For Diana
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:58 pm
Subject: For Diana
I have been reading Diana's posting on WC
and wish to reply here as I am not subscribed to WC, nor do I
have her e-mail address
DearDiana,
I think the reason you are not finding much
via the net on this issue is because most of the work on the
brain and handedness was clarified by the neurological reserach
giants in the field by the 70s such as Sperry, the Diamonds,
Levi, etc. Levi did, imo, the most interesting work on handedness
and the Broca Center.I gave values from her work in my earlier
post here on handedness.
You might be interested in looking up the
work of Patricia Wolfe, an educational guru who is focusing on
translating the brain research into classroom practice. She is
invovled with the Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Dev.
in Alex, Va. and has a book, "BRAIN MATTERS", and conducts
workshops around the coutnry. However, even she book doesn't
get into handedness. In the field of brain research there appears
to have been a concensus reached long ago that it is no longer
appropriate to try and turn a lefty into a righty.
I am posting below a current, and interesting
report out of Munich (makes me wonder if the issue on handedness
is,perhaps, still being debated in Europe?)
Before I do, I need to say that I am in a
unique situation on this matter of handedness in that I am a
public school teacher, not Waldorf trained. I have a double major
in studio art and eduation and a minor in remedial reading.
My perspective is different than anyone else
on AT because:
1. I worked in inner-city schools 7-12 for
decades
2. I am a Skinnerian and totally and competely
into behavior modification when it comes to classroom management.
(I find what Mark has said over on WC in regard to chaos to be
totally idiotic. One cannot teach anything without first establishing
order.)
3. Borrowed and adapted a number of Waldorf
monograms into my curriculum.
I in no way agree with others here that WE
does not belong in public ed. I think just the opposite because
my personal experience in intergrating what I could into my curriculum
from Waldorf enriched my program and proved to be both beneficial
and very well received by my students. I can't imagine my curriculum
without von Baravalle geometry integerated into my Art History
units, for example.
Additionally, while I do not support the changing
of handeness, I must say that WE is the only system of ed that
has an awareness of body geography, and given that over the years
every single one of my LD and BD students demonstrated problems
arising fromwhat WE terms crossed body geography it was only
from what I studied on my own of WE that I was able to give these
kids a certain amount of assistance. If nothing else, if only
a consciousness of body geography could be infused into the traning
of the special ed teachers in public schools systems so many
children could be helped, and early on when it would do some
good.
If a child is a lefty but has crossed body
geography it is another matter entirely than that of trying to
change a lefty to a righty. WE, especially the remedial work
of Audrey McAllen offers something that cannot yet be found in
the public system and it breaks my heart to see what happens
to so many of the disabled kids who could be so easily helped
by what WE has to offer.
There is also a solid argument to be made
for teaching history via the mythologies, but time and space
does not allow for the secular argument that can be made for
this.
On the the article I wished to share with
you on handedness from the Munich group...
Sincerely,
Paulina
Primary and Secondary Consequences
of Converting Handedness
The following is an © excerpt from a Munich group,
Consulting and Information Center for Left-handers and Converted
Left-handers:
"Writing is a process
of the greatest complexity. Moreover, because it involves many
different brain functions, it is also one of the most difficult
tasks; one which only human beings have developed and come to
grips with. The pre-dominant use of the non-dominant hand leads
to complex functional disturbances, inhibitions, blockages, and
an over-burdening of the entire brain. During writing, the greatest
variety of cerebral skills are included here. Examples are the
fine motor skills, speech, the pictorial representation of imagination
of the series of letters as well as the simultaneous chain of
thoughts, associations, graphic representations, memories, and
recall of previously learned material which also run throughout.
Scarcely any other human undertaking is comparable to writing
in its multifaceted connections between the most differing brain
functions. Accordingly, it is understandable why the overburdening
that comes from converting handedness can lead to tremendous
disturbances.
The possible primary consequences
of converting handedness are as follows: memory disorders (especially
in the recall of learned material) disturbances in concentration
(being easily tired) legasthenic problems or dyslexia (i.e. problems
in reading and writing) spatial disorientation (uncertainty concerning
the left and right) disorders in fine motor skills that manifest
themselves in handwriting disturbances in speech (ranging from
stammering through stuttering) These primary consequences can
then transform into various differing secondary consequences:
inferiority complexes insecurity introversion overcompensation
through heightened performance contrariness; an oppositional
and provocational manner; (e.g. the class clown in school; and
the persistent, compulsive wise-cracker in adulthood) various
distinctive disorders in behavior bedwetting and nail-biting
emotional problems lasting into adulthood with neurotic and/or
psycho-somatic symptomology disorders in the personality profile
Of course, all of the primary
and secondary difficulties listed above could also appear without
the converting of handedness and they are just as prevalent in
left-handers as in right-handers. However, as has been found
in practice, through the additional converting of handedness
these difficulties, are incalculably increased.
Thus, the converting of handedness
negatively intervenes into and inhibits the course of the cerebral
processes. It drives people to continually use more energy to
mobilize their intelligence than left-handed or right-handed
people who have not been disabled by the consequences of converting
would find necessary.
The level of intelligence
itself is not diminished. Only its manifestation is disturbed.
For example, in the formulation and expression of thoughts, the
recall of learned material in writing and speaking, etc., at
least thirty percent or more energy is required. This finding
has been substantiated by practical experience, observation,
and comparison.
In the Consulting Center for
Left-handers and Converted Left-handers, an attempt was made
to precisely quantify this increased amount of average energy
required. In contrast to the many earlier scientific studies,
a wide range of data from 4,510 subjects was available for study.
Even today, this data still
accumulates throughout the uninterrupted hands-on activity of
the Center. Here, whenever possible, entire families are tested
along with other available relatives. In addition, the cooperation
of the members from the interest group for left-handers was also
called upon. Accordingly, large, heterogeneous groups of left-handers,
converted left-handers and right-handers, right-handers, and
clinical cases were created and precise studies were undertaken.
The heterogeneity of the research population was ensured in this
way as much as possible.
At first, the relationship
between fatigue and the ability to regenerate and concentrate
were of interest. The data gathered showed a strong dependency
upon physiological variables. Moreover, the hypothetical energy
increase of 30% needed by converted left-handers was almost always
surpassed. This result become even more significant when the
test design was expanded to include factors dependent upon memory,
the ability to learn, the storage and the recall of material.
In some instances, the values revealed were even twice or three
times as great. A direct correlation between the age, gender,
health, and personality characteristics of the subjects as well
as their intelligence, education, and profession become manifest.
Even the time of the testing and ethnicity of the subject were
influential. The issue of lateralization of the cerebral hemispheres
in connection with the converting of handedness is not manageable
within a research project. Instead, in reality, it constitutes
its own field of research. For the hands-on work of the Consulting
Center, neither exact numerical value nor precise percentage
is relevant, however. Rather, the very substantiation of the
finding that converted left-handers in comparison to those people
who have not been converted continually have larger energy requirements
is both necessary and of much greater importance. This finding
is also similarly relevant, of course, for converted right-handers
.
Methods of Converting Handedness
and a Clarification of Terms
The course of events which
are subsumed here under the term "converting" can be
quite different. There were times when the trait of left-handedness
was beaten right out of children as a rule. Striking the left
hand, binding it to the body, or as was often the case, tying
it to a chair or a table, forced children to write with their
non-dominant right hand. There have even been cases in which
doctors have reportedly encased the left hand of children in
plaster. No less drastic were the methods which relied upon the
berating, punishing and/or the withdrawing of affection, toys,
or rewards for successes achieved in other areas.
Just as bad, however, are
the so-called " soft methods "of converting handedness
where instead of utilizing corporal punishment or control, either
a system of reward or cajoling with arguments tainted with moral
overtones is used. "Soft" psychological terrorization,
is still terrorization. Children have a natural need for love
and attention. Many are very easily influenced by the withdrawal
of attention and love. There are parents, who cajole their children
into using their right hand with fantastic presents. For example,
a child is given a semi-precious gem in one hand, while being
made to write with the right hand. The child is then allowed
to keep the gem if the child continues to practice diligently
with the right hand.
And then there are children
who convert themselves over to the right hand so that they can
be better accepted into the right -handed society . This is especially
true of sensitive, bright, strong-willed and intelligent children.
Such children often demonstrate a strong propensity for copying
the behavior of others. They want to be just like all of the
other children. They don't want to stand out. They want to integrate
themselves naturally and casually. They long for attention, acceptance,
and recognition. (See Chapter 7.3.2, section: "I don't wanna
be a left- hander!" The Insidiousness and Meaning of Modeled
Behavior.)
Irrespective of whether the
method of converting is "gentle" or punitive, the functioning
of the brain is affected in any case and the result has negative
consequences with overwhelming regularity. Just how great these
effects are, depends upon other factors. Among these, talents,
unique personality characteristics, and the supports available
to the child are the most influential. Such factors help determine
whether the child persists and completes school and training
without massive disturbances. Or, as is more often the case with
left-handed children who have been converted, the children will
drag themselves through school and life. Often forced to repeat
grades, and sometimes fall so far behind that they are either
placed in special schools or drop-out. Others, finding other
routes of education, cram, slave, and cram again while they continue
doubt their own intelligence and try to compensate for their
difficulties with hard-work.
The term "converting"
will be used also for those left-handed children who convert
themselves or in cases where the process of converting took place
so early in either the parent's home or kindergarten that the
children arrive in school as "right-handers".
Incidentally, for those children
who fall into the latter case, the term "pseudo right-handers"
was formerly used. This term stressed above all the fact that
a change of handedness by converting the motor pathways is only
somewhat possible (i.e. pseudo). The dominance in the brain is
not changed. The person only partly behaves as a right-hander.
Therefore, while writing is done primarily with the right hand,
other activities which require precision and power, for example
drawing and painting, are still performed with the dominant left
hand.
In the American literature
a term which makes more clear the consequences of converting
is used. "Brain-breaking" as it is often referred to,
characterizes the drastic set of events which occur in the brain
much more clearly than the terms "changing over", "converting",
"re-educating", or "reversing" handedness.
(Sattler, Johanna Barbara, The Converted Left-Hander or the "Knot"
in the Brain . In German: Der umgeschulte Linkshänder oder
Der Knoten im Gehirn. Auer Verlag, Donauwörth, 1995. 5.
Auflage 1999).
© Copyright: Consulting
and Information Center for Left-handers and Converted Left-handers
(Erste deutsche Beratungs- und Informationsstelle für Linkshänder
und umgeschulte Linkshänder) Sendlinger Str. 17, D - 80331
Munich (München), Germany
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:16 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Diana
Paulina writes:
I in no way agree with others here that
WE does not belong in public ed. I think just the opposite because
my personal experience in intergrating what I could into my curriculum
from Waldorf enriched my program and proved to be both beneficial
and very well received by my students. I can't imagine my curriculum
without von Baravalle geometry integerated into my Art History
units, for example.
Mike:
This is nice to here. I would like to spout
off my personal opinion based on Jeffersonian style separation
of religion and state, but being at or below the poverty level,
having a difficult aversion to working for money in our corporate
world, and having paid tuition at a private Waldorf school for
the last two years, has altered my opinion considerably as of
late. So much so that we are checking into a Waldorf inspired
charter school. Our daughter has benefited immensely from her
Waldorf experience thus far, and we want this to continue, but
the financial struggle has taken a toll on us as a family.
I much appreciate your personal experience
Paulina. It shows that integrating the methods can indeed be
helpful, and you don't have to become some kind of lofty spiritual
ideologue, floating on a cloud of zeal to do it (a justifiable
criticism I think).
Paulina:
Additionally, while I do not support the
changing of handeness, I must say that WE is the only system
of ed that has an awareness of body geography, and given that
over the years every single one of my LD and BD students demonstrated
problems arising fromwhat WE terms crossed body geography it
was only from what I studied on my own of WE that I was able
to give these kids a certain amount of assistance. If nothing
else, if only a consciousness of body geography could be infused
into the traning of the special ed teachers in public schools
systems so many children could be helped, and early on when it
would do some good.
Mike:
Our daughter had a problem with crossing over
from left to right and it showed up repeatedly in her form-drawings.
She was very insecure about this, especially in light of the
fact that it was relatively new to her, and the rest of the class
had been doing them since the first grade (She started in grade
four). Last year a women who's last name is Ross (I think) came
to our school and did an evaluation on her (I can't remember
her field right now, but it i think it had to do with left/right
brain function in relation to her physical coordination). She
recommended allot of exercises that really helped Jessie to eventually
create beautiful form-drawings, as well as play hop-scotch, and
jump rope while crossing her hands. She feels much better about
herself and her art-work now. I am grateful for this kind of
attention to my child's needs. I can't right a scientific paper
on it, but I can see the results.
Thanks for the wonderfully informed post.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:27 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Diana
Paulina wrote:
I in no way agree with others here that
WE does not belong in public ed. I think just the opposite because
my personal experience in intergrating what I could into my curriculum
from Waldorf enriched my program and proved to be both beneficial
and very well received by my students. I can't imagine my curriculum
without von Baravalle geometry integerated into my Art History
units, for example.
I'm glad someone finally said this, because
I wouldn't want to have to take on Christine alone. I may be
far away but nowadays not even distance isn't adequate protection
;=)
I think we have to differentiate between a
"Waldorf School" and Waldorf educational aspects being
used in public schools. IMO W-schools are, or should be, models
for education in general. If we assume that Waldorf is the best
educational method around, then why should it be limited to a
select minority who can afford it? If a public school, or system
(or in the U.S. charter schools), decides to use certain aspects
of WE, how can it be anything but beneficial. In fact, this may
be the main raison d'etre of Waldorf education as such: to transform
the education of the world.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Diana
In a message dated 2/11/2004 12:31:50 PM Eastern
Standard Time, franksmith writes:
I think we have to differentiate between
a "Waldorf School" and Waldorf educational aspects
being used in public schools. IMO W-schools are, or should be,
models for education in general. If we assume that Waldorf is
the best educational method around, then why should it be limited
to a select minority who can afford it? If a public school, or
system (or in the U.S. charter schools), decides to use certain
aspects of WE, how can it be anything but beneficial. In fact,
this may be the main raison d'etre of Waldorf education as such:
to transform the education of the world.
Frank
Hello Frank,
There is a very great difference between using
"Waldorf techniques" or "Waldorf methods"
in a public school setting and trying to establish an entire
school based on Waldorf Education within the public school system
here in the United States.
Also, I never said that "...it should
be limited to a select minority who can afford it." I have
a very long and full article posted in this groups files that
I wrote called "Waldorf Economic Proposal." In which
I clearly explain at length what I have thought out as the right
paradigm for the funding of Waldorf Schools in this country and
anywhere else in the world. It is extremely radical and I haven't
even discussed it with anyone else on the planet yet. No one
has even given me feedback about it. Why must there be only two
sides to an issue? "Free" education which is state
funded and therefore tax funded and therefore definitely not
free financially and certainly not free in practice. Or the archaic
private school system which reserves the "benefits"
of a "better" education (many meanings possible here)
for the wealthy, relatively weathly who are willing to make financial
sacrifices or the "deserving poor" who qualify for
an individual schools "charity" or "scholarship"
program?
Not only IS there a third way - but it is
the way the first Waldorf School was created and funded and it
sets the paradigm that, as far as I am aware (and I would love
to be wrong) has not been implemented fully by a single Waldorf
School since Stuttgart.
Your last two statements are the exact statements
that set the Waldorf Critics nerves on edge and get them running
for the legal hills.
If a public school, or system (or in the
U.S. charter schools), decides to use certain aspects of WE,
how can it be anything but beneficial. In fact, this may be the
main raison d'etre of Waldorf education as such: to transform
the education of the world.
..."how can it be anything but beneficial."
is a value judgement wide open to criticism and (to a certain
extent) justified opposition. Obviously, there are people who
feel that there are aspects of Waldorf Education that are a.
not beneficial for their own child or children and b. are not
beneficial for other people's children as well. They have challenged
us to "prove" the benefits that Waldorf Education as
an educational philosophy makes claims for and perhaps it is
our responsibility to work on establishing those "proofs."
But it isn't a two minute proposition, as I have said here extensively
already. There are avenues of research, both in the field of
educational psychology and in a broader sociological framework
that have yet to be activated and the very nature of such research
is a question of rather extensive time periods and much time
being dedicated to the work.
The last sentence,
....In fact, this may be the main raison
d'etre of Waldorf education as such: to transform the education
of the world.
Is the real earth-trembler as far as the Waldorf
Critics are concerned. They no more want to see Waldorf Education,
"transform the education of the world." than they want
to see Fundamental Christianity transform the politics of the
world. And again, I say for myself that they have some justifiable
reasons. Your statement comes much closer to the meaning that
was INTERPRETED by my use of the word "mandate" and
I wasn't talking about using Waldorf or any other educational
philosophy to invoke change. I was "perhaps"ing that
in a far future, Waldorf Education would be adopted by the society
at large as a RESULT of changes within it that originate elsewhere.
Now, to try to be very, very clear here (it
is so difficult not to be misunderstood) - I PERSONALLY think
that:
1. Waldorf Education is POTENTIALLY beneficial
for every child who comes into contact with it (sorry for the
caps - I've explained that before).
2. Waldorf Education is MOSTLY beneficial
for the greater percentage of children who come into contact
with it - say, in my opinion, about 90 - 96% - certainly numbers
that have no research attached to them and can be debated.
3. Waldorf Education has used and developed
principles and practices since 1919 that were in great opposition
to many mainstream ideas in European and United States education
through say, the fifties and early sixties. We were "earthy-crunchy"
long before the hippies burst on the scene. Starting in the sixties
and seventies, however, there were relatively larger segments
of the general population open to concepts like "whole language",
mythology as a valid teaching tool, the "Uses of Enchantment"
by Bruno Bettleheim and "The Plug in Drug" by Marie
Winn came out; Joseph Campbell became popular; and other "new"
movements of thought almost re-invented the wheel we were already
riding on. It is my personal opinion that the best minds in the
educational psychology field will continue to produce both research
and experiential knowledge that will continue to support Waldorf
Education methods and practices. It is also my opinion that if
the "mainstream" educational psychology researchers
were to study Waldorf Education directly, they would find both
ideas and practices that have been in effect for almost a century
now that would "speed up" their present day research
considerably and there would be a great deal of mutual support.
These three opinions of mine based on what
I consider a relatively wide reading of educational theories
besides Waldorf and what life experience I have had so far, are
as fair as I can make them. They allow room for errors - both
in theory and in human practice. They allow for fair criticism
and challenge. And they allow for open-minded dialogue that may
take as its theme Art, Religion, Science or any combination of
these motifs.
Christine Natale
Cointinued
in the thread "Public Waldorf"
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Diana
The article is interesting. It is essentially
a propaganda piece. This is most obvious in some of the phrasing,
such as calling incentives to induce switching "soft psychological
terrorism" and switching as "brain-breaking".
(If all incentives are "soft psychological terrorism"
then this has some rather profound implications for various forms
of behaviorism.) Even children who spontaneously convert themselves
at a young age with no prompting are considered a tragedy.
The entire article presupposes that handedness
is fixed in the brain at birth and can never be changed (biology
is destiny). Handedness is an either or, black or white, left
or right proposition. Any degree of ambidexterity simply does
not exist. (This degree of oversimplification is not propitious
for the scientific integrity of any further claims.) Any attempt
at influencing handedness can only ever have negative consequences,
and these negative consequences are detailed at length.
The article is long on claim and short on
substantiation. A long list of consequences purportedly resulting
from attempts at switching is given: memory, disturbances in
concentration legasthenic problems or dyslexia, spatial disorientation,
disorders in fine motor skills that manifest themselves in handwriting,
and disturbances in speech (ranging from stammering through stuttering).
I say "purportedly" because no substantiation for any
one of these is offered. From what I understand, there are serious
questions about the speech disturbances claim (stuttering), and
I would need to examine the studies behind the other claims to
speak further on them.
In the very next paragraph it is admitted
that, "Of course, all of the primary and secondary difficulties
listed above could also appear without the converting of handedness
and they are just as prevalent in left-handers as in right-handers."
The logical implications of this are not explored. In the end
these are simply claims without substantiation.
The actual hard numbers, representing the
work of the Institute that is summarized in this article, are
derived from one or more sociological studies (the fact that
even this cannot be determined says something about the transparency
of the Institute's research). The case design and protocols,
or even summaries thereof, to say nothing of the raw data, are
not available in the article. "A wide range of data from
4,185 subjects was used." (How?) From this it is "concluded"
that "at least" 30 percent more "energy"
is needed for a person born in the absolute category "left-hander"
to function using the right hand. What is this "energy"?
Is it kilocalories? Are they measuring brain metabolism? Probably
not, since you cannot accurately measure kilocalories by survey.
I suspect that it is not a quantifiable form of "energy"
but rather and inferred quantity of concentration, probably derived
indirectly from task completion-time studies. But without access
to the study's protocols and data it is not really possible to
understand what the actual claim is. I have a large number of
questions, including what the data would look like it were broken
down into age groups. Since Rudolf Steiner only recommended interfering
with children under the age of 9, I would be curious to know
what the data for the under 9-year-old group looks like. Data
showing harm to people over nine years of age actually supports
Rudolf Steiner's position; he obviously had reasons for not recommending
switching after nine years of age.
Like most propaganda, the article is quite
effective at influencing your feelings the first time you read
it, but a closer examination leaves you holding nothing of any
substance. The most that can be reliably concluded from this
piece is that people have strong feelings about left-handedness
and conversion.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
