincerely,
Patrick
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:10 am
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Patrick,
Let's leave aside my "tone" and
your concerns about whether I even have a right to speak on these
topics, how about? (I worked as an assistant in 3 Waldorf kindergartens
– and have sundry other related experiences as well, but
it's irrelevant. If we were actually going to talk about who
had more experience teaching reading, hate to break it to you,
but I have more than Rudolf Steiner had!) Need a new guru? :)
What I'm really curious about is exactly what
we are actually disputing here, in terms of what goes on in Waldorf
first grades. You haven't really disputed my description factually,
you are apparently just offended by hearing it described rather
baldly as "copying the alphabet." You want to make
sure people realize that when they copy the alphabet, they also
learn the letter sounds.
This thread began awhile back with Daniel
reporting that he had been to a Waldorf open house and saw first
grade main lesson books, including sentences the children had
written. He asked rhetorically, How can this be, since the critics
claim reading is not taught in first grade. I replied that they
do copy, though often without comprehension, and this is a large
part of first grade.
I can't find anything you've written since
to dispute this?
Of course, you claim "the method works,"
and I've heard lots of people claim that it did not work for
their children. It is very unfortunate that there are no data.
We hear all the time that any problems are
due to a few "fanatics." But the funny thing is, if
you look at what Steiner said to do, they're really interpreting
him reasonably, and not fanatically at all.
The passage you quote from Kingdom of Childhood
is generally interpreted to mean that a child is better off not
learning to read and write early than to receive early instruction
in these skills.
Uh – yes. That's how I interpret it,
and it seems to be how the world of Waldorf interprets it generally.
What is our disagreement then?
You may disagree that such early instruction
can be harmful or at least counterproductive, but there are many,
including many non-Waldorf educators and thinkers who agree with
that statement.
The problem is Waldorf needs to get its PR
honest on this point. It is easy to get people to agree that
"early" reading instruction is dubious (JoAnn cited
the usual suspects), but usually these discussions are rather
vague on the meaning of "early" (not to mention "reading"
and "instruction," as I pointed out earlier). Of course
there are people against "early reading instruction"
now who aren't Waldorf teachers, and the two sides seem to get
more polarized all the time; there are just as many arguing more
vociferously than ever that the earlier the better (which I don't,
personally, agree with totally either, but they do have good
arguments, which are totally ignored in Waldorf). But most people
probably think of "early" in the context of learning
to read as meaning, say, before age 5 or 6. In Waldorf, even
7 or 8 is "early."
(None of the people JoAnn cited can be found
agreeing that all children should wait until first grade even
to learn the alphabet, or that a year should be spent on the
alphabet, – and none of them, ever, mention "change
of teeth" as a reading readiness criterion, by the way.)
In that passage he is also making a personal
statement about himself.
Yes – he holds himself up as proof that
late writing (he doesn't say reading here specifically) need
not hinder spiritual development. The audience is assumed to
share his understanding that spiritual development is the goal.
(This is lecture 2 in the series; lecture 1 is devoted to an
understanding of education as soul and spiritual development
of the child. – You wouldn't think I'd have to explain such
things to anthroposophists, but critics are always accused of
taking things out of context . . . that's the context. The context
is not Steiner's personal biography, he is not musing on which
subjects he liked best in school. He was telling a group of teachers
in England how to set up a school on solid spiritual principles.)
The point of the passage is not that you
withhold all instruction in reading or writing until 11, 12,
or 14, but that you should put the abilities and achievements
of your students in perspective.
That's one interpretation, but it's certainly
not the closest to his words. He said the child is "blessed"
who reads and writes late. Now who doesn't want a child to be
"blessed"? That's strong language. That's a strong
incentive to delay instruction as long as possible. Any other
interpretation would seem to quite water down his intent. He
speaks of the importance or advantageousness of such a delay
for spiritual purposes, and Waldorf is all about the optimum
spiritual development of the child (as virtually every lecture
in the volume repeats many times).
Obviously, you cannot literally withhold all
reading and writing instruction until later than age 11 and expect
to run schools. I personally think this is the appropriate lens
for understanding the odd mix of attitudes and practices in Waldorf
reading instruction: they are trying to make an uneasy compromise
out of the inescapable need to at least try to teach children
to read and write, which of course they recognize is necessary
in society, and their spiritual goals, which are always more
important, and which they know from Rudolf Steiner are better
served by minimizing, delaying, and downplaying the acquisition
of literacy (which is ahrimanic, dead, abstract, etc.; Steiner
and many other anthroposophists are on record repeating this
ad nauseum) till the latest age possible.
It's a difficult compromise with society,
with many detractors. Isn't spirituality always so?
In other words, be patient with them; there
are benefits to late blooming.
And those benefits are in fact the goal of
a Waldorf education. The passage doesn't read as a prescription
for "patience" with slow learners. It is not a passage
or a lecture about how to handle reading difficulties, or handle
the children who are slower learners. He was speaking in generalities
of what is best for children, he was helping them set their program
up at this new school. Context galore folks.
You will note the phrase, "reading
and writing as we have them today." He advocates the teaching
of reading and writing using different methods.
No, that's not the context of this passage.
The discussion is preceded by talk of "how writing really
originated," i.e., through pictures: "Today it is difficult
to recognize from the words themselves that the letters were
once pictures." (p. 24). That was thousands of years ago,
of course. He is not contrasting his method with other pedagogical
methods in other schools today (or circa 1924, date of lectures);
he's contrasting alphabetic writing with pictographs.
These methods do not force the child, but
allow each to go at his or her own pace. The Waldorf methods
allow for a child to read and write each according to his or
her interest.
Then why should children who are interested
earlier be held back?
2. No, I do not believe that a child who
teaches himself to read, will later on not enjoy it.
Ok – so you personally are opposed to
"instruction" in some direct sense; not to early reading
per se?
I like that interpretation, the far more liberal
interpretation of Steiner. What we don't really know is how many
people interpret it your way versus following Steiner more literally.
We do know that the latter cause a lot of problems. And we know
that he didn't actually say, Be patient with late bloomers; what
he said is closer to, A delay is actually good for them spiritually.
3. You seem to have misunderstood me when
I said that in my experience children with early instruction
tend to burnout. I was not speaking about Waldorf students who
have been there since kindergarten.
Neither was I. I was speaking in general terms
of the child who everyone thought was reading well, and seeming
to read with eagerness and enjoyment, who suddenly announces
that "reading is boring and I don't wanna do it anymore."
Whether the child learned in Waldorf or elsewhere, this should
be taken as an indicator to find out where their knowledge gaps
are or what strategies they are using that are inadequate. Those
strategies may have been sufficient when the words were simple
and the child recognized many words by sight. When the words
and concepts or themes get harder, strategies that previously
worked may stop working.
My point was that far from confirming the
Waldorf teacher's bias (though yours seems quite confirmed) that
this child shows "burnout" because they've already
been reading too long, or the problem is specifically attributable
to the age at which instruction began (conveniently, that's in
the past and can't be changed) - this is probably a sign that
the early instruction had serious gaps. That can be changed.
I am speaking about children who come into
the school from the public sector. This has also been borne out
in conversations that I have had with public school teachers.
This is a known phenomenon to them. Not all students, of course,
but enough to be significant and worrisome.
It may be a "known" phenomenon to
them, but they have every bit as much reason to pass the blame
to earlier teachers or parents as a Waldorf teacher does, rather
than working with the kid, which is incredibly time-consuming.
I'd love to think that no matter how much you disagree with me
on everything else, you'd actually take it to heart that these
children need evaluation and probably assistance – not to
just be left alone or learn basket weaving because reading "isn't
interesting" and not particularly good for them anyway.
I'd just love to think that you'd really consider this. That
is exactly the place many children fall through the cracks, and
never become easy, fluent, expert, accomplished, fast readers
who can use the written word for their own purposes. Many doors
close at that point, intellectually, in terms of careers, etc.,
when the child is able sort of to muddle through, but avoids
anything too challenging, and saddest of all a lifetime of pleasure
from reading is probably not going to happen.
Just do me a favor and consider this next
time a fifth or sixth grader is said to be "burned out"
on reading supposedly because they had "early reading instruction."
They may have had and may still be having poor reading
instruction and it is not too late to get them better
instruction, but it will soon be if no one bothers. I am not
saying this is necessarily possible to do in the classroom with
25 or more kids, but there are other ways, such as tutoring.
(Tutoring is not Ahrimanic.) :)
Our Waldorf students tend to go the other
way. The trend is up with no dips.
Well, I'm glad to hear that, but as you yourself
note, there are no data on this, and plenty of parental testimonies
in both directions. I hear from the people whose kids dipped
really badly.
4. I don't know any teacher who thinks
that he taught a child to read. Given the right tools and situations,
it dawns on them. Decoding is only a step toward grasping the
gestalt of a word. Gestalt is not a Steiner word by the way,
it is my own terminology.
Well, hardly. But let's not take the time
on that. The "gestalt" of words was indeed invoked
in reading instruction in decades past, you probably read it
someplace.
A successful decoding process results in
a sight word.
That's not the meaning of the term "sight
word" in the reading literature. Obviously, after you have
learned a word, it is in some sense a "sight word"
in that you recognize it by sight after that. By that meaning,
every word you know is a sight word, yet surely you didn't just
memorize new ones as you went along for the past however many
decades you've been reading!
I thought Waldorf teachers didn't believe
children were vessels to be filled up with facts!! "This
word says 'cow'."
In early reading instruction, "sight
words" refers to asking kids to memorize a bunch of words
"by sight," i.e., without reference to phonetic principles.
Just learn `em `cus you gotta know `em. Weekly spelling lists
are in some sense sight words. Whether this should be done at
all is hotly debated in some circles, though it seems hard to
get around asking kids to learn a few words by sight. As a primary
strategy, however, it is generally a disaster, and there is agreement
on that all along the phonics/whole language spectrum.
Reading is a complex process and I don't
know of any burden on the memory from knowing too many sight
words!
Well, you've misunderstood the definition,
yes there is a burden on children's short-term memory learning
sight words. There is research on this, someone has quantified
the numbers, I forget what it is, perhaps a few hundred or thousand.
(Obviously people have different memory capacities.) But more
importantly it teaches them the wrong strategy, it encourages
reliance on memory (and even Waldorf teachers don't want memory
overtaxed!!) Some kids in the process of memorizing many
words may figure out for themselves certain aspects of how the
code actually works, even if they aren't being taught, and apply
these principles as they go. The problem is that many kids don't,
and they do indeed come to a dead standstill when they simply
can't memorize any more words, and the words, at the same time,
are getting longer and multisyllabic and there are additional
burdens on memory and intellectual capacity in terms of vocabulary,
concepts, etc., and school assignments are also getting longer,
and the poor kid is suddenly way over his or her head.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:13 am
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Patrick:
It looks to me as if you are trying to
turn our conversation into a debate of styles of teaching reading.
Uh . . . what were we talking about then?
Weren't we talking about how to teach reading? I'll continue
this in a couple of hours.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Reading and writing:
age, first grade methods, look-say approach
--- Diana wrote:
The problem is Waldorf needs to get its
PR honest on this point. It is easy to get people to agree that
"early" reading instruction is dubious (JoAnn cited
the usual suspects), but usually these discussions are rather
vague on the meaning of "early" (not to mention "reading"
and "instruction," as I pointed out earlier). Of course
there are people against "early reading instruction"
now who aren't Waldorf teachers, and the two sides seem to get
more polarized all the time; there are just as many arguing more
vociferously than ever that the earlier the better (which I don't,
personally, agree with totally either, but they do have good
arguments, which are totally ignored in Waldorf). But most people
probably think of "early" in the context of learning
to read as meaning, say, before age 5 or 6. In Waldorf, even
7 or 8 is "early."
Dear Diana,
Well, since we are not to talk about your
tone, I tried to let your snide comment on "the usual suspects"
pass. But really, what is the use of citing non-waldorf researchers
who agree with some aspect of the waldorf approach if all you
do is dismiss them with an airy "the usual suspects."
Your mind is made up, heaven forbid we should try and confuse
you with contrary opinions.
Waldorf students tend to enter first grade
at the age of 6 or 7. And reading instruction begins in first
grade, although it is true that children are not expected to
be fluent readers by the end of first grade.
(None of the people JoAnn cited can be
found agreeing that all children should wait until first grade
even to learn the alphabet, or that a year should be spent on
the alphabet, – and none of them, ever, mention "change
of teeth" as a reading readiness criterion, by the way.)
As it happens, researchers at the Gessell
Institute have noted a correlation between change of teeth and
first grade readiness. Loss of baby teeth is mentioned by Ames
and Ilg of the Gessell Institute (which conducts child development
studies, and is not associated with Waldorf education) as one
indicator of readiness for schooling. See Your Five-Year-Old,
Your Six-Year-Old, etc., all by Ames and Ilg.
Obviously, you cannot literally withhold
all reading and writing instruction until later than age 11 and
expect to run schools. I personally think this is the appropriate
lens for understanding the odd mix of attitudes and practices
in Waldorf reading instruction: they are trying to make an uneasy
compromise out of the inescapable need to at least try to teach
children to read and write, which of course they recognize is
necessary in society, and their spiritual goals, which are always
more important, and which they know from Rudolf Steiner are better
served by minimizing, delaying, and downplaying the acquisition
of literacy (which is ahrimanic, dead, abstract, etc.; Steiner
and many other anthroposophists are on record repeating this
ad nauseum) till the latest age possible.
Er... or they may believe that children are
not well served by instruction that sees the students as interchangeable
parts on an educational assembly line -- insert reading instruction
here -- and labels as "defective" children whose own
developmental timetable differs from the norm. As I have noted,
one of my children read quite early by waldorf standards (she
was polishing off the Little House books in first grade) and
she was in no way discouraged in her desire to read by either
her kindergarten or her grades teachers. One read relatively
late, not reaching fluency until near the end of third grade,
and she was not discouraged from her task by being labeled 'slow'
nor was she discouraged from undertaking her own artistic and
literary projects. (I have a number of 'books' she wrote and
illustrated during her early elementary school years. She enjoys
writing a lot and filled up a number of notebooks with
words and letters as early as kindergarten.)
[Patrick:]
These methods do not force the child, but
allow each to go at his or her own pace. The Waldorf methods
allow for a child to read and write each according to his or
her interest.
[Diana:]
Then why should children who are interested
earlier be held back?
Again, it is not my experience (or rather,
my eldest child's experience) that they are. I understand that
some of the waldorf critics and their children have had the opposite
experience. However, my experience -- and Patrick's experience
-- suggests that the notion of holding back children who are
interested in reading is not universal within waldorf education,
which is what this rhetorical question of yours seems to imply.
Again, YMMV.
Musing on what 'evidence' Diana would be willing
to accept....
JoAnn
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:09 am
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
JoAnn:
Well, since we are not to talk about your
tone, I tried to let your snide comment on "the usual suspects"
pass.
Oh, lighten up, JoAnn. "Usual suspects"
was meant light-heartedly (and it didn't refer to you
but to the authors you cited, sorry if you read it that way).
I didn't mean to offend you.
Since when has my asking people to talk about
something, or not talk about something, influenced anyone here?
Talk about my tone if you find it really an interesting topic
:) Geez, I'm jumping through hoops for you people. Deborah demands
a list of what I like about Waldorf, I pop it off an hour later.
Could we talk about Bradford's tone? It's just a tad out of control.
I'm not sure, but he may have just called me a parasite. At any
rate, he seems to suspect that my opinions on reading instruction
link me, in some occult manner, to George Bush and the situation
in Iraq. I could find that distressing if it weren't so funny.
(Having a few mood swings myself today regarding George Bush
and Iraq. Whew. Better laugh than cry. Log onto anthroposophy_tomorrow
and find out people here think it's my fault, me and those Retarded
Beings.) :)
Waldorf students tend to enter first grade
at the age of 6 or 7. And reading instruction begins in first
grade,
I find that this is stated differently depending
on the audience. To an audience that agrees "early reading
instruction is bad," it is a point of pride in Waldorf that
they don't do reading in first grade. When the audience is skeptical,
all of a sudden there's lots of reading instruction in first
grade.
As it happens, researchers at the Gessell
Institute have noted a correlation between change of teeth and
first grade readiness.
JoAnn: "First grade readiness."
What do you think they mean by this? Do you think they mean Waldorf
first grade which doesn't teach reading . . . or other
first grades? What do you think most people mean when they say
"first grade readiness"? They mean reading readiness.
But Waldorf doesn't teach reading in first grade!!
So we need the Gessell Institute to revise
that to show change of teeth correlating to SECOND GRADE readiness
if you want to cite this honestly in favor of Waldorf!
Another often overlooked point is that since
so many children start first grade at SEVEN in Waldorf, that's
not a one-year delay, but two, relative to children in other
schools.
Er... or they may believe that children
are not well served by instruction that sees the students as
interchangeable parts on an educational assembly line --
Er. . . .yes, JoAnn, but who is advocating
that?!
insert reading instruction here -- and
labels as "defective" children whose own developmental
timetable differs from the norm.
I do not support labeling any child "defective"
who differs from the norm, and neither does any decent educator.
my experience -- and Patrick's experience
-- suggests that the notion of holding back children who are
interested in reading is not universal within waldorf education,
I agree. Even another staunch critic and I
once had a little dispute over whether I should make a fuss out
of Waldorf teachers advising parents not to get their children
library cards. (This happened at our school.) This other critic
said that was the craziest thing he ever heard of, since their
teachers never did anything so bizarre, and I shouldn't mention
it, 'cus it was obviously not representative, that teacher must
have been a fanatic, and no one would believe it anyway. (You
know we do try not to misrepresent Waldorf.)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Dear JoAnn,
Well, you have probably figured out how Diana
worked this, but in case you missed the trick, here it is.
First, she asks for some outside authority
for a waldorf practice.
You come up with "the usual suspects."
Diana responds:
"First grade readiness." What
do you think they mean by this? Do you think they mean Waldorf
first grade which doesn't teach reading . . . or other
first grades? What do you think most people mean when they say
"first grade readiness"? They mean reading readiness.
But Waldorf doesn't teach reading in first grade!!
So we need the Gessell Institute to revise
that to show change of teeth correlating to SECOND GRADE readiness
if you want to cite this honestly in favor of Waldorf!
Another often overlooked point is that
since so many children start first grade at SEVEN in Waldorf,
that's not a one-year delay, but two, relative to children in
other schools.
Turning your outside authority against the waldorf case and against
your argument. And of course, since you cited the outside authority,
you are now vulnerable to the criticism that they don't "really"
support what waldorf is actually doing.
However, if you just say, "waldorf does
what waldorf does, and furthermore it works just fine" then
you are hanging out in the wilderness and ignoring all that great
research about education that supports what everybody else is
doing.
You can't win.
Of course, the bright side is that so far,
the WC ain't winning the argument, either. People keep putting
their children into waldorf schools. New schools keep on opening.
Students keep on graduating from 8th grade or 12th grade and
go on into regular high schools or colleges where they do not
seem to stand out as having terrible problems from their non-mainstream
education.
Towards the end of my three years as business
manager at the Chicago Waldorf School, the school decided to
become accredited. The accreditation process involved being scrutinized
by the midwest association of private schools (can't remember
the exact name, so no caps) and simultaneously scrutinized by
AWSNA. Everybody working at the school and many of the volunteers
had to write up in detail what they did and how they did it.
This included the entire curriculum from the youngest kindergarteners
to the 12th grade. All of this material was reviewed by the accreditation
team which was, if I remember correctly, four waldorf people
and four non-waldorf people. At the end of the process the group
came and spent a week at the school, observing in every class,
talking to all of the teachers and staff and so on.
Now, this system is not designed to "critique"
waldorf, but on the other hand inviting outside observers to
scrutinize every aspect of your curriculum and teaching methods
is not what you do if you are an evil cult with a hidden agenda.
Not if you want to keep your agenda hidden, anyway.
Nor is Chicago the only school to go through
this process. Toronto did it first and Austin, I believe, went
second. A number of other schools are in process.
Deborah
Accreditation
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:55 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
JoAnn
Musing on what 'evidence' Diana would be
willing to accept....
I think the only 'evidence' that Diana and
most of the critics would accept is their own. Unfortunately
for them they are not considered experts on Dr. Steiner no matter
how many years they have been fighting his Waldorf schools.
I find it astounding that Diana would think
she has more teaching experience than Dr. Steiner. Truly. I mean
it is just a lack of common sense. I guess we would have to see
where the WORD teacher sat before his name. It's really just
ridiculous to me to see this kind of answer time and time again.
If you are a critic and have read Dr. Steiners work and disagree
with it you must know what you are talking about. If you are
a student of his works you must have no idea what the man is
saying. It's just so ass backwards and illogical.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:15 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Deborah:
First, she asks for some outside authority
for a waldorf practice.
Well, I didn't actually, so your cleverly
catching me in the act is a little off-base. You guys are really,
really paranoid. Everyone is out to get you. If you are reading
Bradford and taking him seriously, it's no wonder. Bradford needs
to calm down just a bit, he's now pasting in the same texts over
and over again.
Yes, Deborah, if someone claims they're citing
an authority that supports Waldorf, or anything else, they are
"vulnerable" to someone examining it to see if it really
does. I thought you liked "conventional historical writing."
You were speaking admiringly of it earlier today. Aren't you
one of the ones regularly up on your soapbox fretting that everyone
else's claims must be examined, references checked, credentials
inspected, etc.? So what is this whining about JoAnn's claim
being inspected to see if it supported Waldorf practices?
A post or two later, you are bragging about
how Waldorf submits itself to outside inspection of its claims
and practices. It's a roller coaster ride here, isn't it?
However, what I said to JoAnn was wrong. She
only claimed to have found someone else who used change of teeth
as a criterion for school readiness. My reply really made no
sense. Assuming she has her facts straight about Ilg and Ames,
I stand corrected on that point.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Dottie:
I find it astounding that Diana would think
she has more teaching experience than Dr. Steiner.
Not more "teaching" experience overall,
if he really tutored so many people through high school and college
etc. I haven't heard anyone claim he ever taught reading to young
school-age children. Feel free to correct me if you know otherwise.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
One way to look at the question of when to
introduce reading and writing and how fast to go with the process
is to see it as a continuum.
At one end is the people who believe that
reading readiness begins in the womb and act on this belief.
At the other end: well, somewhere there is
probably a sect that believes no one should read or write. They
are probably, one hopes, not online.
Waldorf falls somewhere along this continuum.
So do a variety of public and private school practices. Waldorf
goes farther than most schools in delaying formal instruction.
The question can then be broken into various
pieces:
1) is waldorf style delaying a bad idea for
the majority of children?
2) do the specific waldorf methods of introducing
the alphabet, etc. cause problems for the majority of children?
3) even if one and two can be answered with
a no, you can still ask if children would be better off if they
were taught in some other way. Number 3 is a very hard question
to answer, partly because the studies haven't been done, and
partly because it is hard to quantify better off.
To give a definite example.
My granddaughter is very bright. At four,
she is interested in reading, loves books and with a bit of coaching
and encouragement would probably start reading. Her parents have
a strong attachment to waldorf and are withholding this coaching
and encouragement. Are they harming her?
Well, since she isn't learning how to read,
she has developed several interesting work arounds. First she
just pretended she was reading, holding up the book and sort
of muttering to herself. Then she started being able to tell
parts of the story. After that she began to memorize entire books.
At any given time there are at least seven or eight that she
can recite all the way through and several more that she has
partially memorized. Recently she was amusing herself by reciting
one book while looking through another.
So, if her parents had jumped on the first
signs of her interest in reading, she might have lost out on
some interesting experiences. These self-chosen activities may
be developing valuable capacities for the future. Or they may
just be fun. Who knows? Would she definitely be better off starting
to read at four? Why? What might be lost? What would be gained?
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Reading and writing:
age, first grade methods, look-say approach
--- Diana wrote:
Deborah:
First, she asks for some outside authority
for a waldorf practice.
Well, I didn't actually, so your cleverly
catching me in the act is a little off-base. You guys are really,
really paranoid. Everyone is out to get you.
Diana, Diana, Diana....
Way back on April 12, you wrote the following
to Patrick:
Patrick:
It is my experience, again from 20 years
of teaching, that children who have early reading instruction
may tire of reading and find it uninteresting after grade 5.
[Diana:]
Nonsense. This is another cherished Waldorf
legend. I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYONE CLAIM THIS OUTSIDE OF WALDORF.
It is convenient for scaring parents away from the other, bad
schools where children are "pushed." I learned to read
early (at least by Waldorf standards) and am a lifelong voracious
reader. I WONDER IF YOU KNOW OF ANY DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS
CLAIM or if it is just another one of those things Waldorf
teachers assure one another, and assure parents, is true. [emphasis added]
And again, you
wrote to Detlef on April 13, 2004:
About the "early readers burn out"
claim, I wrote:
I've never heard anyone claim this outside
of Waldorf.
It was these two comments from you that prompted
my original post noting that Moore, Elkind, Healy and others
have done research supporting the waldorf position that early
academics -- aka, early reading instruction -- can lead to student
burnout in the upper elementary grades.
So your claim that you didn't actually ask
for some outside authority for a waldorf practice is disingenous
at best. As was your claim that you'd never heard anyone claim
that early academics could lead to student burnout. After all,
why refer to the folks I cited as "the usual suspects"
if you'd never even heard of them, hmmmm?
Whilst it may be true that I am somewhat paranoid
where the waldorf critics are concerned, it's a paranoia born
out of experience. (Nothing personal, Diana.)
Hey, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean
all y'all aren't out to get me! <G>
Still musing on the evidence Diana would accept....
JoAnn
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:15 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Deborah, I didn't think you owed me an apology.
JoAnn . . . sigh. It's more just the general paranoia here -
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear either, but I was really reacting
more to Deborah's seeming to feel that I had very slyly set you
up. Look what Diana does! She demands evidence, then look how
mean she is when you give her evidence! come on people.
I wrote another (long) reply a day or two
ago to Patrick that has not shown up here (yet?). I don't feel
like rewriting it. So let's just chill. I do not want to start
checking in Healy, David Elkind etc., I don't have time. I do
find that various people are cited by Waldorf advocates as supporting
Waldorf who have little notion of what goes on in Waldorf. I
agree with you in a very general fashion that there are people
outside of Waldorf who oppose "pushing children into academics
too early." (I put this in quotes not to imply that you
said this specifically; I'm trying to just characterize a general
attitude). I don't favor "pushing" children either,
I'm in favor of lots of play, etc., etc. This was why we put
our child in a Waldorf school.
So my disagreement is a little different -
it is not that I don't realize there are other people who worry
about "early academics." I think you might find it
difficult to show, however, that Healy believes children should
not read in first grade. Or that children who read in first grade
are burnt out on reading after fifth grade. Perhaps I'm wrong,
I think she's written a new book since last time I discussed
this with someone. I remember she talks about brain development
complete with myelinization of neurons (don't make intellectual
demands before this process is complete; smthg like that), and
people at our school jumped all over that because it was scientific.
Neurology backing up Waldorf! We had a whole parent evening on
Healy once (in fact, I wrote the darn thing up for the school
newsletter.) I remember no one understood what "plasticity"
meant in terms of brain development :) Uh-oh, the brain is plastic?
If you actually examine the book closely (which
of course I didn't do at the time; I wanted neurology to back
up Waldorf too), there was no mention of exactly what age this
myelinization is complete (probably because no one knows, or
because it differs by individual). I could not find a prescription
of a specific age for reading instruction.
As for Elkind, I'm not sure about him either.
I'd be very interested if you have a quote from Elkind saying
first graders should not be taught to read. I always find it
amusing when Elkind is cited as supporting the Waldorf media
ban - in one of Elkind's books, he advises no more than 2 hours
TV a day. (In other words, he advises you allow Ahriman to suck
out your child's soul.) But he speaks of "limiting media,"
so he supports Waldorf.
Diana
P.S. I think it's the same Jane Healy who
also wrote a book on left- handers. Someone here might be interested
in checking to see if she mentions switching them to the right
hand. Hint: NO! She doesn't mention it. I suspect she doesn't
know anyone does this anymore.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:17 am
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Dear Diana,
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.
So, waldorf people are careless in the way they cite and use
resources?
[QUOTE]
So my disagreement is a little different
- it is not that I don't realize there are other people who worry
about "early academics." I think you might find it
difficult to show, however, that Healy believes children should
not read in first grade. Or that children who read in first grade
are burnt out on reading after fifth grade. Perhaps I'm wrong,
I think she's written a new book since last time I discussed
this with someone. I remember she talks about brain development
complete with myelinization of neurons (don't make intellectual
demands before this process is complete; smthg like that), and
people at our school jumped all over that because it was scientific.
Neurology backing up Waldorf! We had a whole parent evening on
Healy once (in fact, I wrote the darn thing up for the school
newsletter.) I remember no one understood what "plasticity"
meant in terms of brain development :) Uh-oh, the brain is plastic?
If you actually examine the book closely
(which of course I didn't do at the time; I wanted neurology
to back up Waldorf too), there was no mention of exactly what
age this myelinization is complete (probably because no one knows,
or because it differs by individual). I could not find a prescription
of a specific age for reading instruction.
As for Elkind, I'm not sure about him either.
I'd be very interested if you have a quote from Elkind saying
first graders should not be taught to read. I always find it
amusing when Elkind is cited as supporting the Waldorf media
ban - in one of Elkind's books, he advises no more than 2 hours
TV a day. (In other words, he advises you allow Ahriman to suck
out your child's soul.) But he speaks of "limiting media,"
so he supports Waldorf.
Diana
[/QUOTE]
Here is the list of articles currently listed
on the PLANS site.
Waldorf in General, Description
& Critique
2003 Why Waldorf Programs
are Unsuitable for Public Funding By Dan Dugan, published by
Cultic Studies Review, Volume 2, Number 2, reproduced by permission
2003
Spotlight on Anthroposophy
By Sharon Lombard, published by Cultic Studies Review, Volume
2, Number 2, reproduced by permission December 21, 2001
Question: Who Was Rudolf Steiner?
Answer: Who Is Asking? By Steve Walden December 21, 2001
The Role of Gnomes In Waldorf
Kindergarten By Diana Winters June 20, 2001
The Spirit of Waldorf Education
written by David Ruenzel, Education Week, June 20, 2001
April 26, 2001 Anthroposophy,
Rudolf Steiner, and Waldorf Schools An article in The Skeptic's
Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll, last updated April 26, 2001
(not dated) Waldorf Schools,
Anthroposophy, and Rudolf Steiner A concise description, including
good list of sources. Cincinnati Skeptics, The Association for
Rational Thought
September 1, 2000 Mein Konflikt
mit meiner Anthroposophischen Erziehung A German article by Christoph
Keller dated September 1, 2000
November 13, 1999 Waldorf
Education -- For Our Times Or Against Them? Transcript of talk
by Eugene Schwartz, Director of Teacher Training, Sunbridge College:
November 13, 1999. Edited by Michael Kopp.
October 1999 Letter To Editor
re Antlantic Monthly Article by Todd Oppenheimer titled "Schooling
the Imagination (Atlantic 9/99). By Kathleen Sutphen
February 8, 1999 A Parent's
List Of Questions And Concerns. By Steve Premo via post to waldorf-critics
discussion list (not dated)
Waldorfschule und Kritik???
[in German] web page by Reinhard Karst. November 21, 1998
An Interview With PLANS President.
by college student Jeff Horseman. November 2, 1998
Critical Waldorf Article For
Minnesota Parent Thwarted. By Mary Petrie.
Fall 1998 "Partial Vision
in Alternative Education" by Ron Miller, Renewal: Fall 1998,
Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 20.
April 3, 1990 Survey of San
Francisco Waldorf School Parents: Report. by Dan Dugan, April
3, 1990.
Personal Stories of Former
Waldorf Parents, Students, Teachers, Administrators
Many more personal stories
are currently being written and will be posted in the near future.
Many others are reluctant to be so public about their experiences
due to the pain that they are feeling and fear of repercusions,
and remain on our waldorf-survivors discussion list to tell their
stories there.
December 21, 2001 Anonymous
Testimonial From Waldorf Parent. By Anonymous #1.
December 21, 2001 Anonymous
Testimonial From Waldorf Parent. By Anonymous #3.
December 19, 2001 Parent Testimonial
in waldorf-critics Post. By Kathy H.
April 2, 2000 Anonymous Testimonial
From Waldorf Parent. By Anonymous #2.
January 31, 2000 Thanks PLANS!
Email From Sharon Lombard. By Sharon Lombard.
January 12, 2000 Woman Sees
Waldorf Racism On First Visit. By Anonymous.
September 11, 1999 Waldorf
Student Testimonial - Rosie. By Rosie. 1999 The phlegmatic sits
by the window...: Experiences with actual Waldorf teaching. Miss
Claudia Pangh, published by Reinhard Karst, 1999.
December 4, 1998 A Note Of
Thanks. By [name withheld by request].
February 4, 1998 My Education
Towards Racism. By Edwin Kreulen.
October 8, 1997 "We don't
need no Steiner education". Pink Floyd leader David Gilmour
speaks his mind about his children's Waldorf experience. An article
by Cassandra Jardine, Education section, The Daily Telegraph,
10-08-1997, pp 22.
April 1996 Waiting for the
reincarnation of Jesus and Steiner in one person; MIZ interview
with Norbert Biermann, April 1996.
Fall 1991 Weird Science At
Steiner School. Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 16 (Fall 1991), page
23. Dan Dugan's personal story.
Quotations About Waldorf
and Anthroposophy by Rudolf Steiner and Others
September 2002 Quotations
by Rudolf Steiner and others on the spiritual importance of color
and art, compiled by Sharon Lombard. January 2001 Wet-on-wet
Painting As Talisman, a series of posts to waldorf-critics by
Sharon Lombard, January 11, 2001 - January 22, 2001.
September 1996 The Roots of
Racism in Waldorf Schools: Quotations from Rudolf Steiner and
other Anthroposophists compiled by Dan Dugan, July 1995, revised
September 1996.
Waldorf Curriculum and Anthroposophy
in the Classroom January 2001 Wet-on-wet Painting As Talisman,
a series of posts to waldorf-critics by Sharon Lombard, January
11, 2001 - January 22, 2001.
May 2000 Our Brush with Rudolf
Steiner by Sharon Lombard. Freethought Today. Madison, WI: May
2000, p. 8.
July 27, 1997 Nature Table
or Altar?: by Dan dugan, July 27, 1997.
1996 Mathematikunterricht
an Freien Waldorfschulen: [in German] by Susanne Prediger &
Heiner Ullrich. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik 17 (1996)
3/4, S. 192-211.
Spring 1994 Are Rudolf Steiner's
Waldorf Schools 'Non-Sectarian'? by Dan Dugan and Judy Daar,
Free Inquiry, Spring 1994 (Vol. 14 No. 2)
Winter 1994 Waldorf Schools
Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution by Eugenie C. Scott. National
Center for Science Education Reports, Vol. 14, No. 4, Winter
1994, p. 20.
Waldorf Teacher Training
1993-1994 Waldorf Teacher
Training Reading List, First Year: Rudolf Steiner College 1993-94.
1993-1994 Waldorf Teacher
Training Requirements, Second Year: Rudolf Steiner College 1993-94.
[inserted comment by DK, note
how Dan keeps his material accurate and up to date :)]
Anthroposophy, Steiner's
Occultist Sect
January 28, 2001 Anthroposophy:
by Fredrik Bendz, July 4, 1997, last update January 28, 2001.
February 9, 1999 Why Anthroposophy
Is Cult-Like By Dan Dugan.
April 1996 Anthroposophy:
Rudolf Steiner's 'Spiritual Science': by Rob Boston, Church and
State, April 1996.
1991 Is Anthroposophy Science?
by Sven Ove Hansson, Conceptus: zeitschrift für philosophie,
XXV (1991), No. 64, p. 37.
Anthroposophical Medicine
September 2002 Atlantic Monthly
article on vaccination controversy in Boulder, Colorado:Bucking
The Herd by Arthur Allen
not dated Health Care Reality
Check FAQ Sheet, Anthroposophical Medicine.
Racism and the Relationship
of Anthroposophy to Nazi Philosophy
2001 The Art of Avoiding History.
This is a reply that Peter Staudenmaier wrote to Göran Fant's
article The Art of Making White into Black. Both articles were
originally published in the Swedish skeptical-humanist magazine
Folkvett in 2001.
June, 2001 This is the second
reply that Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Zegers wrote to Peter
Normann Waage. The reply was published in a much shortened version
in "Humanist" (Oslo) 2/2001.
1997 - 2001 Anthroposophie
und Antisemitismus: Frequently updated: articles in German from
1997 to the present on the web page of Aktion Kinder des Holocaust.
August 4, 2000 Intimidation
of the Waldorf kind An article written by Arno Frank that appeared
August 4, 2000 in German publication TAZ, Translated into English
by CISAR.ORG July 10, 2000 This is an unauthorized translation
of the news broadcast shown on German national TV on July 10th,
2000 about racism in Waldorf schools Report Mainz: July 10th,
2000
4/2000 Anthroposophy and its
Defenders. By Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Zegers, published
in Norwegian magazine Humanist 4/2000, replying to Peter Normann
Waage, whose Humanism and Polemical Populism was published in
Humanist 3/2000
(not dated) Anthroposophy
and Ecofascism by Peter Staudenmaier (pre-publication).
Spring 1999 Three people reflect
on Waldorf Education: Recollections, published in Natural Jewish
Parenting, Spring 1999
Spring 1999 Rudolf Steiner
and the Jews by Dan Dugan, published in Natural Jewish Parenting,
Spring 1999
Spring 1999 What every Jewish
parent should know about The Waldorf Philosophy by Deborah Salazar,
published in Natural Jewish Parenting,
Spring 1999 1995 - 1997 Antroposofie:
[in Dutch] A collection of articles from the Dutch anti-racist
paper Kleintje Muurkrant.
September 1996 The Roots of
Racism in Waldorf Schools: Quotations from Rudolf Steiner and
other Anthroposophists compiled by Dan Dugan, July 1995, revised
September 1996.
1996 Waldorf Salad with Aryan
Mayonnaise?: A mother challenges 'race' theories in Rudolf Steiner
education by Toos Jeurissen, 1996.
June 1996 Racism and Waldorf
Education by Ray McDermott and Ida Oberman. Research Bulletin:
Vol. 1, No. 2 (June, 1996) p. 3, Waldorf Education Research Institute.
February 4, 1995 Racial Ethnography
by Robert Sikkes. Zutphen, Netherlands. De Volkskrant, February
4, 1995.
Leaving aside the articles originally published
in anthroposophical or waldorf sources are people who read these
articles going to end up with an accurate picture of waldorf
education and anthroposophy? Are the articles based on accurate
and fair analysis of source material? Do the quotes chosen actually
represent waldorf practices in the U.S?
PLANS and the waldorf critics have had several
years to build a case against waldorf education. What sort of
case have they built? Is it a structure of smears based on sloppy
scholarship? I think so. Why hasn't PLANS been able to put together
a reasonable case. Why do they go for this distorted nonsense?
It certainly doesn't help potential waldorf parents who go looking
for accurate information on potential problems with waldorf education!
I have heard of waldorf schools that actually
point potential parents to PLANS. Why? Because it is so easy
to debunk the information that PLANS dispenses.
Cheers,
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:53 am
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Deborah:
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle
black. So, waldorf people are careless in the way they cite and
use resources?
(and then pastes in a list of articles from
the PLANS web site).
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not PLANS,
I do not represent PLANS or speak for PLANS or determine what
goes on their web site, I'm not "Waldorf critics,"
and I didn't write any of those pieces on that list, except for
that little thing on the gnomes (which wasn't intended as an
article in the first place, it was a post to critics originally,
that I aimed to turn into an article and never did). I'd really
rather they'd take it off as it doesn't make a lot of sense kind
of floating around as a little snippet like that. (But I think
what it says is fair or I wouldn't have said it.)
I'm not sure if you expect me to take responsibility
for everything on the PLANS web site, or to say that I agree
with everything there, or expect me to comment on how the authors
of those various articles, most of whom I don't know, "use
sources," etc. I'm not even sure what I could say in reply
to this, if that's indeed what you expect, as it just seems off
the wall. There are various people and groups involved in this
question; only some of them are formally affiliated with PLANS.
How about Openwaldorf? Shall I take responsibility for everything
there too? (a rhetorical question!) (There are many things at
Openwaldorf I do not agree with, not just in content but in overall
approach.) PLANS I am more in line with philosophically, but
by no means in every way.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Reading and writing:
age, first grade methods, look-say approach
At 20:53 16.04.2004, Diana wrote to Deborah:
I'm not PLANS, I do not represent PLANS
or speak for PLANS or determine what goes on their web site,
I'm not "Waldorf critics,"
Could have fooled me :)
I find it odd that you keep insisting upon
casting me in the role of Waldorf administrator interviewing
parents and what-have-you time and time again when I'm in the
business of communication services. I'm inclined to agree that
you're not a "Waldorf critic" in the real sense of
that word. Your mind is too made up in advance about Waldorf,
RS, and Anthroposophy to be a critic. This is something you have
in common with Peter Staudenmaier, Dan Dugan, and most of the
other regulars on the WC list. You have given me the distinct
impression that you are in basic agreement with what PLANS stands
for - way beyond its
proclaimed mission - and that you approve of the articles
on that website.
I'm not sure if you expect me to take responsibility
for everything on the PLANS web site, or to say that I agree
with everything there, or expect me to comment on how the authors
of those various articles, most of whom I don't know, "use
sources," etc. I'm not even sure what I could say in reply
to this, if that's indeed what you expect, as it just seems off
the wall.
You seem to be very uncritical of PS, although
he has indeed revealed once and for all that his Nazi-related
allegations against RS and Anthroposophy are based upon blatant
intellectual dishonesty and illegitimate manipulation of language
and definitions. I don't think anyone wants to make you responsible
for everything written on the PLANS site, but you do come across
as totally uncritical of its material, as though you automatically
endorse any argument that can be used to discredit Waldorf,
Steiner, and Anthroposophy - perhaps with the sole exception
of Christina Stoddard because she was so extremely right-wing,
although you'll have to admit her style is reminiscent of Sharon's.
There are various people and groups involved
in this question; only some of them are formally affiliated with
PLANS. How about Openwaldorf? Shall I take responsibility for
everything there too? (a rhetorical question!)
I empathize with your objection here, but
you're hurling bricks from a glass house in view of your strong
endeavors to make me responsible for what Waldorf schools are
doing.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Reading and writing:
age, first grade methods,
Dear Diana,
I was hoping you would say exactly this. Thanks.
Deborah
At 20:53 16.04.2004, Diana wrote to Deborah:
I'm not PLANS, I do not represent PLANS
or speak for PLANS or determine what goes on their web site,
I'm not "Waldorf critics,"
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:12 am
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
This is another reply to Patrick which I sent
several days ago and it never showed up.
Patrick said:
It looks to me as if you are trying to
turn our conversation into a debate of styles of teaching reading.
Isn't that what we were discussing?
You seem to think that the Waldorf methodology
is identical to the "look-say" method of reading.
I commented that your description reminded
me of "look-say," particularly the talk of learning
words by their "gestalt," and you replied that I was
correct.
You, therefore, are taking the opposite
stance in support of phonics instruction.
I didn't decide to take this stance to spite
you, Patrick. There is greater support for phonics than for look-say.
The "look-say" method has since
been modified somewhat and given different names, most notably
"language experience" and the "the whole language
approach."
Those are three different things. You'll certainly
offend "whole language" proponents if you confuse it
with "look-say." Language experience is something else
yet again, I've used it with adult struggling readers. It's really
logically flawed to decide that a person can read something they've
written. This is only correct if the person . . . can read. If
they can't, they are basically taking dictation, and then parroting
back to you what they wrote, because they remember what they
said, not because they can read it. This is, at base, the same
as look-say, in that you expect the person to look at some words
and just remember them for next time. You have added a step where
they have to write it themselves first instead of copying it;
but they might as well copy it, since they can't write it unless
you dictate it. It's like poor Alice in Wonderland.
Dressing these theories up with holistic jargon
doesn't improve them. It is exactly, precisely, what Waldorf
claims to avoid - filling someone up with meaningless facts and
giving them no context for actual learning.
Whole language is a different matter. Whole
language is heavily under fire (though in my personal opinion,
there is a danger of throwing too much of the bathwater out with
that baby), but it's still better, a far more complex theory
and set of practices, than look-say - and it's still better than
Waldorf! Whole language shares a lot of fuzzy ideas with Waldorf
about holistic learning, assumptions about how children will
learn "naturally" (or, more accurately, it encourages
the parents to believe this so they don't fuss; it's not really
Steiner's view), and not troubling children with boring skill-based
work. But at least whole language insists that children should
be exposed to, surrounded by, good literature, and encouraged
to revel in it, from an early age.
At least whole language doesn't take the stingy,
frightened, and paranoid approach to the very idea of the written
word that Waldorf inherited from Rudolf Steiner. There's no talk
of letters being "demonic" and frightening children
or shriveling up their internal organs or causing painful illnesses
in middle age. :)
Educators have waged what has been called
"the reading wars" for decades. A third method has
emerged called, "the writing road to reading" which
is a method employing phonetic instruction and the act of writing
and reading what has been written as the basis, simply put.
I understand why that appeals to Waldorf teachers,
since I think Steiner said writing should come before reading.
The Waldorf approach to teaching reading
is not the same as the "look-say" method. You cannot
categorize it in this way.
No, I agree, you cannot. I asked you if there
were similarities, in your opinion, and you replied that there
were.
If one wants to compare it to to any of
these three modes of instruction one cannot because it is not
one, or the other, or the other! One can rightfully say that
it uses elements from all three although not in a derivative
sense. The Waldorf method is its own method derived from an intuitive
knowledge of the human being and its relationship to language.
I'm still hoping to get those quotes from
you on Steiner's phonics method. I understand if you can't get
your books, no hurry, but I'd really appreciate it if you can
post it here someday.
In one sense it acts as a redemption of
purely mechanical phonics.
Sorry, I'm going to start to have a lot of
trouble listening, I must admit, perhaps my bias, if you start
talking about "redeeming" the language or the relation
between the written and spoken language (phonics). It is not
in need of redeeming, in my view. The spiritual talk grates.
It has little to do with teaching children to read, and in terms
of how languages work, it's nonsensical.
For example, we are not merely teaching
of the alphabet in the beginning -- of course we know that the
children mostly know the alphabet when they arrive -- we are
helping the children form an artistic relationship to the abstract
forms. We are also paying attention to the different sounds evoked
by these shapes. Through our methods the shapes "live and
speak."
Guess what? They do anyway.
This other stuff is an impediment, an artificial
(I might even say dead and lifeless) thing imposed on the child.
I really don't think you can force someone to have an "artistic
relationship" to something. It's overbearing. Teach them.
Let them form their own relationships to the letters. Or better
yet, teach them the alphabetic code of our language – then,
they can read books, and have relationships with the people and
places and ideas in the books. This is a lot more gratifying,
not to mention a lot more useful in life, than having a relationship
to individual letters outside of any context of stories and ideas
written down by people. It's almost a fetishizing of individual
letters. (Indeed, esoterically so, that's exactly what it is.)
(Incidentally, there's also a school of thought
now that it confuses some children to be told that the letters
"speak" ("What does `t' say? `t' says /t/")
In this view, the letters are all silent, and it's we
who speak. In a certain way I can see this being compatible with
Steiner's views, too, and even "redeeming" those frightening
little black marks on the page, bringing them into a human realm.)
However, I disagree thoroughly with Rudolf
Steiner that the language, written or spoken, or the process
of learning to read and write it, is "dead," "abstract,"
"soulless," or "damaging." (Never mind demonic.
This is some kind of anxiety thing teachers are communicating
to children.)
Literature, to me, is a profoundly alive way
of relating to the world, for children as for anyone; there is
nothing mechanistic about it and nothing damaging to children
about learning the conventions of their language. These are religiously
based hang-ups being imposed on children, to their detriment.
I think it the opposite of life-giving. It's sort of Puritan.
If the teacher believes written language is
a set of dead conventions that are damaging and soul-destroying
to which the children must "succumb" (to quote Detlef)
(and Bradford, trying to generate as much sky-is-falling fear
and panic as he possibly can, says parasites and bacilli will
infect them too!!)! well! a the teacher who is herself infected
with this paranoid nonsense will convey these fears and shame
to the children. If she believes that reading is for pleasure
and beauty, and knowledge and truth, and adventure and wisdom,
and learning of worlds you never knew existed and is crucial
to a zestful and engaged and joyous life for anyone alive today
– that is probably what she will communicate to her students.
I know which teacher I'd rather my child got.
we believe that one must begin with wholeness,
with an holistic approach.
That has more in common with whole language
than look-say, I agree. It's the misguided notion that children
can enjoy literature without having to be troubled to learn to
read first. It's a well- intentioned but romantic notion –
spare them any effort. It's like passing out Moby-Dick or War
and Peace the first day of school and saying, Here, read this,
literature is so wonderful, plus you'll learn phonics. The problem
is they're first graders and can't read.
But I must repeat the big thing whole language
has got over Waldorf is that part about literature being wonderful.
I've never heard Waldorf teachers talk about that. They're too
busy worrying about all the damage to the kids from being "in
their heads."
And do not label us with another method
of the same name. I repeat, we have our own method arising out
of the knowledge of the human being. What I'm trying to impart
to you is that I believe that you are tilting at windmills. Each
one of the aforementioned methods has an aspect of truth in it.
But each is a fragment and not the whole.
Okay, so you view all the other approaches
as being little pieces of truth, but Waldorf has the whole truth.
Where have I heard this before.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:54 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Reading and writing:
age, first grade methods, look-say approach
Dear Diana, the the the the
I'll begin by holding out something of an
olive branch to you. My listmates Deborah and Dottie have convinced
me that it would be appropriate to give you the benefit of the
doubt. I must confess that I really don't know why you're here
on this list. You say you are interested in anthroposophy and
yet it seems to me that you are here to try and save the world
from anthroposophy. I wish I could ascertain your purpose. Your
mind seems generally closed. I do however understand that you
have had bad experiences in a Waldorf school. I do not doubt
you. I do think that what you have experienced, however, is not
the norm. For instance, I have never heard of the teacher advising
parents against getting a library card for their children. I
too would have been appalled had I heard it. You have also stated
that you have never heard a Waldorf teacher extolling the virtues
of reading and good literature. I am completely amazed by this.
Bear in mind that I literally have had contact with dozens of
schools and hundreds of teachers and heard of various complaints,
but never this. In my 20 some odd years of Waldorf teaching,
I have encountered only teachers who loved good literature. I
have encountered a few teachers who did not read newspapers because
they were appalled by what was going on the world, but Steiner
points out that it is critical for teachers to be interested
in everything that is going on the world. In fact, most of the
errors I found teachers making was because of something in their
own soul, not something arising out of anthroposophy. Dogma and
fanaticism are specifically warned against in the statutes of
the Anthroposophical society. I am engaging in this dialogue
with you because I believe that you have stated things that simply
are not true. When you say that first graders spend most of the
year merely copying, I must protest. This is not true. I have
already enumerated all of the things that they do. The things
that are written arise out of a story. The meanings of the sentences
and phrases are thoroughly explored. Virtually all of the things
that they write are things they already know by heart. Everything
we do is in context. Whether you believe it or not, Waldorf teachers
work with their children on word families, blends, digraphs,
and so on. The silent "e" is also explored. Visual
memory and auditory discrimination skills are developed. We write
about our trip to the pond; we write thank you notes; we teach
the children to love language. Throughout the whole of the elementary
school and junior high years a rich vocabulary is developed.
In my own classes, by third-grade in a class of 30 children,
10 were reading chapter books, 10 were reading grade appropriate
readers, 5 were in readers below grade level and 5 were receiving
remedial support. By the end of the year, three readers were
receiving remedial support and the others were working at grade
level or above. This breakdown was fairly normal in our school.
I already told you that our seventh and eighth graders are successful
readers. When you said that we force the children to have an
artistic relationship with letters I was dumbfounded. We approach
the letters with awe and wonder. I think that Steiner's ideas
have basically shocked you. You imagine that these teachers are
going around terrified of squiggles on paper and imagining parasites
eating away at the minds of children. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Steiner was shocking when he said things, I think
in part to wake us from our slumber. Let us demystify this word
"parasite". A parasite is a natural occurrence. It
takes life from a living being in order to sustain its own life.
When we paint and draw letters in rich color, we give them life;
we are able to love them. This is what I meant by redemption.
Now you may disagree that they need redeeming. Fine. We simply
know that abstractions and definitions are like stones; children
are not nourished by stones; they require bread: bread for the
body, art for the soul. I know that you love reading; so do I.
I have carried that love to my students. Rudolf Steiner read
a lot and spoke with great joy at many passages of poetry, drama,
and literature. Reading will be taught to Waldorf students out
of a sense of awe and wonder and each will learn to read, each
in her own time.
Finally, I feel that a mood of outrage does
not foster our faculty of reason. One thing I have learned is
that people often confuse venting with truth telling. Because
words are charged with emotion does not mean they are to be believed.
We often get caught believing another's venting. I do not doubt
the that a number of parents have had their ideals shattered
through an encounter with this or that Waldorf teacher or school.
I do not think it is fair to impugn the whole movement because
of these unfortunate incidents much I am certain are in the minority
of experiences "in the Waldorf world". We have scads
of very happy parents and children in our schools. Most of us
teachers are very open to constructive criticism.
I hope we have communicated,
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: winters_diana
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:13 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Reading and writing: age,
first grade methods, look-say approach
This is another reply to Patrick which
I sent several days ago and it never showed up.
<snip>
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
Hi Patrick, no time for a lengthy response
tonight. Will try later. I'll speak to one point quickly, which
perhaps truly is in the interests of communication. Here is a
small (?) point you misunderstand about my experiences:
I think that Steiner's ideas have basically
shocked you. You imagine that these teachers are going around
terrified of squiggles on paper and imagining parasites eating
away at the minds of children. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
This is a backwards description of my experiences
with Waldorf and Steiner (this is not a criticism of what you
wrote; no reason you should know what all my experiences were).
My understandings of the Waldorf classroom
come from Waldorf classrooms; however, I was not initially shocked
by Rudolf Steiner's ideas, I was very excited by them. I studied
them eagerly. It was after I saw them implemented that
I soured on them. "Terrified of squiggles on paper"
is exactly the attitude I saw conveyed to children. I would never
have believed it if I hadn't seen it. I thought they must
be misunderstanding Steiner, who couldn't possibly have meant
for teachers to tell parents not to let their children have books,
to declare "nonfiction" inappropriate for second graders,
to refuse to answer if a child asked the meaning of a word, or
how to spell a word, to pretend I didn't hear them if a child
wanted to say something about the story or ask a question, to
discourage them from writing their name. I had to, later, delve
more deeply into Steiner to figure out where this stuff came
from. I did not start off shocked, I became shocked as
I began to understand that this was from Rudolf Steiner
and was not some big misunderstanding. The strange remarks about
parasites and demons and sclerosis and dead soul-sucking abstractions
etc etc. simply made me finally understand what I had seen. I
am quite clear I did not misunderstand. Detlef is just the most
recent to repeat the stuff about deadness and the poor children
"succumbing" and the other very oddly negative remarks
about learning to read - very odd indeed coming from educators.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: Reading and writing: age, first grade methods, look-say
approach
[Patrick:]
I'll begin by holding out something of
an olive branch to you. My listmates Deborah and Dottie have
convinced me that it would be appropriate to give you the benefit
of the doubt.