| Author | |
donnalynn
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 24 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 11:15am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Deleting content of my posts I believe have been misunderstood.
Donna
Who is wondering how I got myself into this mess!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lissa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 12:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Donna, I think Elizabeth was referring to the educational philosophy underlying the Waldorf curriculum. Yes, we can and do certainly read Greek myths, etc, as part of a Catholic education, and of course mythology & such makes many appearances in Elizabeth's book & booklist. She was not condemning the use of Waldorf materials (art supplies, etc). What I think she was getting at was that while you may certainly be inspired (as many of us have, including Elizabeth herself, and me too) by elements of a Waldorf education, you can't Catholicize *anthroposophy*. Anthroposophy as a philosophy explicity contradicts Christian doctrine. (Belief in karma is just one example.) So it does seem necessary to advise Catholics interested in Waldorf of the conflicting philosophy which informs the curriculum.
I think you misunderstood her point, and your shock over what you thought she was saying caused you to react rather strongly. But really I think you are coming from a similar viewpoint--recognizing that there is much about the *tone* of a Waldorf education that is appealing and can indeed be applied in our Catholic homes. The handcrafts, the lovely colors, the imaginative play with simple toys and natural objects, the peacefulness and rhythm of the day--there is much of beauty here and I do think many of us are striving to maintain that sort of atmosphere in our own homes. I know I for one became interested in Waldorf after years of enjoying the beautiful toys and art supplies in the Natural Baby catalog.
Because of my interest in and attraction to Waldorf, I did a great deal of research a couple of years ago and was surprised to learn about anthroposophy and how it informs the W. curriculum. I'm sure you are better educated in this than I, since you studied anthro. yourself. Perhaps it is easier for you to avoid anthro undercurrents because you are aware of the background? For others, they may be harder to discern and so I think it's completely within the bounds of charity and duty to point them out. I have some old CCM posts on the subject which I'll try to clean up and post here.
I'm sorry for the misunderstandings which have somewhat derailed this conversation because it's a worthy topic and there are such earnest and well-meaning people here working toward the same goal, even if sometimes the shortcomings of online communication (particularly in our busy households with many demands on our time) lead to miscommunication! I know this is certainly a problem for me right now with my attention scattered in so many directions... 
__________________
Lissa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lissa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 1:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is one of the CCM posts. There are more, which I'll try to post later. Sorry the formatting is wonky—I don't have time to clean them up right now.
Quote:
#45096 From: Lissa Peterson <tisell@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2003 12:34 pm
Subject: Re: Waldorf (long)
Whoops! Just sent a blank message by accident, sorry.
I was going to tackle Kim's question to Elizabeth about Waldorf--
> ask you to expound (even just briefly) on those "occult underpinnings"? Not that I am
considering that method, but I'm just a bit curious and would like to be able to pass the information along, should the need ever arise.
I know, ever since I found out the truth about it, I've wanted to pass on the info. I live in a tiny little town (5000+) which manages to sustain a Waldorf school (I think students come from all over the county), so there's lots of Waldorf in the air here.
I'll try to be brief, but it'll be a struggle-- <G>
As the waldorfcritics.org website puts it, "Waldorf is the most visible activity of Anthroposophy, an occultist sect founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)." Steiner was a German who, among many other things, founded a school for the children of employees of the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart. He wrote a great deal about exactly what methods & environment should be used to teach the children. All this methodology was intricately connected to anthroposophy-- a belief system which is rather hard to describe briefly! Anthroposophy is a sort of hodgepodge of mystical religions, combining elements of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age spirituality, and more.
A few examples: Steiner taught that karma and reincarnation are real; that mankind is in the process of "evolving" to a higher state and that (brace yourself, this is really offensive) lighter-skinned races are more "evolved" than darker-skinned races; that part of the work of a teacher involves guiding a child in "soul work," which again has to do with working out karma and evolving to a higher state of consciousness.
That's a tiny taste of the philosophy/religion/whatever you want to call it. There's lots more info about anthroposophy on the web. Scary stuff.
As for how anthroposophy is manifested in a Waldorf school:
first of all, it's a big secret. Parents aren't told upon registering a child, "By the way, we're teaching anthroposophist doctrine here." But it doesn't take much looking to find it, and Steiner's books are a staple in every Waldorf school store. There are guidebooks given to parents which instruct them in the "right" way to raise a child, and each item of instruction comes from an anthro. belief.
Examples of anthro. in a Waldorf curriculum:
*the wet-on-wet painting. Children are only allowed to use certain colors at certain ages--they begin with yellow and blue, for esoteric cosmological reasons. The wet-on-wet technique prevents solid lines and edges; it's all blurry and soft, which is considered appropriate for the under-7 child, who must be kept in a state of "dreamy-ness."
*Young children are not allowed to draw with black crayons and must only draw objects from nature. No cars, etc.
*No outline drawing--only "form drawing"--to draw a person, the child must start by making an oval of color for the head, then strokes down for the body, forming a shape from the inside out. No faces allowed beyond dots for eyes and mouth (as with Waldorf dolls).
*Classroom bullying is a HUGE problem in most Waldorf schools because anthro. teachers will not intervene to stop it, on the grounds that the children are working out their karma.
*Great emphasis on festivals with religious overtones or origins (though Waldorf schools are advertised as secular). For example, Advent & Michaelmas "festivals" are observed in every Waldorf school. Actually sounds promising to us Catholics, right, until you discover that the festivals consist of various occultish processions & customs.
*Gnomes and fairies are described as REAL creatures, sometimes present in the classroom. See this article:
www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/GnomesInKindergarten. html
*Lefthandedness is considered a serious problem relating to a previous life.
There is so much more. I have a friend who enrolled her son in the local Waldorf preschool class because she loved the environment, arts & crafts emphasis, etc. I totally understand the appeal--when I first walked into a Waldorf classroom, with its lovely rose-colored walls, sheer cottons and silks draped all around, wonderful wooden toys, nature table, baskets of yarn, etc, my thought was, "Aha! I have finally discovered my decorating style! Early Waldorf!" But when my friend became aware of certain things that were being taught to her son, she looked into it a bit and found that
all the teachers are staunch anthoposophists. She pulled him out midyear.
Most parents don't know. The teachers give vague answers to parents' questions--but lots of advice about how to feed & clothe the children, what kind of medical treatment they should have, what kind of toys, no books before a certain age, no tv, even what kind of furniture and how the child's bedroom should look.
I knew I couldn't be brief. :/ Sorry. This is such a small slice of the facts--if you want to know more, there are many articles linked to the www.waldorfcritics.org site. |
|
|
Donna, I did find that the assertions made on the Waldorf Critics site gibed with what I learned from local friends and from reading pro-Steiner materials on the web and in some of the Waldorf teacher books. Do you disagree? (Asked in a friendly tone, I hope it comes across so!) 
I'm looking for the reference to knitting helping w/ karma. Unfortunately my old computer with all its saved files is now in California w/ my husband. (sob!) I know there is something about why KNITTING in first grade and CROCHETING in second, having to do with looping or crossing of the strands as that action pertains to, shoot, what's the term, not "awakening" but something similar, of the soul. (As the child leaves the dreamy stage at the change of teeth.) The word starts with an i, I think. Incarnate, maybe? Do you know what I mean? I'll hunt up the reference. It was one of those eye-popping moments for me—I do believe it was a Steiner quote—sorry to be so vague here.
Oh and re knitting as useful for neurological & motor skill development--I totally agree!
__________________
Lissa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lissa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 1:05pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's another one from Feb 04. Some of it repeats the above. This one addresses the differences and similarities between Waldorf and CM.
Quote:
Mary,
Welcome to the group!
I'm very late in responding to this question (newborn with a bad cold here,
alas), but I haven't seen any other replies to this part of your post:
> 1. What is the difference between Charlotte Mason's approach and
> Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf approach -- they both seem interested in
> educating the whole child, avoiding text books and experiential vs
> just reading about things.
We had a Waldorf thread here about six months ago, I think it was, so you
might want to check the archives for more on that. But I can tell you what I
learned when I was looking into Waldorf methods last year. The Waldorf
approach appealed to me, too, because of its emphasis on imaginative play,
handcrafts, fairy tales, and "head, heart, hands" philosophy. I began by
looking at Oak Meadow materials and wound up doing a lot of reading about
Waldorf and Steiner. I was surprised to discover that the Waldorf method is
the practical application of an esoteric, occult-like philosophy created by
Steiner. Every element of a Waldorf educational program is rooted in some
aspect of Steiner's philosophy/religion, which is called "anthroposophy" and
is decidedly NOT Catholic. For example, the reason knitting is introduced in
first grade is because Steiner believed that at that age the child's soul
was entering a new phase of development and that the "crossing of the
strands" assists this "soul work," as he called it. He believed in karma,
reincarnation, and a rather creepy kind of evolution. (He asserted that
certain races are more "evolved" than others--his writings on this subject
are highly offensive.)
All of this came as quite a shock to me--I had only viewed Waldorf as a
gentle, hands-on, whole-child sort of educational method.
Now, Oak Meadow has distanced itself from total Steinerism. The OM
curriculum makes use of Waldorf surface elements (handcrafts, folk & fairy
tales, main lesson books, delayed reading instruction, recorder lessons,
etc) without attempting to pass on the hidden occult underpinnings of
anthropsophy. The other Waldorf homeschooling curriculum providers (Live Ed,
etc) are openly anthroposophist. (I don't use Oak Meadow but I read several
of its syllabi and teacher's manuals during my investigation last year.)
Ultimately I realized that the things that appealed to me (on the surface)
about Waldorf were things that might be very unusual in a school setting but
are part of daily life in our home--things like baking, storytelling,
handwork, music, painting, drawing, dress-up, imaginative play. And I think
it is in those elements that we find the similarities between Waldorf and
Charlotte Mason. Because Charlotte advocated delaying formal academic
instruction until age seven, a CM early childhood looks a great deal like a
Waldorf early childhood--and indeed like the non-academic life of almost any
homeschooled child under seven.
After age seven, the two methods have little in common. Charlotte Mason
has children learning to read using whole books, and challenging ones at
that. Waldorf begins with individual letters, building stories around each
letter and kind of "making friends" out of them. Charlotte advocates
choosing meaty, challenging books to read aloud to the child in small daily
portions, having the child narrate back the material. Waldorf has much less
emphasis on the written word. In true Waldorf pedagogy, the teacher
privately rehearses oral tellings of the material and delivers history and
science lessons in this spoken story form. The students then copy drawings
off the board into their handmade lesson books, and they copy captions for
the pictures or (eventually) write narrations of the lesson in their books.
It's quite a different approach to narration than CM's, though, because
Waldorf method doesn't have the children telling back the material in their
own words until they are in the middle grades. In the early grades, Waldorf
students don't narrate--it's all copywork, both written and visual.
(And it's interesting to note that what Waldorf students are copying is
something written by the teacher, whereas CM advises assigning copywork
quotes from scripture, poetry, etc, so that the student may learn fine
writing by imitation. This is quite a contrast to the kind of "Thomas
Jefferson played the violin" copywork I saw in an 8th-grade main lesson book
at a local Waldorf school.)
The subject matter of the two methods is also quite different. CM's content
is classical. She has the students listening to or reading Plutarch's Lives,
the Bible, in-depth biographies and histories. A lot of Waldorf content has
roots in oral tradition: folk tales, legends (under which category "saint
stories" are included), historical legend (Washington & the cherry tree, Tom
Jefferson and his violin). Waldorf science content consists in large part of
the bizarre theories of Rudolf Steiner--lots of emphasis on the "four
elements" and the "twelve senses."
One thing that strikes me as a similarity between CM method and Waldorf is
that both place a great deal of weight on *atmosphere.* It was the notion of
"education is an atmosphere" and my role in creating an environment of
joyful learning in my home that struck the loudest chord in me when I first
encountered CM's writings. Likewise, when I began looking into
Waldorf-inspired home education methods, I was drawn by the warm, rich
atmosphere created by all those wonderful wooden toys, play silks, leaves,
and acorns (and the high value placed on free play and make-believe games).
After I visited a local Waldorf classroom (where my friend's son was a
student--but is no longer, after his mom became aware of anthroposophist
doctrine in the curriculum), I told my husband I had finally found a name
for my taste in home decorating: early Waldorf. <GGG>
Well, Mary, this is quite a longwinded answer to your question--I do hope
it's useful info. For your little ones, you could quite easily make use of
the Waldorfian elements that appeal to you without in any way involving
yourself in the occult underpinnings. There's certainly nothing non-Catholic
about bread-baking, watercolor painting, and storytelling! :) Likewise,
Charlotte Mason's prescription for the preschool years pretty much boils
down to happy home life. Lots of outdoor play, participation in domestic
tasks, and nursery tales. Interestingly, neither method approves of much
exposure to books before age seven. (An unfathomable notion to the book
addicts in this library of a house I live in! LOL) Beyond age seven, the two
methods have very little in common.
Lissa in Virginia, neither a Waldorfer nor a strict CMer |
|
|
Evidently my most consistent trait is longwindedness!
__________________
Lissa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 1:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
donnalynn wrote:
| Willa Ryan "Catholics take and sanctify or baptize the good in things, and discard what is not wholesome." and pg. 53 "I've looked and looked through Charlotte Mason's books. I've found some things that are emphasized differently than a Catholic might, but I've never found anything inherently contradictory to Catholic orthodoxy. Even if there were, that would not mean that all the good things need to be discarded. Many of Charlotte Mason's principles are beneficial in living a the Catholic lifestyle."(emphisis mine) |
|
|
My statement above was based on the following thoughts from the Magisterium:
St Basil (this quote is also partially quoted by Pope Pius in Divini Illius Magistri):
For just as bees know how to extract honey from flowers, which to men are agreeable only for their fragrance and color, even so here also those who look for something more than pleasure and enjoyment in such writers may derive profit for their souls. Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious. So, from the very beginning, we must examine each of their teachings, to harmonize it with our ultimate purpose, according to the Doric proverb, 'testing each stone by the measuring-line.'
This is an expansion on St Paul's words: Test everything: hold fast to what is good. And Pope Pius uses this in a broader way to talk about educational methods. "Nor will this necessary caution, suggested also by the pagan Quintilian,in any way hinder the Christian teacher from gathering and turning to profit, whatever there is of real worth in the systems and methods of our modern times...Hence in accepting the new, he will not hastily abandon the old, which the experience of centuries has found expedient and profitable."
There are two sides to this coin: the "testing" cautious side, and the culling and adopting what is good part. Both are equally important. The Church, under God, gives us the right to direct our childrens' education under God, because we have the ultimate responsibility for their welfare. So we can listen to and be guided by others but ultimately we are answerable. Knowing that makes me careful and cautious before adopting seeminglynew ideas, but the balancing part of that is Pope John Paul's motto: Be not afraid. We don't have to huddle and pull away from things just because they are distantly associated with things that are pagan or non-Christian. Sometimes they are good and true and wholesome, and that means they are Catholic in their essence. There's a process there, and the effort is part of the whole picture, I believe.
ST Paul writes:
"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others." (1 Corinthians 10)
I personally have not inquired into Waldorf nearly as much as into Charlotte Mason. So the principle of my quote applies across the board, but the specifics of it apply to CM only, at least as far as my part of it goes. The only things I know about Waldorf are either neutral or good, like the good literature, block scheduling, or arts and crafts. But I just don't have any real knowledge of the philosophy at all.
I hope this post works in the context of the discussion -- I feel a bit strange writing on a thread whose topic I know so little about! So I've written and rewritten but now I think I'd better let it go on its way
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stacykay
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 08 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1858
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 2:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I found the following article on occult science, written by Rudolf Steiner. It is in a collection of his writings which have been archived.
I also found, and lost  , a description of Waldorf schools, by a Waldorf source, that indicated that "anthroposophy" is to be somehow included in all teaching. I lost the quote, and can't find it  , but will keep searching.
Researching this subject has been quite interesting.
God Bless,
Stacy in MI
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
donnalynn
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 24 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 4:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Deleting content
Donna
Is there a way to spell check on these boards? I always likened email and such to talking more than writing - please forgive my errors.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
hylabrook1
Forum Moderator
Joined: July 09 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5980
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 4:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CM, although undeniably not Catholic, was at the same time undeniably Christian. Whatever one may think or feel about Steiner, I doubt that anyone would classify him as Christian. Any common elements between anthroposophy and Christianity are coincidental rather than of common origin or intent, at least that's how it seems to me. Even if not expressly Satanic, any religion/philosophy/worldview that worships anything other than God or sees the origin and basis of the ordering of the world/life as being other than in and from God is seriously at odds with Christianity, and therefore seriously at odds with Catholicism.
I am not trying to put anyone down; I am just trying to logically demonstrate that, while not every single thing Steiner ever said or did is the opposite of every single thing Christianity believes or teaches, Steiner is still not Christian. CM, on the other hand, was Christian. I think that difference in itself mandates caution in considering the ideas and philosophies of Steiner.
Just wanted to put that out there, fwiw.
Peace,
Nancy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Leonie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2831
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 5:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I haven't used Oak meadow but I do like a number of the ideas and activities used in Waldorf Education.
I really like the idea of Main Lessons and of keeping a Main Lesson Book. We went this path two years ago and it is interesting to look back at 2004's Main Lesson Books. Something for me to consider again for next year?
Anyway, here is a nice site with ideas on Waldorf education in the homeschool - and some CM and John Holt and Christian references, too.
Wonder Homeschool
__________________
Leonie in Sydney
Living Without School
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
donnalynn
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 24 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 7:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Deleting content
Donna
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lissa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: July 27 2006 at 8:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
donnalynn wrote:
whatever form of education we choose for our children - we are ultimately responsible and accountable in the eyes of God.
Donna |
|
|
Agreed. That's why my friend removed her son from the school when she discovered how anthroposophy was informing the teachers' methods, and what anthro. really SAYS. This school's website does mention anthroposophy openly but she did not form a clear idea of what that meant until after she'd enrolled him. Certainly no one made it clear at the outset that "we believe such and such because anthro. teaches such and such." (Concrete example was when her child was being bullied, and after months of frustrated attempts to get the staff to put a stop to it, she was finally told the teachers could not interfere because the children were--I quote--working out their karma.)
Certainly it is the parents' responsibility to investigate and understand the educational philosophy of the school they enroll their children in, but in this case (and, as far as I can tell, in the cases of other parents/students in other Waldorf schools), the school did not mention karma/soul work/etc up front; the parents found out bit by bit much later on.
I have also read writings by Waldorf teachers that discuss soul work.
I worry that you're misunderstanding my position--for clarity's sake, let me reiterate that I do believe a practicing Catholic can have a "Waldorf-inspired" homeschooling style (and would in fact characterize my own home/style in that manner), but must eschew anthroposophy, which is in conflict with Catholic doctrine.
__________________
Lissa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: July 28 2006 at 10:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Leonie wrote:
Anyway, here is a nice site with ideas on Waldorf education in the homeschool - and some CM and John Holt and Christian references, too.
Wonder Homeschool |
|
|
That is a nice link, Leonie.
If you get a chance, will you blog or post sometime about how you did/do the main lesson book?
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stacykay
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 08 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1858
|
| Posted: July 28 2006 at 1:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Leonie,
I am interested, too, in the main lesson book. Would this be like a, say, book of the centuries, except not just history, but everything? Or a portfolio of work?
I like the idea of review books, and read about the bit on math:
"The Main Lesson Book is something they can pull out and look at during review, they can use it to help them remember the parts of speech or look up a math formula in older grades..."
That sounds like a really good idea.
God Bless,
Stacy in MI
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: July 28 2006 at 1:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I am reading, it seems like the Main Lessons are like unit-studies in a way (a short concentrated block of lessons which all center around a theme), and the Main Lesson Books are like a notebook for that unit? The Middle lessons are the things that don't really fit into the main, but yet still need to be worked on (like spanish, or math, or whatever)?
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
deleted user
Forum Newbie
Joined: Aug 01 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: -5
|
| Posted: July 28 2006 at 3:02pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa's comments made me think. I know there is a scripture reference to drawing "honey from the rock"...I think there is a difference between drawing good from the pagans and attempting to glean good from heretics? For instance, I wouldn't listen to the philosophies of life from a passionate ex-priest (Alan Campbell comes to mind), no matter what the subject; but a pre-Christian thinker, perhaps.
??????
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Nina Murphy
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2006
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1546
|
| Posted: July 28 2006 at 3:05pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I apologize from the bottom of my heart. I think I have brain damage. I keep forgetting to check who is SIGNED IN on this computer before I start writing and press that "post" button.
The above comment is from me, the *mother* of the crazy Murphys.
__________________
God bless,
~~Nina
mother of 9 on earth,
and 2 yet-to-be-met
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 28 2006 at 11:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I am so bad about jumping in and out of the forum but this caught my eye since my early theological experiences were rooted in that *hodge podge* of Eastern influences that antroposophy grew out of. In fact I was a huge Steiner fan, more for his general philosophy than for the educational arm of the science which came later.
It is true that the methodology is highly symbolic, such as the wet on wet painting which is blurred because they believe in easing the soul into the physical world versus forcing a harsh transition from the spiritual world. (assuming souls are transitioning in and out obviously) Most of the early work is very gentle and void of outlining for that reason.
Steiner also believed that fairy tales were full of archetypes and as such were necessary to understanding the nature of man. So those are emphasized heavily in grade school work. Interestingly there are connections to other figures -particularly other German figures like Wagner and Hitler - who embraced large parts of this philosophy and incorporated the emphasis on the folklore into their work. It's been a long time and I would have to look it all up again but remember the whole thing tying together but basically they all ended up involved in the occult.
For the record, mention of God in these circles does not equate to the Christian understanding of the term in my experience. Nor does Christ, who figures prominently into some of the philosophy. They believe there were many Christs - back to that whole archetype thing again. So it is important to discern and not be misled by the references.
And yes, you can certainly glean from the materials and crafts and gentle approaches. It does behoove one to have a good idea of what the underpinnings are however.
A side note about Oak Meadow specifically: I used their world history course many years back. (7th grade I think?) I found several errors about Catholicism. Basic errors that have nothing to do with interpretation such as teaching that the Immaculate Conception meant Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit etc. I went through the manual and noted all of them and sent a letter with the return of the manual. My point had been that one's "opinion" of Catholicism was irrelevant to one's accurate portrayal of it. No response was ever sent. I brought it up on the Oak Meadow forum also, but it quickly disintegrated into a bashing of Catholic teaching vs the accuracy of the manual's info.
So, after our experience, I can't in good faith assume they have honorable intentions about representing Catholicism. We still love some of the Waldorf catalogs and the materials but many of them remind me too much of what I left to be much use to me personally. Just a fwiw that may be completely irrelevant.
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
donnalynn
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 24 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: July 29 2006 at 9:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Deleting content of my posts.
Donna
Off to enjoy my daughters while dh has the boys on a visit to his sisters house.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: July 29 2006 at 10:07am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Donna,
I hesitate to get into the middle of this, but I do not understand your defensiveness here. Many folks have said that they agree with the principle that we can take the Waldorf tools and use them in our own Catholic way without buying into the Steiner philosophy.
But there is also value in pointing out the underlying philosophy of Steiner, the founder of the whole thing, in order that we may understand where it is coming from and the problems a Catholic may (or may not) encounter when delving into the Waldorf world. Why? Because people like me who didn't know about it previously can now better understand what it is based on. Understanding is a good thing. It is not disparaging, but informative.
Even with the CM and KIC discussion awhile back we found some value in pointing out that Miss Mason was not Catholic and that while we respect her educational methods we do not look to her for spiritual direction.
The difference between KIC and here is that they want to throw the CM baby (methods) out with the bathwater (protestant underpinnings) while we see value in keeping the baby around! The same could be said for what I've seen here regarding Waldorf. No one is saying throw the Waldorf baby (again, methods and materials) out with the bathwater (Anthroposophy). In fact, many have shared how they have adapted some of Waldorf into their own homeschools- Elizabeth and Lissa included.
I think if we step back we can see that we are all pretty much in agreement here. I hope this discussion can continue in the positive light in which it began because I for one am learning alot.
I would LOVE to know more about how you use the methods in your homeschool. What is your day like and what kinds of activities are working for you and your children? How do you translate your extensive Waldorf training into home-based education? What are your favorite tools? And what about the fairy tales? How do you use them to teach different concepts?
Please share with us!
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Nina Murphy
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2006
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1546
|
| Posted: July 29 2006 at 10:40am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I deeply apologize for hurting and offending because what's really silly about my jumping in to the discussion in the first place is that I do not know very much about Steiner or Waldorf. 
(A good lesson, here, that I should have kept silent on something I had no authority to speak on. Again, mea culpa for not elaborating sufficiently on the salient point.)
The only thought I was throwing out there for discussion from us all, is: how do we know (based on Willa's excellent starting references) what IS worthy to parce and take good from and what should be wholeheartedly avoided so our hearts don't get confused? I know -I- must guard my own heart carefully and discern cautiously... and sometimes reject automatically----but that is just me knowing myself!
I'm sorry...I wasn't really making a judgement on this philosopher individually. Forgive?
PEACE. 
__________________
God bless,
~~Nina
mother of 9 on earth,
and 2 yet-to-be-met
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Living Learning
Topic: Oak Meadow? (
Topic Closed)
