This recent exchange (Is Your School A Waldorf School) I had found to go=20

rather round and round because it did not address a particular concern at a=20
prrticular school. The above comments made me go Hum! because at the two=20
schools I have worked the general faculty meeting tended to operate as Gerry=
=20
suggested the college might, and the college as an administrative steering=20
committee. So, schools might just need to change the labels on the cans. Thi=
s=20
suggestion might at first seem silly, but it could facilitate a paradigm=20
shift that brings to consciousness the possibility that we were headed in th=
e=20
right direction but walking backwards.
Peace
Japa

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:35:55 -0700

From: Gerald Palo <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Your School a Waldorf School?
> -----Original Message----> From: SJU Waldorf School List
[mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Bob and Nancy's Services
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:54 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Is Your School a Waldorf School?
>
>
> Dear Robert and others who may be interested,
>
> At 07:38 PM 2/11/01 -0500, Robert Flannery wrote:
> ><snip discussion of misperceived "waldorf-ness">
>>
> >>does the school have a College
> >>of Teachers (which is a mythological entity in the first place)
>>
>>
> >Nancy, can you explain why the idea of a College is mythological?
>
> I've covered this in bits and pieces in the past, but a thumbnail
> explanation is because it the concept was not *ever* a part of Steiner's
> deeds or intent in the founding of the original Waldorf School. "Lehrer
> Collegium" means precisely "faculty" - no more, no less. It became
> transliterated into English as "College of Teachers" - the translation was

> British and perhaps that is what they also call any school
> faculty, I don't
> know.
The word collegium or college does emphasize an aspect of the relationship
that "faculty" doesn't. Aside from the fact that Waldorf schools were never
intended to slavishly follow the muster of the original school, it seems to
me that the term "college of teachers" is reasonable, and that this form of
school government has a history and life of its own that grants it a certain
degree of legitimacy, regardless of whether there is chapter and verse in
Steiner's indications to justify it. He expected those who followed him to
use their own creative and practical capacities to work out solutions.
Granted, it is not right, given the results of your researches, to bestow on
the collegial form a special kind of anointed legitimacy based on something
Rudolf Steiner never said.
> Historically, the evidence we have found indicates that the concept of a
> College of Teachers is a translation error and an artifact from an attempt
> to fill the gap of Steiner's death.
Well, filling the gap was exactly what was called for. It was one thing to
have a school at whose center was the living personality of an initiate and
the developer of the idea. I can certainly see that when he was gone it was
not deemed possible to apoint an individual in the form of a headmaster or
principle, or some other kind of formal hierarchy.
>I deeply believe that there are other
> healthier, more Reality-based forms of school organization that
> acknowledge
> the worthiness of all members of a school community while keeping
> the focus
> on the pedagogical and social goals of the school. My hope is that if
> people come to realize that they have been fulfilling a myth, perhaps the
> schools can free themselves of this unnecessary burden.
Do describe some of your ideas. However, I think that the idea of
demythologization can become a rhetorical bludgeon that overlooks the
legitimate integrity that the college form has evolved on its own. The
collegial principle does have its weaknesses, as I have witnessed myself,
and it certainly should not be held up as a sacred cow, but it does offer
opportunities for working out of consensus that a more structured division
of authority or a majority rule form.
But I am interested in hearing what some of your ideas are. When it comes to
problems in the life of the school, one sometimes hears the words "College"
come up more often than one might like.

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:11:23 -0500

From: Elizabeth Stubbs <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Your School a Waldorf School?
Dear Nancy and David too,
Your words are such a welcome relief. It feels like fresh air has been let into
a
stuffy room. Let us be liberated from dogma! You have put into words with your
usual clarity and articulateness what I instinctively know to be true: that it
is
neither a school nor all its trappings that make Waldorf Education as Dr.
Steiner
envisioned it. It can and does happen outside the walls of Waldorf Schools. I
would even venture to guess that many of us who were not educated in Waldorf
Schools have experienced it in teachers we had somewhere along the way
ourselves,
gifted teachers who, with the help of intuitive thinking really inspired us.
Sometimes we Waldorf teachers sound so incredibly self-important and arrogant!
:)
There is almost always more than one right way to do things.
Elizabeth Stubbs
Arlington, Massachusetts
Bob and Nancy's Services wrote:
> I would first like to warmly and enthusiastically thank David Mollet for
> posting this extremely important statement of Steiner's:
>
> >"Moreover, I should like to point out to you that the real aim and
> >object of our education is not to found as many schools as
> >possible...but our education concerns itself with methods of teaching,
> >and is essentially a new way and art of education, so every teacher can
> >bring it into their work in whatever kind of school they happen to
> >be...and I have declared that the methods can be taken into any
> >school...The methods can be introduced into every situation where
> >someone has the good will to do it."
>
> Personally, I think that when discussing what a "Waldorf" school is and is
> not, we wander very far afield when our evaluation includes things such as
> AWSNA membership, AWSNA accreditation, how many teachers are certified,
> whether or not the school offers eurythmy, whether or not a school is
> associated with an anthroposophical doctor, does the school have a College
> of Teachers (which is a mythological entity in the first place), whether or
> not the parents "want" a "Waldorf education" for their children, etc., etc.

> While all of the above have many positive attributes, none of them are
> indicators of whether a child will receive the education Steiner intended.
>
> I believe that the educational movement Steiner founded drifted very far
> from its source the moment founding schools became more important than
> examining the quality of education the children were receiving and working
> to really convey *the approach* to other teachers in all manner of schools
> and situations. What we call "Waldorf Education" has largely come to mean
> a set of curricula and specific ways of introducing specific subject
> matter. This has nothing, imo, to do with the original intent, which was
> to convey the attitude, the viewpoint toward the children and toward
> society (*any* society) with which a teacher could fully meet the physical,
> emotional, mental and spiritual needs of both the students and their
community.
>
> Any school is a Waldorf school if the intent of Steiner's pedagogy is being
> met within its halls. What was the intent? (See "Spirit of the Waldorf
> School" for a fuller answer - you can read one lecture from it for free by
> going to www.bobnancy.com and reading Steiner's "Lecture for Prospective
> Parents.") The intent was to offer an education in a way that gave each
> child a fundamental, true introduction into the foundation of his or her
> society while at the same time enhancing that child's ability to accurately
> perceive life around him or her without damaging the child's innate
> capacity to be sensitively aware of the Creative Love behind the visible
> world [whatever that capacity might have been, whether large, small or
> nearly nonexistent - the teaching was not intended to train a students
> spiritual vision, just not to damage what already existed]. The education
> was not intended to found schools separated from their society at large nor
> was it intended to model a particular spiritual belief system.
>
> These goals can be met in a wide variety of settings, with an infinitely
> wide possibility of curricula, through the myriad possibilities of human
> personality. I have personally found it very useful to study what Steiner
> had to say about the make-up of human beings and their development, but I
> have witnessed teachers who just "knew" it or had learned it in other ways
> and gifted their students with exactly what Steiner was hoping for.
>
> Again, I'm going to suggest that as many of you as possible run down to
> your video store and rent copies of "Stand and Deliver" and "Music of the
> Heart". [If you don't have a TV/VCR/DVD, perhaps you do have a kind
> neighbor who owns such things.] Both of these movies portray true stories
> about the work of real, living teachers. The DVD of "Music of the Heart"
> includes the documentary "Small Wonders" which takes you right into that
> teacher's classroom where you can watch the real person in action. Neither
> of these teachers came from a "Waldorf" background, neither of them would
> "fit" at a so-called Waldorf school, but both of them were actually DOING

> what was needed in their setting to achieve the goals Steiner set forth.
>
> I think an honest, objective look at their work would do wonders to remove
> the bonds from what is currently portrayed as Waldorf Education.
>
> All the best,
> Nancy
>
> Bob Lathe / Nancy Parsons
> Portland, Oregon
> e-mail: [email protected]
> http://www.bobnancy.com
> http://www.waldorfshop.net
> http://www.waldorfworld.net
-----------------------------Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:53:36 -0800
From: Bob and Nancy's Services <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Your School a Waldorf School?
Dear Robert and others who may be interested,
At 07:38 PM 2/11/01 -0500, Robert Flannery wrote:
><snip discussion of misperceived "waldorf-ness">
>
>>does the school have a College
>>of Teachers (which is a mythological entity in the first place)
>
>
>Nancy, can you explain why the idea of a College is mythological?
I've covered this in bits and pieces in the past, but a thumbnail
explanation is because it the concept was not *ever* a part of Steiner's
deeds or intent in the founding of the original Waldorf School. "Lehrer
Collegium" means precisely "faculty" - no more, no less. It became
transliterated into English as "College of Teachers" - the translation was
British and perhaps that is what they also call any school faculty, I don't
know. I do know that we do not call a school's teachers a College in the
US. Further, the running of the Waldorf School (original) as described in
Karl Stockmeyer's Curriculum contradicts the organizational form of the
school as it existed under Steiner. In other words, what Stockmeyer
describes is what happened after Steiner's death.
One of the things that appears to have taken place is that the "Kleine
Collegium" (a 3-person "little faculty") which was formed for a brief

period during Steiner's lifetime for the purpose of handling very basic
administrative tasks such as returning letters to both the general public
and to state officials (in other words, was not a decision-making body, but
more like a collective administrative assistant), became after his death a
larger, but also exclusive group that "ran" the school. In Steiner's time,
the entire faculty worked together to implement the pedagogy (defined by
Steiner; the finances were handled largely by Molt). In the one case I can
think of where a person hired to teach was deemed inappropriate to sit in
the faculty meetings (note that we titled, accurately, the 2 volumes of
transcripts of these meetings as "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner"),
that person was dismissed as a teacher. *All* teachers were to participate
in the pedagogical direction of the school.
It is my perception that the existence of a College of Teachers within any
school I have seen denotes the existence of a fragmented, polarized, and
hierarchically-defined faculty and, by extension, parent body and
administration. It is my viewpoint that while a group who gathers to
spiritually hold and work with the being of the school and its intent is a
very healthy entity at any Waldorf school (and should rightly be composed
of members from all bodies of the school - faculty, parents, administration
and greater community), a College of Teachers is always, in my experience
and observation, a divisive organization whose main _actual_ function [as
distinct from ideal intent] devolves quickly to that of a control mechanism.
Historically, the evidence we have found indicates that the concept of a
College of Teachers is a translation error and an artifact from an attempt
to fill the gap of Steiner's death. I deeply believe that there are other
healthier, more Reality-based forms of school organization that acknowledge
the worthiness of all members of a school community while keeping the focus
on the pedagogical and social goals of the school. My hope is that if
people come to realize that they have been fulfilling a myth, perhaps the
schools can free themselves of this unnecessary burden.
All the best,
Nancy
Bob Lathe / Nancy Parsons
Portland, Oregon
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.bobnancy.com
http://www.waldorfshop.net
http://www.waldorfworld.net
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:38:01 -0700

From: Tamara Slayton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Your School a Waldorf School?
Dear Nancy,
Once again, thank you so much! I am writing a play on The History and Mystery
of the Founding of the First Waldorf School to be presented in Minnesota. Your
insights are most appreciated. Do you have a recommended reading list per the
"history" of the Waldorf movement that I might work with and circulate. Thank
you, Tamara
Bob and Nancy's Services wrote:
> Dear Robert and others who may be interested,
>
> At 07:38 PM 2/11/01 -0500, Robert Flannery wrote:
> ><snip discussion of misperceived "waldorf-ness">
>>
> >>does the school have a College
> >>of Teachers (which is a mythological entity in the first place)
>>
>>
> >Nancy, can you explain why the idea of a College is mythological?
>
-----------------------------Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:26:11 -0800
From: Bob and Nancy's Services <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Your School a Waldorf School?
At 11:38 AM 2/12/01 -0700, Tamara Slayton wrote:
>Dear Nancy,
>Once again, thank you so much! I am writing a play on The History and Mystery
>of the Founding of the First Waldorf School to be presented in Minnesota. Your
>insights are most appreciated. Do you have a recommended reading list per the
>"history" of the Waldorf movement that I might work with and circulate. Thank
>you, Tamara
I would recommend a close reading per organization and social relationships of:
- Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner - juxtapose the derived
organization/path of responsibility with the description found in Karl
Stockmeyer's Curriculum

- Emil Molt and the Founding of the Waldorf School - particularly note his
actual position in the company, the level of personal funding he donated
(extraordinary!), and the rupture between the faculty and Molt in the 2nd
year of the school - and note from Faculty Meetings the details of why it
happened
For the goals of the education:
- The Spirit of the Waldorf School - for Steiner's statements of the intent
of the school
- Education as a Force for Social Change - lecture 6 states from a
different viewpoint Steiner's intent There is also a chronology included
as front matter which sheds some light on the extreme social turmoil in
Germany in 1919.
- www.bobnancy.com in the Waldorf section for my actual introductions to
Spirit of the Waldorf School and Education as a Force for Social Change the published introductions in the first instances include a muddy ending
someone else wrote without showing me before printing, and in the second
instance the published intro includes a final third that was completely
written by someone else, is inaccurate relative to Steiner's statements and
was published under my name without my knowledge or permission - both
intros shed some further light on the historical moment and on Steiner's
intent.
For some interesting and often salient insights into life at the Waldorf
School during Steiner's life and afterward, you might read:
- A Biography of W. J. Stein by Johannes Tautz
There are also some German-language sources that are pertinent, but I think
you'll find the above sufficiently helpful.
On a different topic, I realized after sending my previous post that in
German 'Collegium" is almost certainly spelled with a 'K' - my apologies!
I am not the member of our translation team who is fluent in German - our
division of labor dictates by skill and training that I stick firmly with
English.
All the best,
Nancy
Bob Lathe / Nancy Parsons
Portland, Oregon

e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.bobnancy.com
http://www.waldorfshop.net
http://www.waldorfworld.net
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:03:57 -0800
From: Saxon Holt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
steve wrote:
>
> Great question. "Beauty is in the eye..."
> Who defines a Waldorf School? Does anyone have the AWSNA accreditation
> info?
>
> Steve
> Who defines a Waldorf School? Does anyone have the AWSNA accreditation info?
I have come to realize former posting came through so choppy due to
rewriting, cutting and pasting, that it was difficult to read. I will
get right to the point this time:
For a school to properly use the term "Waldorf School" in North America
it must be a member of AWSNA (Association of Waldorf Schools of North
America). In order to be a member of AWSNA it goes through a 4 step
process of affiliation from Initiative to Developing School to Sponsored
School to Full Membership, all of which can take at least 5 - 10 years.
A Full Member School can then go through AWSNA's accreditation process,
which is only a three year old program. Currently (as of last autumn)
only two schools have completed the accreditation while another half
dozen are in the self-study process.
A school that has gone through the developing process to become a Full
Member of AWSNA will have gone through a growth process and review by
AWSNA (and its sponsoring school) that shows its ability to carry out
the tenets of Waldorf education. It will have a trained faculty that
knows the importance of anthroposophy in educational development. It
will be a "Waldorf School" with no strings attached and if it stays
healthy, by its very nature it will go through a constant growth and
revitalization. The accreditation process has arisen to assure the
schools stay healthy.
The accreditation is for AWSNA's own assurance that schools continue to
be healthy and that the word "waldorf" means anything. A healthy school

does not need accreditation other than for the sake of Boards and
parents who may not know a Waldorf School if they saw one. I allow
myself this editorializing as one who has gone though a fair amount of
questioning about this at our own school, now 29 years old, where I am
have been a Board member for 4 years. We have a wonderful school full
of trained teachers and many programs but have not chosen (yet) to go
through accreditation. If we did it may solve the question as to
whether we are a "Waldorf School". (I best stop <g>, this is not about
our school ... )
AWSNA's accreditation manual (Sept. 1999) is 123 pages and is similar to
other accreditation manuals that other Independent School affilitates
use. NAIS (National Association of Independent Schools), WASC (Western
Association of Schools and Colleges), Catholic schools, all have
accreditation processes that they use to assure a constant level of
education. All of them, AWSNA included, seek to accredit schools that
have well defined structure and goals along with clear ways of
communicating their educational outcomes. The accreditation process
takes about two years of self-study and review to evaluate the programs
and reporting structures.
The AWSNA manual asks schools to look at 5 Shared Principles:
"Educational Program, Activities and Student Services"; Purpose, Goals,
and Philosophy"; "School Governance"; Administrative Finance, & Law; and
"Community of the School". Each of these has various points spelled out
that require serious self-study and reflection. While it can be a quite
valuable exercise, the process of self reflection must go on regardless
of accreditation. Waldorf schools don't need AWSNA to be waldorf
schools - just teachers with a deep dedication to the tenets of the
pedagogy and recognition of the spiritual aspects of human growth as
indicated by anthroposophy.
It is the teachers (and supportive parents) that make a waldorf school
not AWSNA. There are many remarkable educational philosophies and all
of them depend on teachers who are committed and trained in whatever
pedagogy they teach. In Waldorf education, the teachers undertake a
rigorous training that only begins with the teacher training and lasts a
lifetime of continuing education, dictated by both the needs of the
children and the teacher's own need to grow. It is sometimes difficult
to find and support such teachers but when a school is successful in
holding good teachers it is a waldorf school.
It is very nice to have AWSNA to guide schools but it is wonderful to
have the pedagogy to drive the teachers. The reality of waldorf schools
is there are not enough trained teachers with the experience to fully
realize the depth of the curriculum. That should not diminish the

efforts of those that struggle so long as the goals of the education are
clear. Waldorf ideas are beginning to be recognized in the public
sector (way too slowly judging by the testing mania) so even the most
struggling school can be serving the children whether or not it is fully
Waldorf. And serving the children is our first goal, serving mankind
will result.
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:08:32 -0800
From: Saxon Holt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is Your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
Liz Reid says:
>
> just because the
> teachers say "we teach to the whole child" that this has any meaning other
> than sounding great! Can one teach to the whole child without knowing what
> that is? I realise that the claim assumes the knowing is already in place
> but I have seen no evidence that this is true nor any interest in learning
> more.
>
> el redon wrote:
>
> I am very interested in the criteria and standards that are set by
> > ASNAW, but I would like to go beyond that and better understand the
> > intentions of a school, especially the school community and faculty
> > commitment to the study and any supported teacher education and enrichment?
>>
> Eugene Ryser wrote:
>
> At some level though, I think this is a question that has to be answered by
> each individual Waldorf school. . . .
> Right now we are struggling with funding of our special programs. . . .
> are we a Waldorf School? Maybe by our own standards we are not there
> yet, but we aspire to something more and we are doing what we can to get
there.
>
> Tamara Slayton wrote:
>
> How does the funding of a Waldorf school, a cultural initiative, impact
> the evolving definition of a Waldorf school or any cultural initiative
>
> Listmates:
>
> I find all these viewpoints pertinent to this discussion, which can not
> have a single answer that applies to each inquiry. Like the story of 8

> blind men describing an elephant, we all bring our own experiences to the
> question as well as what we are willing to see in the answer.
>
> We hear many times that each school is unique, evolves, and has a
> biography and destiny separate from all the others. This is not a cop
> out to keep from defining the common threads but illustrates the need
> for each school to have a written philosphy, purpose, and mission. When a
school seeks
to define its self it must first look at its own expectations. The
accreditation
process too, whether it is AWSNAs or some other Independant Schools
affiliation, starts with these statements.
>
> For a school to be able to properly use the term "Waldorf School" in
> North America, it must be a member of AWSNA. Currently, public charter
> schools can not be members of AWSNA and can not call themselves a
> Waldorf School. They must use terms like Waldorf inspired. More on this
> later if I have time, but I think I addressed this in some detail in a
> posting last year (?).
>
> In order for a school to be a member of AWSNA it goes through a 4 step
> process of affiliation from Initiative to Developing School to Sponsored
> Member to Full Membership, all of which takes 5 to 10 years. A Full
> Member school may then seek accreditation by AWSNA. A school that has a
> full membership in AWSNA will have gone through a growth process and
> review by AWSNA (and its sponsoring school) that shows its ability to
> carry out the tenets of Waldorf education.
>
> Some of these tenets are the pedagogical indications of Rudolf Steiner that
are
> based on anthroposophy and a central understanding that the education
> meets the needs of the developing child in (quoting AWSNA): "thinking
> (e.g.cognitive), feeling (e.g.affective), and willing (e.g.psychomotor)
> in an age appropriate manner by addressing the emerging individuality of
> the whole human being in both the process and the content of the
> education." This is taken from AWSNAs Shared Principles in the
> accreditation manual and is only one of the 15 elements of "The
> Educational Program, Activities, and Student Services" sub-head. Other
> sub-heads are "Purpose, Goals, and Philosophy"; "School Governance,
> Administration, Finance, & Law"; "Personnel"; and "Community of the School".
>
> The accreditation manual (Sept. 1999) is 123 pages and is similar to
> other accreditation manuals that other Independant School affiliations
> use. Besides NAIS (National Asociation of Independant Schools), in
> California we also have CAIS (CA Association of Independant Schools),
> WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges), and various

> Associations of Catholic Schools. All of them, AWSNA included, seek to

> accredit schools that have well defined structure and goals along with
> clear ways of communicating their educational outcomes. The
> accreditation process takes about two years of self study and review in order
to
> evaluate the programs and reporting structures.
>
> All this said, a school doesn't need any of this to be a waldorf school.
> It is only necessary if it wants to be in the Association. This is
> long winded enough, that those of you who have borne with me this far
> will allow me to relate a story. When I was in College, I
> was in a fraternity that was founded in 1864 at my university. During
> my time, we had disagreements with the National who threatened to take
> away our charter to use the fraternity name. Imagine our delight when
> we rebels learned they couldn't take it from us because we held the
> original charter! Waldorf Schools don't need AWSNA to be waldorf
> schools, just teachers with a deep dedication to the tenets of the
> education and recognition of the spiritual aspects of human growth as
indicated by
anthroposophy.
>
> Now, I suspect there are not many Boards of Trustees, dealing with
> fragile understandings in the parent body to start with, that would
> allow their school to disassociate with AWSNA, but listening to the
> questions that have come up from others, it must be pointed out that
> philosophically it is certainly possible to be waldorf with out being
> AWSNA waldorf. This leads to "how would you know" if you are waldorf
> enough and is there any such thing as "too waldorf".
> In the final analysis, and I should have started and ended here: it is
> the teachers. The teachers know the tenets of Waldorf education. They make a
school a Waldorf school. There are many remarkable educational philosophies and
> all of them depend on teachers who are committed and trained in whatever
> pedagogy they teach. In Waldorf education though, the teachers undertake a
> rigorous training that only begins with the teacher training and lasts a
> life time of continuing education dictated by both the needs of the
> children and the teachers own need to grow.
And the teachers know anthroposophy. They needn't be Anthroposophists
but absolutely must understand the philosophy that anticipates the
striving toward fullfillment of human capacities. Waldorf schools can't
dance around that issue - there can be a great school that does not work
out of anthroposophy, but it can't be called a Waldorf school.
Sorry if I have rambled on too much. I am not sure what to cut, now
that it is all written. Hopefully other, more succinct voices will

chime in.
Saxon Holt
-----------------------------Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:07:28 -0000
From: el redon <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
Greetings All,
Dear Nir, I appreciated reading the principals you took the time to
type. A good foundation to start with, thank you.
I also think Tamara made some very vital points, one being that old
greenback, money! If there is one aspect that I think would be helpful for
schools, and dare I say, should be required or maybe highly, strongly,
firmly requested by ASNAW is for all schools to study the Three Fold Social
Order at least once every three years.
But money isn't the only thing, I am also concerned with a community's
commitment to become a Waldorf School; as opposed to being an alternative
school?
Can a school really call itself Waldorf if it doesn't support a eurythmy
teacher, commit to an ongoing relationship with a master teachers, accept
challenged children without an extra-lesson teacher and Anthroposophical
Doctor etc...? What if a school becomes a full Waldorf School and loses one
of these vital people, can or should it still be called a Waldorf School or
a Waldorf School on probation?
Should schools be able to say we are a Waldorf School, but do not have a
eurythmist?
Should schools tell parents they will take and help their challenged
child, but can not afford or find an extra-lesson teacher?
Should Waldorf Schools hire teachers with no relationship and perhaps an
antipathy towards Anthroposophy?
I know it may sound like I am nit-picking, but I am truly concerned with
the living commitment a school makes to this type of education, I worry
about the children who need these vital people that they may never see. I
also do not mean to discount the free will that every Waldorf School has,
but who or what are we if not more than a method?
One point Tamara brought up that intrigued me was, "I do not believe we

have seen a "waldorf" school in America."

Is there any American Waldorf model?
Is there a European model outside of Stuttgart?
Is there or should there be a difference between American and European?
I realize there are many comments and questions for each of my remarks,
I mean no disrespect and I also feel that there are many wonderful
contributions that have been made so far. I also know that the movement will
be on trail in the public sector and that there are pros and cons regarding
that outcome, but I also feel odd about a US court making this decision.

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:58:25 +0200

From: Nir Eliav <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
Hy there,
Everybody welcomes the subject, but nobody really says anything.
Are you affraid...?
I think a W school stands for the following principals:
1. While teaching, we relate to the whole human being, not only to the
intelect.
2. A human being is principaly a spritual being, which has a physical body,
feelings and thinking abilities (soul), and a feeling of "I".
3. All pupils have talents, some stronger some weaker. The teacher job is to
balance them.
4. The development of the human being is done in steps: in the younger ages
we should encourage the physical body' development, in the middle classes the soul, and towards puberty we should nurture the intelectual faculty.
5. Sciences, both natural sciences and human sciences, are the fruits of
human thinking: they are dependent on the human being and they serve him.
6. Teaching sciences start in the kindergarten: a child that has
_experieced_ phenomena in childhood with his body and senses, and
_memorized_ information in the middle classes will better _understand_ the
world in his adultry.

7. Arts are important to the development of the human being at least as

sciences. The artistist work of a child is important to help him face the
modern world when he is older.
8. Physical work (in art workshops or in the vegetable garden) and thinking
work (in class or in the library) are in _the_same_level_of_importance_, and
children should fine their own direction in both of them.
9. Our aim is to educate towards people who will chose their own personal
way of life and way of thinking out of _inner freedom_, and will fulfil
their own goals while belonging to their own nation.
10. The inner work of the teacher in not less important than the learning
work of the student.
That is enough, I think.
I wrote it last year when I just strated teaching in the Harduf W
high-school, Israel.
I hope it can give some basis for discussion.
Yours
Nir
Nir Eliav *

[email protected]

-----------------------------Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 07:48:40 -0700

From: Gerald Palo <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
This is an interesting exercise in definition, but I am reminded of the
observation -- maybe Rudolf Steiner made it -- that when people start to try
to define a thing it is a sign that they have already lost it. This is
especially true of a living thing. There is an element of death in
definition, something done, finished. de-finito. That is why you won't
find definitions in Steiner's writings and lectures. It is very difficult,
for example, when someone ask you to define anthroposophy. There are one or
two pithy quotes from Steiner where he characterizes it in a sentence, but
these are really not adequate, and they leave the definition seeking
inquirer frustrated.
We have recently even read here on this list that the famous statement about
"Our highest endeavor" being to raise children so that they can out of
themselves impart meaning and direction to their lives, so often quoted, is

not by Rudolf Steiner at all. Trying to define Waldorf education, i.e. to

come up with a statment against with one can compare a school to decide if
it is Waldorf or not, is something of an exercise in futility. If you
already know what a Waldorf school is, then it may help you to understand
it better. But as a sieve to screen out the non-Waldorf from the Waldorf it
is especially limited.
---------------------------------------------Gerry Palo
Denver, Colorado
-----------------------------Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:45:18 -0700
From: Bob Schultz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
Gerry writes:
>Trying to define Waldorf education, i.e. to
>come up with a statment against with one can compare a school to decide if
>it is Waldorf or not, is something of an exercise in futility.
I disagree, it is an exercise in bringing consciousness to an area filled
with mythology. As with anything that has grown beyond its initiator,
Waldorf has evolved into a multifaceted being expressing the interests,
abilities, and cultures in which it evolved. As a system with a strong oral
tradition among its practitioners, habits and norms have developed which
are unconscious. These habits manifest in the curriculum, administration,
and relationships in the school. Without holding them to the light and
examining the underlying meaning one operates in a safe, predictable but
shallow place.
At our board/faculty retreat a few weeks ago we spent some time talking
about this very matter. Our school is a developing school moving toward
sponsorship. We must become very clear on what becoming a Waldorf school
means as we move forward. A part of that for me has been study of the
"teacher conferences with Steiner" and tracing the origin of some of our
habits (festivals, administrative practices, etc.). I often find
mythologies about things like the use Christian festivals, notion of
"faculty-run" schools, and why/when subjects are brought.
Participating in this list has helping explore these themes. Bob and Nancy,
in particular, have shed light on the fallacies upon which some customs
have been built. Out of this list came an alternative festival proposal
from Stuart Cohen which provided much provacative discussion. The

constructive criticism that has been developed over the years, helps us all
learn to question in a loving way what is happening in the school. The
"Schools in Transformation" conference in Nov. 1999 was a classic moment in
this conversation about 'what is Waldorf'. I believe that this is the
central work of our time.
For me, the Waldorf school I hope we become will constantly challenge the
assumptions that drive our habits. I also hope we develop the ability to
act out of an understanding that humans are spiritual beings with a purpose
in life and that education is to facilitate the enfoldment of that
individual purpose. Right now for most of us, this is an belief rather than
something that we can act out of wisdom regarding the pedagogy.
If we accomplish the above (we are not yet there), then I will consider our
school a Waldorf school.

Peace
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:32:33 -0800
From: paul c <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
I think this is a fascinating topic for discussion and
one that doesn't have a definitive answer.
I live in the Chicago area. Ten years ago, there was
one established Waldorf school in the area (as well as
Esperanza, a Waldorf school for special needs
children). Today, in addition to these two schools,
there are three more developing schools, in the north,
west and far west suburbs.
Aside from the usual growing pains that any private
school faces, all the schools are competing for an
insufficent pool of trained Waldorf teachers. For
example, there aren't enough trained Eurhythmy
teachers to properly serve all five schools.
And instead of one school needing to find a new first
grade teacher every year, now there are four schools
looking for first grade teachers. The supply is
insufficient for the demand. And obviously the
experience of all of these first grade teachers will
be limited, i.e., the pool of teachers that has taken
a class all the way to eighth grade AND is willing to

start over with a new first grade class is a lot

smaller than the need for qualified first grade
teachers.
So, even as we define what a Waldorf school is, we
have to face facts that few schools will be able to
fulfill that definition completely. Classes might be
mixed; Eurhythmy teachers might be shared (or
nonexistent); some special classes might be dropped
for budgetary or staffing reasons.
This shouldn't keep the Waldorf community from
continuing the effort to define itself, or the
national organization from setting standards. As long
as an individual school community or an inquiring
family understands that the standards may be a goal
the school is moving toward, rather than a reality.
Paul
Dear list mates,
Thank you for the dialogue regarding the question of the definition of a
Waldorf school.
I agree that this question is central to our times regarding the future
of Waldorf and for me, the future of education in America. In order for
me to address this question, I must necessarily include the following in
the deliberations:
How does the funding of a Waldorf school, a cultural initiative, impact
the evolving definition of a Waldorf school or any cultural initiative?
>From everything I have studied, witnessed and personally experienced in
the Waldorf movement, I cannot answer the question of "is this a Waldorf
school" unless I also ask myself how does the funding, the circulation
of capital, influence my question, my inquiry and my response?
Until we answer this question, I do not believe we have seen a "waldorf"
school in America. This is not to discount or be disrespectful of the
enormous accomplishments of this movement. It is to assert that the role
of "waldorf" in influencing education and therefore culture has been
directly restricted and therefore modified in its task by its
relationship to funding. The seeming "lack of funds" and the attendant
struggles to capitalize the movement has had incalcuable costs to
humanity.

As Henry Truman stated "The only thing that's new is the history I do
not know." As we have repeatedly seen on this list serve, when new
historical light is brought to the various themes discussed i.e. role of
teachers, role of parents, original curriculum etc. regarding historical
accuracy, the dialogue changes. New thought emerges and human creativity
is quickened.
Such is also the case when a individual encounters the biography of the
original impulse and its role in addressing the whole of civilization.
Such a task on behalf of the world would necessitate a funding stream
equal to the challenge. The destiny of the waldorf impulse can never be
fullfilled on the financial accounts of the parents. Tuition is not up
to the task of cultural renewal. And without appropriate funding to free
the biography of this impulse, the destiny of the movement, the
education will eventually taking on the identity of its funding
struggles. A more accurate question might be "is your tuitioned Waldorf
school a Waldorf school?"
I continue to remain dedicated to addressing the question of funding in
freeing the identity of any cultural impulse, including a Waldorf
school. If we can find a new way in our modern times, inspired by
Steiner's original initiative per the matrix out which Waldorf education
began, we can come to the universal and simultaneously profoundly
individual nature of a "waldorf school."
Suggested reading:
Towards Social Renewal, Rudolf Steiner
Biography of Emil Molt, The Father of the Waldorf Movement, Christine
Murphy
How the Waldorf School Arose From the Threefold Social Movement, Herbert
Hahn
Article in Threefold Review, Winter Spring 1992-93 Issue No. 8
Sincerely,
Tamara Slayton
P.S. These are the themes of the Circling Stars Conference and again, I
encourage you to consider participating on behalf of your school and on
behalf of the needs of all children seeking an emancipated education.
www.circlingstars.ebz.com
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:30:49 +1300
From: Robin Bacchus <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?

Paul writes:
<<And instead of one school needing to find a new first
grade teacher every year, now there are four schools
looking for first grade teachers. The supply is
insufficient for the demand. And obviously the
experience of all of these first grade teachers will
be limited, i.e., the pool of teachers that has taken
a class all the way to eighth grade AND is willing to
start over with a new first grade class is a lot
smaller than the need for qualified first grade
teachers.>>
Jesse Darrell, who took 5 classes through Michael Hall, Sussex, remarked at
the end of his career that - "the only lasting thing that a pupil takes from
a Waldorf education is the degree to which the teacher has educated or
overcome him/herself."
I feel that this can give hope to schools with beginning teachers, who are
probably transforming themselves faster than at any time their lives. It
may also be a component of "defining" or more properly characterizing a
Waldorf School.
Robin Bacchus
Preparatory Course for Rudolf Steiner School Teachers
Taruna College
Havelock North
New Zealand
Webpage: www.taruna.gen.nz
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:58:14 -0800
From: Liz Reid <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is your Waldorf School a Waldorf School?
>>Everybody welcomes the subject, but nobody really says anything.
Are you affraid...?<<
I think that this is such a huge subject (one could say can of worms as the
original questioner termed it I think) that people don't know where to
start. Take your beginning. As far as I can see you haven't said anything
either. E.G.:
>>I think a W school stands for the following principals:
1. While teaching, we relate to the whole human being, not only to the
intelect.<<

What is the whole human being? How do you relate? What is the intellect?
>>2. A human being is principaly a spritual being, which has a physical
body,
feelings and thinking abilities (soul), and a feeling of "I".<<
What is a spiritual being? What is a soul? Etc. Etc.
>>3. All pupils have talents, some stronger some weaker. The teacher job is
to
balance them.<<
How does a teacher do this?
>>4. The development of the human being is done in steps: in the younger
ages
we should encourage the physical body' development, in the middle classes the soul, and towards puberty we should nurture the intelectual faculty.<<
Again how does one do this?
Etc. etc. etc.
I'm sorry to be such a wet blanket but I get this kind of talk all the time
and I just can't believe that people can accept it that just because the
teachers say "we teach to the whole child" that this has any meaning other
than sounding great! Can one teach to the whole child without knowing what
that is? I realise that the claim assumes the knowing is already in place
but I have seen no evidence that this is true nor any interest in learning
more.
But then perhaps our school is not a real Waldorf school but just a
pretender and in real Waldorf Schools the teachers are truly enlightened
beings.
I remember reading somewhere that Steiner said that a school must be suited
to its time and place which would make any definition obsolete as soon as it
was made.
Liz
The article helps put into perspective what you have been stressing in all
this. Please let me know if you think I am starting to get it. Here are
some highlights that are beginning to come into focus:

1. The "College of Teachers" means "faculty" and it really means the entire
faculty, including teachers that are new to Waldorf methods and
Anthroposophy.
2. The college or, really faculty meetings should not be a forum to discus
administrative details, disiplinary policy and the like. Rather they should
be a "Hochschule" -- not a "high school" in the American sense, but a
continuing education university for the teachers, to deepen through inner
work and practical application their understanding of Anthroposophy in their
work as teachers.
3. This is why the College meetings must include ALL the teachers,
especially the new ones fresh out of teacher training or those who have no
Waldorf or anthroposophical background at all. The following sentence from
Uta's essay sums it up:
"The faculty meeting as the place where all teachers meet is a mere
administrative event and any study (mostly mere reading) is done [in current
practice - G.P.] in the college only. Thus, teachers, who have joined the
school without the proper Waldorf training do not receive a gradual
introduction to Anthroposophy, child development or curriculum study. They
never have the chance to listen to the various teachers presenting and
discussing a block, or listen to a biology high school teacher teaching them
about the heart of the senses while working with the Study of Man. As it is,
the newcomer at our schools has a hard time making the transition from an
outsider to a carrying member of the teaching staff."
4. Underlying all this are Rudolf Steiner's repeated statements that
everything that the teachers do needs to come in a living way out of
Anthroposophy, and this requires ongoing training and working by the
teachers together. This is what the College meetings should be about, and
again, they must include all the teachers.
5. For this, the meetings need to be well structured and planned. In the
Stuttgart school, Uta found that they were always very well structured and
coordinated by a small administrative group and were thus very effective,
not the endless three-hour affairs that in many schools encourage teachers
to find reasons to stay away.
Nancy, I often find myself misinterpreting your intentionsm, and I am not
sure if you are implying this, but the idea I see in it is that the notion
of the College of Teachers as an "inner circle" whose task is to "run the
school" from a pedagogical point of view is based on a misconception and
perhaps something as simple as a mistranslation of the word "college". The
College or Faculty meetings should have the vital educational task indicated
by Uta. The administrative work can be done in a variety of ways. The

College should be a true place of continuing higher education for all the
teachers. (So in the end, the word "college" in the American sense really
applies after all, but in an unexpected way.)
Another point that comes out of the essay are some remarks by Rudolf Steiner
that the teachers, who see each other every day in the course of the school
day, need to take more of an interest in one another and what each one is
doing -- including smiling more at each other! Here arises another meaning
of the word "college": that the teachers are colleagues, literally human
beings in league together, comrades and companions the high spiritual
endeavor of education.
Gerry Palo