The British Humanist Association has forced the government to release documents showing what they knew about Steiner Schools before they gave them State Funding.
The report shows serious concerns regarding systematic bullying of children by teachers, serious concerns about the underlying philosophy being racist, a culture of secrecy and a refusal by schools to allow themselves to be properly assessed and inspected.
BBC Newsnight have picked up the story and you can see their report above. There are the usual denials and verbatim obscurantism from the schools.
The Steinerists resort to the predictable stance that the reports of bullying are just anecdotal and that the charges of racism are historical. Of course, all schools have to deal with bullying. What we are seeing here though is a pattern – and one that is not easily brushed aside. As for the racism, until such time as the Steiner movement can openly discuss Steiner’s abhorrent racism, admit it is central to his philosophy, they are not going to be believed that it is all in the past.
The Steiner movement did well to get into the programme some well rehearsed supporters. Rachel Black, a parent and an actress, spoke very clearly how bullying had been dealt with at her school. More worryingly, Francis Russell took on Andrew Copson of the British Humanists in a studio debate. She was introduced as a Steiner parent, but is better described as the Policy and Business Director at Greenwich Steiner School. What she had to say was astonishing.
Russell, a former lawyer, said “Anthroposophy is not taught in [Steiner] schools and is there for some adults to guide their lives. It [Anthroposophy] just does not form any part of a modern Steiner School”.
We should remind ourselves of Rudolf Steiner’s exhortation to teachers that it was most important to distance the schools from Anthroposophy even though this was central to their philsophy,
[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people would break the Waldorf School’s neck.
My concern with Steiner Schools is first and foremost this: that they consistently mislead parents about the Anthroposophical nature of the schools. Steiner Schools are Anthroposophical Schools. They are the living embodiment of anthroposophy in action. Every aspect of their curriculum, structure, daily routine, methods and style stems from Steiner’s crypto-religious occult beliefs. That Schools deny this is shocking. They all do it. They do not want you to join up the dots.
This report comes at a time when revelations in New Zealand have shown that government reports have declared that Steiner education is incompatible with New Zealand values. Why do our government feel that it is OK?
BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘Some of the issues that officials identified in 2010 with respect to independent Steiner schools are extremely serious and systemic. They include accusations of racism and a third being subject to serious complaints of staff bullying of pupils. Coupled with the issues we have seen with the Steiner Academy Hereford teaching pseudoscience, providing homeopathy for pupils and opting out of offering vaccinations, we do not think that Steiner schools should be state-funded. We urge the Government to review this decision.’
Further Reading.
What Every Parent Should Know about Waldorf-Steiner Schools.
Let’s hope that this finally brings the issue of state funding of Steiner schools to a head. Funny (peculiar) that they should resort to the charge of anecdotal evidence regarding the bullying, when they have zero evidence for the sheer nutjobbery of the ideas of Steiner, e.g. the elves, to pick just one.
Kudos to the BHA and Andy for having pursued this so tenaciously.
Comment seconded and thanks Andy for bring this to people’s attention. Let’s hope this dangerous philosophy gets exposed more and more!
Andy,
I’m glad the documents have been made public: I think discussions of the role (if any) of Steiner education in the publicly funded sector should be open and honest.
But I’d like to see you being honest too. Above, you have again used the misleadingly distorted edit of Steiner’s quote which you used several years ago, the inaccuracy of which I pointed out to you ages ago (I think it was when you gave your talk at Reading SitP).
Your version:
– seems to date back (at least) to Roger Rawlings and has been repeated verbatim by anti-Waldorf activists since.
What Steiner actually said was:
Since Steiner’s “threefolding” ideas have liberal and socialist-leaning social, political and economic characteristics which, in mid 1920s Germany, might have literally got necks broken it’s not surprising that he didn’t want to put the teachers he employed at unnecessary risk.
If you are going to allege dishonesty in the Steiner-Waldorf movement then using distorted quotes to do so doesn’t put you on the moral high ground.
Regarding your comment:
From discussions with, and the writings of, some in the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, it seems there’s a school of thought there that the overall tenor of Steiner’s thought was non- or even anti-racist. Given the guy’s prolific output, much of which I think even Staudenmaier has remarked is ambiguous and/or mutually contradictory, I daresay it’s possible to construct such an anti-racist reading of RS’ works. I don’t think it serves historianship well (which no doubt arouses Staudenmaier’s ire) but from what I know of Steiner teachers they’re more interested in teaching, and Waldorf education in practice, than the historical details of Steiner’s every word uttered almost a century ago.
“Since Steiner’s “threefolding” ideas have liberal and socialist-leaning social, political and economic characteristics which, in mid 1920s Germany, might have literally got necks broken it’s not surprising that he didn’t want to put the teachers he employed at unnecessary risk.”
So says you… I don’t see any change in the comment by adding the “threefolding” part. Like all of Steiner’s bullshit, the context has to be invented by his followers. Steiner absolutely said (many times) that the true nature of Waldorf education must be hidden from parents and outsiders. He said this in many different contexts.
“From discussions with, and the writings of, some in the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, it seems there’s a school of thought there that the overall tenor of Steiner’s thought was non- or even anti-racist.”
Oh, stop it John… THEY’RE LIARS. That’s all we need to know here.
“I daresay it’s possible to construct such an anti-racist reading of RS’ works. ”
Construct it then John. We’ll wait… To do it, you’ll need to crop a LOT of Steiner out of context… Look at AWSNA’s website if you have any doubts. They have had to mangle Steiner’s words extensively. Look at Sune’s site… same thing. Reading the actual context of Steiner’s work is important. Apologia, not so much.
“Since Steiner’s “threefolding” ideas have liberal and socialist-leaning social, political and economic characteristics which, in mid 1920s Germany, might have literally got necks broken it’s not surprising that he didn’t want to put the teachers he employed at unnecessary risk.”
Complete and utter ahistorical nonsense.
The quote under discussion here dates to early 1924, at which point Hitler, Ludendorff and Hess were under arrest and awaiting trials following the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch, while most of the other leading figures in the NSDAP had skipped the country to avoid being arrested.
The NSDAP itself had been banned, the Volkischer Beobachter shut down and, in any case, the NSDAP and its offshoots were, at that time, a significant force only in Bavaria and not in Stuttgart, where the first Waldorf School was based.
What Steiner was most concerned with at that point was insulating the school from any clear association with the Goetheneum in Dornach.
At that time, any significant threat to the schools would have come not from the NSDAP and its offshoots but from the government of the Free Republic of Wurttemburg, which was coming under the control of a conservative coalition and the influence of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church and, to a lesser extent, Roman Catholic church.
Thanks Unity, I stand corrected.
That’s it? You arrived here like a giant bag of wind to accuse Andy (and others) of distorting Steiner’s quote to give it unintended meaning (for years) – only to find out you were wrong. So, you stand corrected. How about a fuckin’ APOLOGY?
Not intending to keep you from backing up your claim that constructing an anti-racist reading of Steiner’s work without chopping up his quotes is possible, of course.
Thank you to Unity for honing in on the historical timeline of the comment.
Pete,
I was wrong about the historical context in which Steiner might have wished his school to keep a low profile about Threefolding, not about the dishonesty of the Waldorf haters who distort Steiner’s words to make them look as if they were about Anthroposophy rather than Threefolding.
And regarding an anti-racist reading of Steiner’s words I think you’ll find a reference to just such a reading in a discussion on the Waldorf Critics list last year.
“I was wrong about the historical context in which Steiner might have wished his school to keep a low profile about Threefolding, not about the dishonesty of the Waldorf haters who distort Steiner’s words to make them look as if they were about Anthroposophy rather than Threefolding.”
Gee… did you think “threefolding” is different from Anthroposophy? Anthroposophy is ALL about developing social structures and preparing individuals to fill them. Have you read any Anthroposophy? What ridiculous distinction are you trying to make here?
Here’s the *full* quote again:
“We are working toward threefolding, but we have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its objectively anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people could break the Waldorf School’s neck.”
He’s talking about Anthroposophy’s connection to Waldorf schools… exactly saying that they need to hide Anthroposophy’s connection to Waldorf schools. NOTHING changes by including the mentioning of “threefolding”.
Curious, then, that Rawlings should have gone to the trouble of editing Steiner’s words to remove mention of threefolding, and that Andy should have used the edited version when he knew it was a distortion.
“Curious, then, that Rawlings should have gone to the trouble of editing Steiner’s words to remove mention of threefolding, and that Andy should have used the edited version when he knew it was a distortion.”
Ah, I see… not curious enough to figure out what Steiner was actually talking about in the first place (which you hopefully now realize you were wrong about)… only curious why the word “threefolding” has been removed when it made no difference to the content or context of the statement. Rawlings edited out the parts that had nothing to do with the rest of what Steiner was talking about. Since Steiner jumps around a lot, editors have had to do this occasionally. Big difference than editing out the content or changing the context to make it appear to say something else (like AWSNA does).
You seem to be curious about the wrong things John. Nothing sinister going on here… just you making a fool of yourself yet again.
John wrote: “And regarding an anti-racist reading of Steiner’s words I think you’ll find a reference to just such a reading in a discussion on the Waldorf Critics list last year.”
Any chance you could provide a link to this discussion? You have provided links to the dictionary when unnecessary… how about providing a link to the discussion you suggest absolves you from having to back up your claim that a non-racist reading of Steiner’s works is possible without heavy editing?
I think you provided a link to the discussion on it yesterday: the SWSF’s “Overcoming…” piece.
BTW where did I say “without heavy editing?
I’m not endorsing their reading, I am pointing out that they seem to have constructed such a reading and to believe it represents Steiner’s views.
In much the same way that Christians, Moslems and Jews construct readings of their holy books which, they claim, indicate that their god is loving and merciful (and not at all misogynist, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, bloodthirsty and with the anger management skills of a spoilt toddler).
John wrote: “BTW where did I say “without heavy editing?”
You criticize Andy for distorting quotes here:
“If you are going to allege dishonesty in the Steiner-Waldorf movement then using distorted quotes to do so doesn’t put you on the moral high ground.”
And in the same post you say:
“I daresay it’s possible to construct such an anti-racist reading of RS’ works.”
Are you now suggesting you would have to heavily edit Steiner’s quotes to make your case? Isn’t this a little hypocritical?
John continues: “I’m not endorsing their reading, I am pointing out that they seem to have constructed such a reading and to believe it represents Steiner’s views.”
You most certainly were endorsing “their reading” in the conversations with Peter Staudenmaier. Have you now changed your mind and agree that an anti-racist reading of Steiner requires a distortion of his actual views?
Here, I fixed this for you:
“In much the same way that Waldorf bliss-ninnys construct descriptions of their schools which, they claim, indicate that their teachers are loving and attentive (and not at all bullying, xenophobic, racist, dishonest, and sometimes child pornographers and rapists and with the school management skills of a spoiled toddler).
Oops, sorry: this is the correct link to what Steiner actually said.
Thanks for the link. I hope readers follow it. The statement in the link is not as powerful as the assertion you made.
I notice you list only 9 know incidents of racism on your page. Are you going to adjust that count now?
John, like many Anthroposophists, has trouble seeing racism – that may be why his count of racist incidents in Waldorf schools is so low. In the link below, Peter Staudenmaier is explaining to John that what he thinks he read in AWSNA’s “Overcoming Racism through Anthroposophy” piece is not what it actually says.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/waldorf-critics/conversations/topics/27530
“Steiner teachers they’re more interested in teaching, and Waldorf education in practice, than the historical details of Steiner’s every word uttered almost a century ago.”
AGAIN… Then why is the racist stuff in the TEACHER TRAINING MATERIALS? People aren’t that dumb John. If they can afford people to work 24 hrs a day cleansing Wikipedia, they can afford to have someone edit the racist stuff out of their training materials… IF it isn’t important to Waldorf teacher training that is.
Racism is the CORE of Waldorf education. It helps Waldorf teachers determine the individual child’s spiritual status.
BTW, the “parent” on the film – who was so happy with the school’s response to her child’s bullying… happens to be an actress. What are the odds?
‘Hire me now or rue the day you didn’t.’
https://twitter.com/rachaelblack
As I scrolled through the link, I passed what I thought were some Waldorf “crafts” on her twitter feed but it turned out to be a bunch of stuff about bondage. I guess handiwork comes in all sizes. Hard to believe this is the parent they chose to be their representative.
I think the interesting thing about this ‘affair’ is not so much what is revealed about the Steiner schools or the underlying ideas (anthroposophy). The problems mentioned in the documents have been known for years. Though perhaps they haven’t been as widely known as they deserve.
However, what is most astonishing is discovering something about the lengths to which a government is prepared to go to protect the movement. They’re willingly making themselves complicit in a deception they didn’t create — and perhaps don’t understand. (Although, who knows.) It seems they wanted to fund these schools no matter what the consequences. It’s astounding, I believe, that — if one tries to draw out and interpret the essence of what the documents seem to say — the big problem with and reason to say not to Steiner schools wasn’t what the pedagogy contained, the academic deficits, the complaints that had been made about it or all the concerns that already existed and were know, no, the big problem was what do to do in order to hide all of this. That, in my opinion, is far more serious than anthroposophy itself, because, by their very nature, these schools are anthroposophical. One can perhaps understand (but not accept) why anthroposophists want to be less than truthful and open, but what’s in it for the government? Not wanting to admit incompetence, ignorance, mistakes?
Could it be a coincidence that this all happened on the heels of Gove leaving? Could he have been the linchpin in all this? (I don’t know anything about UK politics but just thinking out loud here).
I don’t know enough to say, but I think more likely a coincidence, as the BHA has fought for the documents to be released for a while now, and I believe the tribunal’s decision also came before Gove left.
“They’re willingly making themselves complicit in a deception they didn’t create — and perhaps don’t understand.”
From what I’ve read, Steiner schools aren’t as “extreme” as some schools the government has ushered in. The leaders in the UK sound as clueless as the US Congress. Why cover up something you don’t understand? I suspect there’s a lot more to this story than has been revealed even now. Has Tridos bank been making secret deposits to accounts of influential people? Maybe we need another FOI request.
‘From what I’ve read, Steiner schools aren’t as “extreme” as some schools the government has ushered in.’
Good point. And the documents pertaining to some of these other schools may be even more astonishing. Steiner schools may have seemed like a small problem, relatively speaking.
Still, they can go to the local socialist utopian comprehensive where bullying and poor teaching are bog-standard. Mustn’t let the proletariat have any choice and any chance of challenging the chattering classes and liberal intelligentsia.
Steiner is “off the wall” but his followers are far less of a threat than “the usual suspects”.
“Steiner is “off the wall” but his followers are far less of a threat than “the usual suspects”.”
Steiner schools should start using that… “We’re less of a threat to your children than other schools.” Sounds like a great marketing tool… and a great standard to go by.
Is it just me, or are the regular Steiner people awfully quiet lately? Where’s all the people with their strange definitions of racism we usually see? Where are the Steiner defenders? So far, just one guy with reading comprehension problems. Has the one, two, three punch of Green Meadow, Te Ra and BHA investigations (and their accompanying publicity) shocked the Waldorf movement into silence? Is it better to remain silent and be thought a racist than to speak and remove all doubt?
I guess there has been a shake-up in the Steiner world. That might explain the silence…
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/education/2014/08/09/teacher-linked-child-porn-became-waldorf-rock-star/13849859/
Eugene Schwartz, now 69, has lectured widely and earned a reputation as a distinguished pedagogical leader since he left the Green Meadow Waldorf School in Chestnut Ridge in 2005, when the child pornography reportedly surfaced.
But Green Meadow officials did not investigate or share information at the time about Schwartz, whose career prospered after his 24-year teaching tenure ended in his abrupt departure from the school after that year’s graduation ceremony.
The allegations that Schwartz admitted to having a “problem” with child pornography and being a “sex addict” nearly 10 years ago came to light last month when he and two other former teachers were identified in a Green Meadow-commissioned investigation into pervasive past sexual misconduct at the school. The news sent shock waves to the West Coast, where the Westside Waldorf School in southern California severed its ties with Schwartz.
Other schools are expected to follow suit, said a spokeswoman at the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, which is charged with accrediting dozens of Waldorf schools in the U.S.
“I suspect, based on my conversations, that many others will take the same strong stance,” said Beverly Amico, AWSNA’s leader of outreach and development.
Does anyone here ever ask themselves why Andy Lewis devotes so much of his time and energy to bullying Waldorf education, and proving that its underlying philosophy actually sees (the blindingly obvious fact of) some differences between the world’s ethnicities?
He seems a nice enough guy to me; but the critical energy, the passion, the determination to win his battle, to defeat a small opponent, all smack of a vendetta that nobody on this list has ever clearly explained.
Why is it so important to knock Steiner schools? They’re clearly not churning out racists or bullies. The criticisms of Anthroposophy vacillate between “woo-woo” and “nazi” – I seriously wonder how it can be both. And yes, the people who work in Waldorf education are human beings – warts ‘n all.
Why are you all so angry?
Paul,
Do you accept that Steiner was correct that there is a spiritual hierarchy of races?
Do you think it is acceptable for a school not to disclose its spiritual philosophy to parent before they enroll their pupils?
So you think a movement worth hundreds of millions (if not billions) in Europe alone is a ‘small opponent’? How big do organisations have to be before one is allowed to critique them?
Your answers will be welcome.
> Do you accept that Steiner was correct that there is a spiritual hierarchy of
> races?
Absolutely! The important word here is “spiritual”. There is no physical hierarchy.
> Do you think it is acceptable for a school not to disclose its spiritual
> philosophy to parent before they enroll their pupils?
Absolutely not! Anthroposophy should be mentioned to all parents (but never to the children). However many Steiner school teachers are not Anthroposophists; so omissions sometimes happen.
> So you think a movement worth hundreds of millions (if not billions) in
> Europe alone is a ‘small opponent’?
I dispute this figure, because it seems to imply that all farms, schools, care-homes, etc, operate under a single aegis. This is false.
> Your answers will be welcome.
And could you try answering my questions please.
What impact do you think a racial spiritual hierarchy should have on teaching methods? How should it manifest itself?
Andy – try answering one of my questions first. It’s a conversation, not an interrogation.
Anyway, I don’t understand your question.
My impression is that the overt racism in the Old Testament is considerably more dangerous than what might be implied in “hierarchies” of Steiner’s “more imaginative” work.
I ‘d expect the much bigger problem, as far as the UK is concerned, lies the vestige of vicious conservatism (homophobia, racism) in the Church of England schools.
Surely most peoples experience of the Steiner milieu in the UK is inseparable for the hippy and new age groups, and their politics are without distinction. This is in stark contrast to the experience of Christianity in general, i.e the neurotic tyranny of the Catholic and Church of England church.
Also, these hierarchies represent the results of an antiquated mind fumbling around ideas of cosmic creation A conflation with modes of human enterprise, professional guilds and the like, in which a hierarchy is implicit, is no more racist than it is predictable.
Steiner is credited with revitalising the Christian Church in parts of Europe. My reading of his work, led me to believe that this was in part due to an overt and explicit syncretism with other Oriental belief systems. While that is not evidence against Steiner’s ethnic prejudice, I find it dissonant with the claim.
Apart from the documents which were the subject of the original article, could you point me to some key works providing serious criticism of Steiner and his legacy, that might give me insight into the substance behind your obviously passionate disapproval.
“My impression is that the overt racism in the Old Testament is considerably more dangerous than what might be implied in “hierarchies” of Steiner’s “more imaginative” work.”
You would be wrong then. Overt racism is never more dangerous than covert racism.
“Apart from the documents which were the subject of the original article, could you point me to some key works providing serious criticism of Steiner and his legacy, that might give me insight into the substance behind your obviously passionate disapproval.”
Have you tried Googling “Steiner+racism” or even “Steiner+criticism”? There is no shortage of information and documents criticizing Steiner and his legacy.
“Why is it so important to knock Steiner schools?”
It’s important to point out that they are deceiving people – and by extension harming children. Why wouldn’t every person put energy into helping fix a problem that Waldorf obviously doesn’t believe it has?
“They’re clearly not churning out racists or bullies. ”
Nobody really knows what they are “churning out”. Easily 3/4 of children attending Waldorf don’t graduate – so even a poll of Waldorf grads isn’t accurate. For all Waldorf knows, the children they have harmed and caused to leave may have indeed gone on to be bullies, racists, child molesters (many will carry down a tradition started for them by their teachers). They take absolutely NO responsibility for the children who didn’t make it to graduation. Since 3/4 of children aren’t accounted for – we have to assume this group is what Waldorf has been “churning out” – not twelve per school that make it to graduation each year.
“It’s important to point out that they are deceiving people – and by extension harming children”
I’ve never met a Steiner school parent who felt deceived. And if there are any, they’re a tiny minority. And the phrase “by extension” is meaningless.
” the children they have harmed and caused to leave may have indeed gone on to be bullies, racists, child molesters (many will carry down a tradition started for them by their teachers).”
This is insulting rubbish. Pete – you sound like you’ve never been further than your keyboard to study Waldorf education?
“I’ve never met a Steiner school parent who felt deceived. And if there are any, they’re a tiny minority. And the phrase “by extension” is meaningless.”
Where do you suppose you would “meet” one? At your Waldorf school? “Tiny minority”? EVERY Steiner parent is deceived to varying degrees. Even Steiner teachers aren’t fully aware of what goes on in their own schools. If Waldorf schools don’t intend to be deceitful, why do they lie to parents right on their websites? Why do Waldorf organizations like AWSNA continually publish material that is blatantly false? Why do their representatives flatly lie to people about the most basic ideas behind Waldorf?
“By extension” means, if you deceive the parents, the children are also harmed by the deception. Understand the meaning now?
“This is insulting rubbish. Pete – you sound like you’ve never been further than your keyboard to study Waldorf education?”
I dare say, I probably have more solid experience of Waldorf education than you have. But you’re not going to engage me… because I know what I’m talking about. I’ve seen it a million times. You’ll try to discredit me and when you can’t, you’ll disappear.
http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/ features HUNDREDS of reviews from parents who felt deceived. Indeed, that’s a “tiny minority” of parents who were actually deceived by Waldorf, but at least they went to the trouble of documenting their deception.
“I dare say, I probably have more solid experience of Waldorf education than you have. But you’re not going to engage me… because I know what I’m talking about”
Of course you do Pete.
LOL! Somebody did a google search… I just love it when I’m right.
“Absolutely! The important word here is “spiritual”. There is no physical hierarchy.”
So, then, it must be true that persons with black skin in the physical world can belong to the highest spiritual hierarchy, according to Steiner? Where does he say that? Do you have a quote somewhere? Has any Anthroposophist since Steiner ever suggested this? Are YOU suggesting this?
Here’s Steiner talking about the “spiritual” hierarchy:
“On the one hand there is the black race, which is the most earthly. When this race goes toward the West, it dies out. Then there is the yellow race, in the middle between the earth and the cosmos. When this race goes toward the East, it turns brown, it attaches itself too much to the cosmos and dies out. The white race is the race of the future, the race that works creatively on the spirit.” (Rudolf Steiner, “Farbe und Menschenrassen”, lecture in Dornach March 3, 1923, in Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, Dornach 1993, p. 67)
“one can only understand history and all of social life, including today’s social life, if one pays attention to people’s racial characteristics. And one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely through the color of their skin.” (Rudolf Steiner, “Farbe und Menschenrassen”, lecture in Dornach March 3, 1923, in Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, Dornach 1993, p. 52)
“In the Negro the rear-brain is especially developed. It goes through his spinal cord. And this is able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are inside a person. Therefore everything connected to the body and the metabolism is strongly developed in the Negro. He has, as they say, powerful physical drives. The Negro has a powerful instinctual life. And because he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body surface, in his skin, his whole metabolism operates as if he were being cooked inside by the sun. That is where his instinctual life comes from. The Negro is constantly cooking inside, and what feeds this fire is his rear-brain.” (Rudolf Steiner, “Farbe und Menschenrassen”, lecture in Dornach March 3, 1923, in Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, Dornach 1993, p. 55)
> Do you think it is acceptable for a school not to disclose its spiritual
> philosophy to parent before they enroll their pupils?
Absolutely not! Anthroposophy should be mentioned to all parents (but never to the children). However many Steiner school teachers are not Anthroposophists; so omissions sometimes happen.
So, because a teacher is not an Anthroposophist, they sometimes forget to disclose that Anthroposophy is the spiritual philosophy that defines everything that happens in the school. An Anthroposophists would think to mention this to parents… I see… So Anthroposophists are more forthright about the school’s underpinnings… it’s the NOT-Anthroposophists who are to blame if parents aren’t told about Anthroposophy. This make total sense, now.
I’m guessing it’s the not-Anthroposophists who must be producing all the websites and literature for these schools. Funny, that they are careful to put the not-Anthroposophists out there when prospective parents come to visit a school too.
“(but never to the children)”
http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/2014/08/is-anthroposophy-taught-in-waldorf.html
I had spent over 20 years in state education before joining the Steiner/Waldorf ‘movement’. My previous experience counted for nothing among these cultic people, particularly the upper caste of Anthropops. They were addicted to knoweverythingness, an addiction they had picked up from the arch-guru of omniscience himself, Rudolf Steiner. I eventually found the atmosphere both toxic and suffocating and was lucky to escape with my mental health intact. PMcE