Waldorf School

The article about the Waldorf School is in the making and it will continue to develop online. There is no goal direction yet. Except the desire to capture the essence of the Waldorf School as holistically and truly as necessary and possible.

I didn't go to a Waldorf school, but "at least" to a Montessori school. In Krefeld, near where I lived at the time, there was also a Waldorf school. I didn't know anyone who was a pupil there, but prejudices circulated, such as "there are incompetent children from rich parents who can only get through the Abi because of all the money". Something like that.

My image of Waldorf school today has changed a lot. Firstly, through my work in biodynamic agriculture, I have met open-minded people who have been to Waldorf schools or where their children are or have been. Furthermore, I am now involved with it myself through my family. Fortunately.

Unfortunately, I don't look back on my school days with joy. I only remember a few moments when I was in "harmony with school". In this respect, I am always speechless and moved when Waldorf students or alumni tell me that they have/had a great time at school. I even know "extreme cases" who report that their time at a Waldorf school was the best time of their lives. How nice that sounds! Can you wish a child anything better than a blessed time at school?

The most serious differences that I was able to make through personal perceptual differences between mainstream schools and Waldorf schools concern subtle characteristics. In the encounters with people at such schools, in the behaviour and the charisma of the children. Very subjective, but for me very true, would be a statement like this: "At Waldorf schools you still meet children who (may) behave like children". Or: "It is a different kind of naturalness".

The curriculum for the child is not based on the dictates of the current market economy in the sense of "What must my child be able to do in order to get a job in the future in the field of management, IT, science, etc.? No, the question is rather: "Who are youand what do you NEED for YOUR development?"

School is a "people business", teachers are different and not all teachers get along with all pupils and vice versa. Nevertheless, accepting the core idea of Rudolf Steiner, which is to ask about the needs of the children, and also to try to understand and accompany the children in their spiritual and physical development, this kind of school indeed has the potential to be a particularly valuable place for the children. This could explain why Waldorf pupils or alumni report with noticeably positive emotions about their time at school.

Waldorf schools, also known as Rudolf Steiner schools, are among the clearest signs of the Anthroposophy in the world. Rudolf Steiner was concerned that Waldorf schools should not explicitly teach students anthroposophy. Nor should his person be in the foreground.

And if you look behind the scenes, you will discover many more grandiose aspects. But here at anthro.world we also want to help develop the image of what Waldorf schools are and what they could be again in the future. Because there are deviations and great challenges here and there.

Because we find that not all Waldorf schools are currently set up in the way we understand their genes to have been. Not all Waldorf schools are free schools, and this can lead to typical problems. For whose bread I eat, whose song I sing. Those who are already familiar with the Tripartite structure of the social organism knows exactly how important the autonomy of free intellectual life (e.g. teaching and school) is in relation to legal life (e.g. state tasks). And the trend towards educating children for the needs of economic life is certainly not good. The economy should serve the people, not the other way round.

Another basic problem is that teaching in the Waldorf sector is less well paid. This goes hand in hand with a very high workload, and a great deal of personal responsibility in the teacher/pupil relationship. At Waldorf schools, teachers wrestle particularly hard with the question of what each individual child needs in terms of support in order to arouse the child's interest. This means that the teachers deal with each individual pupil's fate in a particularly intensive spiritual way, even outside the classroom. In my opinion, the high human and personal commitment of teachers should be recognised more. One form of recognition is, for example, the amount of salary.

Teachers today - and Waldorf teachers as well - have to bear much more of the burden of the external circumstances of our time than they did in Steiner's time. There is no free spiritual life in which the school and the teachers could develop freely. The bureaucracy demanded by the state has taken on overwhelming proportions.

Also, the parents of the children today are so burdened with professional demands that the teachers have to compensate for and supplement much of what the parents can no longer do.

Accordingly, it has become much more difficult to regularly immerse oneself in the anthroposophical foundations of Waldorf education alongside the everyday running of the school, as would actually be necessary. The prevailing spirit of the times is still as far removed as possible from all real spiritual striving.

Dr Wolfgang Peter, Vienna, 21 October 2020

Well, and that's not all. Ideally, one is not only a didactically good teacher, but also a person who loves and appreciates children and knows how to read and understand their own nature. No. In addition, one has to deal with the roots of Waldorf education. And that in turn means that there has to be a lot of willpower and motivation in this direction in order to gain knowledge of the complex anthroposophical connections that could lead to the pedagogical (knowledge).

Indeed. All this can be too much for a normal teacher's life, and so there can be a seductive trend in some Waldorf schools/ governing bodies/ teachers to think: "We'll take the best bits out of Waldorf education, and the rest, the old-fashioned, dusty and incomprehensible stuff, we'll cut out. Especially the esoteric content is not in the spirit of the times." Perfect solution? But what are the consequences for the future? Every school is set up differently, the trend towards simplification mentioned here only applies to selected cases.

However, what happens when one eliminates that which is uncomfortable because it is difficult to put into words? Because it is a knowledge which above all must be experienced inwardly and alive, for that is what anthroposophy is all about! What is left when one thinks that the name Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy should no longer be "presentable" for the Waldorf School? How long can it be guaranteed in the future that children will continue to be accompanied in acquiring a healthy capacity for discernment, a lively and independent way of thinking, if only the sultanas are picked out of Waldorf education, but the eyes are closed to the true and effective spiritual connections from anthroposophy?

In my view, Rudolf Steiner deserves to continue to be named and recognised in the close context of the Waldorf School. Respect does not mean a cult around his person. Rudolf Steiner always demanded that his followers be active thinkers themselves in order to be able to experience the truth of spiritual-scientifically oriented anthroposophy for themselves and to see whether the connections described can prove true in their own experience.

With the help of the comment function and your feedback, the discourse on the topic of Waldorf schools will be able to develop.

Francois Hagdorn, 20 October 2020