The comments on this article continued... so here are more of them:
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/the-device-is-not-ready/Content?oid=2398491
"I found these comments compelling enought to write Stanley in order to ascertain the depth and level of her report. Waiting to hear back. "
Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense does it? What do you expect in return? Something acknowledging that the reporting was superficial? Maybe talk her into yanking the comments? It's the kind of thing I've come to expect from Anthroposophists.
"Some of us see a vendetta on your part, Pete, which seems clearly stated, and even more so when you look up the word in the dictionary."
So, you've been in contact with other readers? Or do you automatically speak for the masses? When you can't refute what I say, you try to make the discussion about ME personally. I'm describing HUGE problems in Waldorf. Parents should check them out for themselves. If they want to spend time checking me out, I have nothing to hide.
If you were here for no other reason than to promote Waldorf, what would you have said differently? Some of us can see what you are doing here!
Pete Karaiskos / Waldorf whistleblower
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense does it? What do you expect in return? Something acknowledging that the reporting was superficial? Maybe talk her into yanking the comments? It's the kind of thing I've come to expect from Anthroposophists.
"Some of us see a vendetta on your part, Pete, which seems clearly stated, and even more so when you look up the word in the dictionary."
So, you've been in contact with other readers? Or do you automatically speak for the masses? When you can't refute what I say, you try to make the discussion about ME personally. I'm describing HUGE problems in Waldorf. Parents should check them out for themselves. If they want to spend time checking me out, I have nothing to hide.
If you were here for no other reason than to promote Waldorf, what would you have said differently? Some of us can see what you are doing here!
Pete Karaiskos / Waldorf whistleblower
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
report 0 of 0 people like this. 
like 
dislike
like dislike Posted by Pete K on January 1, 2012 at 8:19 AM
"I have no problem with the reporter who was duped by Waldorf and I'm sure she'll make a fine reporter some day. It would be unusual if she WASN'T fed a bunch of lies by the school she attended. This article, along with the comments, will be referenced for quite some time by Waldorf critics, I'm sure. It's a great example of how stories can be skewed - even by well-meaning reporters. Let's hope she researches her future subject matter a little better than she did Waldorf."
I found these comments compelling enought to write Stanley in order to ascertain the depth and level of her report. Waiting to hear back. I told her that I thought her article was fair and accurate, and that your concerns might actually be a vendetta. Sorry for that, but I am interested in what she responds with. Some of us see a vendetta on your part, Pete, which seems clearly stated, and even more so when you look up the word in the dictionary. Thanks.
I found these comments compelling enought to write Stanley in order to ascertain the depth and level of her report. Waiting to hear back. I told her that I thought her article was fair and accurate, and that your concerns might actually be a vendetta. Sorry for that, but I am interested in what she responds with. Some of us see a vendetta on your part, Pete, which seems clearly stated, and even more so when you look up the word in the dictionary. Thanks.
Posted by Rafael on December 31, 2011 at 10:31 PM
"Pete, whatever occurs one thing is certain in this debate, and that is that J. Adrian Stanley has moved on to write other interesting articles. Good luck, and thanks for the talk friend."
I have no problem with the reporter who was duped by Waldorf and I'm sure she'll make a fine reporter some day. It would be unusual if she WASN'T fed a bunch of lies by the school she attended. This article, along with the comments, will be referenced for quite some time by Waldorf critics, I'm sure. It's a great example of how stories can be skewed - even by well-meaning reporters. Let's hope she researches her future subject matter a little better than she did Waldorf.
Thanks for the opportunity to have this debate. Also, thanks to Harlan Gilbert for punctuating my points for me so eloquently.
I have no problem with the reporter who was duped by Waldorf and I'm sure she'll make a fine reporter some day. It would be unusual if she WASN'T fed a bunch of lies by the school she attended. This article, along with the comments, will be referenced for quite some time by Waldorf critics, I'm sure. It's a great example of how stories can be skewed - even by well-meaning reporters. Let's hope she researches her future subject matter a little better than she did Waldorf.
Thanks for the opportunity to have this debate. Also, thanks to Harlan Gilbert for punctuating my points for me so eloquently.
Posted by Pete K on December 31, 2011 at 8:09 AM
"I look forward to hearing about it, and how Waldorf responds to your issues." -Rafael
Pete: They will FINALLY have to respond in court won't they? I'm looking forward to their response too. When I prevail in court, I intend to set up a fund to help other parents who were lied to and who wish to sue Waldorf. When Waldorf discovers it's a CRIME that actually costs money when they lie to people, they might reconsider their approach to public relations. I doubt it though... after all, we have the worst miscreants at the very top of the Waldorf hierarchy and they are following the guidelines of their guru - Rudolf Steiner.
Pete, whatever occurs one thing is certain in this debate, and that is that J. Adrian Stanley has moved on to write other interesting articles. Good luck, and thanks for the talk friend.
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/ArticleArch…
Pete: They will FINALLY have to respond in court won't they? I'm looking forward to their response too. When I prevail in court, I intend to set up a fund to help other parents who were lied to and who wish to sue Waldorf. When Waldorf discovers it's a CRIME that actually costs money when they lie to people, they might reconsider their approach to public relations. I doubt it though... after all, we have the worst miscreants at the very top of the Waldorf hierarchy and they are following the guidelines of their guru - Rudolf Steiner.
Pete, whatever occurs one thing is certain in this debate, and that is that J. Adrian Stanley has moved on to write other interesting articles. Good luck, and thanks for the talk friend.
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/ArticleArch…
Posted by Rafael on December 30, 2011 at 9:34 PM
"I suspect that the Waldorf education alternative has advanced quite well in the years since you first saw problems at your school. What this means is that on a more global scale, Waldorf works. But, it could be a fraud that needs a lawsuit to make them come clean about their motives. "
Waldorf has "advanced" by stepping up their public relations program. They have become MORE deceitful, more dishonest, more sinister. As I said before, people contact me EVERY DAY with stories just like mine. Waldorf hasn't addressed the problems they have - how can they? SERIOUSLY! Their problems are directly related to their philosophy. Waldorf is WORSE today than it was a few years ago PRECISELY because they have to deal with people like me making noise on the internet.
They have, for example, hired a disinformation officer (besides Harlan Gilbert) to troll the web looking for complaints. Sune Nordwall is a 50+ year old childless man who is PAID to fraudulently pose as a mother with children on the internet. His job is to refer readers to his own Waldorf disinformation sites and Wikipedia. That's his JOB - he's PAID BY WALDORF to promote disinformation about Waldorf... to act like a satisfied customer with happy, well-rounded, well-educated children who love their school... and to direct people away from complaining parents. That's how Waldorf addresses complaints. Waldorf teacher training now includes classes on DEALING WITH CRITICS.
Not surprisingly, Waldorf has taken the dishonest route in addressing their problems... they have decided to disguise them rather than correct them. When parents ask about something their children are being taught, it is unlikely they will get straight answer. Steiner taught Waldorf teachers that a child's parents are SECONDARY to the child's Waldorf teacher. Waldorf teachers are taught to be dishonest - they have dishonest answers prepared for almost everything (that's why they never sound genuine). AND, when things go terribly wrong, the dishonesty is what Waldorf teachers fall back on. They lie to parents, and they lie in court. I guess it must be easy when you have been brainwashed into thinking you are part of some "bigger plan" for the Earth.
"I look forward to hearing about it, and how Waldorf responds to your issues."
They will FINALLY have to respond in court won't they? I'm looking forward to their response too.
When I prevail in court, I intend to set up a fund to help other parents who were lied to and who wish to sue Waldorf. When Waldorf discovers it's a CRIME that actually costs money when they lie to people, they might reconsider their approach to public relations. I doubt it though... after all, we have the worst miscreants at the very top of the Waldorf hierarchy and they are following the guidelines of their guru - Rudolf Steiner.
Pete Karaiskos
Waldorf whistleblower / activist / critic
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Waldorf has "advanced" by stepping up their public relations program. They have become MORE deceitful, more dishonest, more sinister. As I said before, people contact me EVERY DAY with stories just like mine. Waldorf hasn't addressed the problems they have - how can they? SERIOUSLY! Their problems are directly related to their philosophy. Waldorf is WORSE today than it was a few years ago PRECISELY because they have to deal with people like me making noise on the internet.
They have, for example, hired a disinformation officer (besides Harlan Gilbert) to troll the web looking for complaints. Sune Nordwall is a 50+ year old childless man who is PAID to fraudulently pose as a mother with children on the internet. His job is to refer readers to his own Waldorf disinformation sites and Wikipedia. That's his JOB - he's PAID BY WALDORF to promote disinformation about Waldorf... to act like a satisfied customer with happy, well-rounded, well-educated children who love their school... and to direct people away from complaining parents. That's how Waldorf addresses complaints. Waldorf teacher training now includes classes on DEALING WITH CRITICS.
Not surprisingly, Waldorf has taken the dishonest route in addressing their problems... they have decided to disguise them rather than correct them. When parents ask about something their children are being taught, it is unlikely they will get straight answer. Steiner taught Waldorf teachers that a child's parents are SECONDARY to the child's Waldorf teacher. Waldorf teachers are taught to be dishonest - they have dishonest answers prepared for almost everything (that's why they never sound genuine). AND, when things go terribly wrong, the dishonesty is what Waldorf teachers fall back on. They lie to parents, and they lie in court. I guess it must be easy when you have been brainwashed into thinking you are part of some "bigger plan" for the Earth.
"I look forward to hearing about it, and how Waldorf responds to your issues."
They will FINALLY have to respond in court won't they? I'm looking forward to their response too.
When I prevail in court, I intend to set up a fund to help other parents who were lied to and who wish to sue Waldorf. When Waldorf discovers it's a CRIME that actually costs money when they lie to people, they might reconsider their approach to public relations. I doubt it though... after all, we have the worst miscreants at the very top of the Waldorf hierarchy and they are following the guidelines of their guru - Rudolf Steiner.
Pete Karaiskos
Waldorf whistleblower / activist / critic
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete K on December 26, 2011 at 9:04 AM
"And I will move on with my life after I have sued Waldorf and AWSNA on behalf of my kids (Yes, the statute of limitations hasn't run out yet)... but only after I'm sure the world is aware of the games they play."
I suspect that the Waldorf education alternative has advanced quite well in the years since you first saw problems at your school. What this means is that on a more global scale, Waldorf works. But, it could be a fraud that needs a lawsuit to make them come clean about their motives. I look forward to hearing about it, and how Waldorf responds to your issues.
I suspect that the Waldorf education alternative has advanced quite well in the years since you first saw problems at your school. What this means is that on a more global scale, Waldorf works. But, it could be a fraud that needs a lawsuit to make them come clean about their motives. I look forward to hearing about it, and how Waldorf responds to your issues.
Posted by Rafael on December 25, 2011 at 9:57 PM
"Well, in my estimation, Waldorf has proven itself to be a successful alternative to public school in these nearly 100 years since it was first founded in 1919. And that is the BIGGEST statistic you'll find anywhere."
You may very well be right about that. No statistics about their success - only the proliferation of their schools.
" Difficulties, poor performance due to administration and teacher/student problems do exist, as they do in all environs wherein human interaction is the challenge, but they tend to get solved without stagnation setting in. Waldorf has moved forward in a big way by solving issues at each level of occurrence."
Do you have some evidence of this? Didn't think so.
" Just ask AWSNA here in America. They do their own periodic review of schools, and watchdog and whistleblow themselves in the process."
You're funny! They would be the WORST people to ask, of course, but here's what AWSNA COULD do that they don't. They own the name "Waldorf". They could pull the Waldorf name from problematic Waldorf schools. They don't. In AWSNA's head administrator, Patrice Maynard, we find someone who served as MENTOR to Claire McConnell - daughter of US Senator Mitch McConnell. Under Maynard's mentorship, McConnell tied children to their chairs with duct tape as punishment. Not just once but on two separate occasions.
Here's the story: http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=13…
"Claire McConnell, who apologized in a letter June 24, was accused of strapping one child into a chair with a leather belt, tying the hands of others and taping shut the mouths of some elementary school students, the Albany Times Union reported Thursday. "
"McConnell, daughter of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not immediately return phone messages. "She's a young teacher, a learning teacher," Patrice Maynard, a teacher and mentor to McConnell, told the newspaper. "
Maynard is a director at AWSNA. With AWSNA doing their own whistleblowing, who needs critics, right?
"In fact, HH has been recertified a number of times since you began to complain some ten or twelve years ago."
Oh yes, in fact they had been "recertified" several times while I was there too. They also tried re-structuring, flooding the college with administrators then disbanding the college of teachers, hiring administrative teams, hiring a single head administrator, hiring Waldorf consultants to restructure, then back to administrative teams again - each time promising parents that they had made significant changes. So, why is Highland Hall running at 50% capacity then? As I've been pointing out - the problem isn't ONLY with Highland Hall - it goes MUCH higher up. The problem is with AWSNA itself, the poor standards they endorse and the harm they are willing to write off as perhaps "a young teacher" or other nonsense like that. REMEMBER Patrice Maynard represents AWSNA... ;)
"So, I would strongly suggest moving on in life for your own health and well-being, as it appears that Highland Hall has met all the requisite student and curriculum standards for over a decade now, according to AWSNA."
I'm sure you would suggest that. If AWSNA wasn't more corrupt than Highland Hall, I'd say you may have something there. But as I've demonstrated here, over and over again, the problem is bigger than Highland Hall... The problem is WALDORF. The problem is bad teachers being moved from school to school (McConnell is in the UK now I believe). Highland Hall teachers are everywhere. The problem is dishonesty at the highest levels (AWSNA), even dishonesty on Wikipedia. They obviously have done a good job of fooling people like you into thinking there are statistics for their "successes" when there aren't... or that they've produced lots of intelligent graduates - when they haven't. That's why they pay people to confront criticism on the internet... in order to continue committing the fraud they commit on a daily basis.
And I will move on with my life after I have sued Waldorf and AWSNA on behalf of my kids (Yes, the statute of limitations hasn't run out yet)... but only after I'm sure the world is aware of the games they play.
Pete Karaiskos / Whistleblower / Activist
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
You may very well be right about that. No statistics about their success - only the proliferation of their schools.
" Difficulties, poor performance due to administration and teacher/student problems do exist, as they do in all environs wherein human interaction is the challenge, but they tend to get solved without stagnation setting in. Waldorf has moved forward in a big way by solving issues at each level of occurrence."
Do you have some evidence of this? Didn't think so.
" Just ask AWSNA here in America. They do their own periodic review of schools, and watchdog and whistleblow themselves in the process."
You're funny! They would be the WORST people to ask, of course, but here's what AWSNA COULD do that they don't. They own the name "Waldorf". They could pull the Waldorf name from problematic Waldorf schools. They don't. In AWSNA's head administrator, Patrice Maynard, we find someone who served as MENTOR to Claire McConnell - daughter of US Senator Mitch McConnell. Under Maynard's mentorship, McConnell tied children to their chairs with duct tape as punishment. Not just once but on two separate occasions.
Here's the story: http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=13…
"Claire McConnell, who apologized in a letter June 24, was accused of strapping one child into a chair with a leather belt, tying the hands of others and taping shut the mouths of some elementary school students, the Albany Times Union reported Thursday. "
"McConnell, daughter of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not immediately return phone messages. "She's a young teacher, a learning teacher," Patrice Maynard, a teacher and mentor to McConnell, told the newspaper. "
Maynard is a director at AWSNA. With AWSNA doing their own whistleblowing, who needs critics, right?
"In fact, HH has been recertified a number of times since you began to complain some ten or twelve years ago."
Oh yes, in fact they had been "recertified" several times while I was there too. They also tried re-structuring, flooding the college with administrators then disbanding the college of teachers, hiring administrative teams, hiring a single head administrator, hiring Waldorf consultants to restructure, then back to administrative teams again - each time promising parents that they had made significant changes. So, why is Highland Hall running at 50% capacity then? As I've been pointing out - the problem isn't ONLY with Highland Hall - it goes MUCH higher up. The problem is with AWSNA itself, the poor standards they endorse and the harm they are willing to write off as perhaps "a young teacher" or other nonsense like that. REMEMBER Patrice Maynard represents AWSNA... ;)
"So, I would strongly suggest moving on in life for your own health and well-being, as it appears that Highland Hall has met all the requisite student and curriculum standards for over a decade now, according to AWSNA."
I'm sure you would suggest that. If AWSNA wasn't more corrupt than Highland Hall, I'd say you may have something there. But as I've demonstrated here, over and over again, the problem is bigger than Highland Hall... The problem is WALDORF. The problem is bad teachers being moved from school to school (McConnell is in the UK now I believe). Highland Hall teachers are everywhere. The problem is dishonesty at the highest levels (AWSNA), even dishonesty on Wikipedia. They obviously have done a good job of fooling people like you into thinking there are statistics for their "successes" when there aren't... or that they've produced lots of intelligent graduates - when they haven't. That's why they pay people to confront criticism on the internet... in order to continue committing the fraud they commit on a daily basis.
And I will move on with my life after I have sued Waldorf and AWSNA on behalf of my kids (Yes, the statute of limitations hasn't run out yet)... but only after I'm sure the world is aware of the games they play.
Pete Karaiskos / Whistleblower / Activist
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete K on December 24, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Well, in my estimation, Waldorf has proven itself to be a successful alternative to public school in these nearly 100 years since it was first founded in 1919. And that is the BIGGEST statistic you'll find anywhere. Difficulties, poor performance due to administration and teacher/student problems do exist, as they do in all environs wherein human interaction is the challenge, but they tend to get solved without stagnation setting in. Waldorf has moved forward in a big way by solving issues at each level of occurrence. Just ask AWSNA here in America. They do their own periodic review of schools, and watchdog and whistleblow themselves in the process.
In fact, HH has been recertified a number of times since you began to complain some ten or twelve years ago. So, I would strongly suggest moving on in life for your own health and well-being, as it appears that Highland Hall has met all the requisite student and curriculum standards for over a decade now, according to AWSNA.
In fact, HH has been recertified a number of times since you began to complain some ten or twelve years ago. So, I would strongly suggest moving on in life for your own health and well-being, as it appears that Highland Hall has met all the requisite student and curriculum standards for over a decade now, according to AWSNA.
Posted by Rafael on December 23, 2011 at 10:18 PM
"If one looks at the series of comments that you have made since this article was first printed, it seems clear that your experience of Waldorf education is a disaster, to be sure."
Oh, not just MY experience. Very large attrition rates are part of Waldorf's problem and they occure because of dishonest practices. They even acknowledge this. 25% of students are removed every year. That's a lot of interrupted educations - or worse.
"Yet, nowhere else can it be judged to be what you say it is."
Really? Parents contact me regularly with stories similar to mine. Currently very similar things to what happened to me and my kids are happening at the Brooklyn Waldorf school AND a Waldorf school in the San Francisco Bay area. That's a fact!
"You sound like a lone-wolf, or whistleblower, as you say, but one who expounds a rather isolated incident as if it was the global norm for Waldorf in general."
So you consider over 10 years of abuse involving over a dozen teachers and administrators going all the way to AWSNA an "isolated incident". Is this one of your "hard knocks" jokes again?
There are REAL REASONS behind why this happens in Waldorf. Your "isolated incident" claim is like making a claim that it's an "isolated incident" when measles breaks out in a Waldorf school. NOT TRUE! There are very specific reasons measles break out in Waldorf schools frequently - VERY specific reasons related to Waldorf and Steiner. If you follow Steiner's recommendations, you will have a poorly immunized population where measles (or whooping cough) break out. The REASON is in Steiner's works - just like the REASON for Waldorf's abusive teachers can be found in Steiner's works as well. Steiner instructed teachers to be dishonest with parents. That's what they do!
" Thus, the statisitics of proof in your favor rest on you, not me."
You wrote: "I doubt that you could refute the statistics on its success"
OK... produce the statistics of their success then. Here's what I see... Waldorf has been around for 100 years. They have 1000 schools... each presumably graduating students. Let's say 20 grads per school - that's 20,000 grads per year... every year. So far, Waldorf success stories hover around the CEO of Am Ex and Jennifer Aniston. Who else have these schools of innovative thinkers produced in the past 100 years? Anybody we've heard of? Everybody knows Waldorf can produce actors and actresses... (abused children learn these skills automatically). Where are the famous thinkers? Where are the famous scientists? Where are the famous engineers? Seriously... Jennifer Aniston is the best they could produce? With 94% of grads going on to attend college? I'd LOVE to see some statistics from Waldorf. Got any?
Pete Karaiskos
Waldorf whistleblower
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Oh, not just MY experience. Very large attrition rates are part of Waldorf's problem and they occure because of dishonest practices. They even acknowledge this. 25% of students are removed every year. That's a lot of interrupted educations - or worse.
"Yet, nowhere else can it be judged to be what you say it is."
Really? Parents contact me regularly with stories similar to mine. Currently very similar things to what happened to me and my kids are happening at the Brooklyn Waldorf school AND a Waldorf school in the San Francisco Bay area. That's a fact!
"You sound like a lone-wolf, or whistleblower, as you say, but one who expounds a rather isolated incident as if it was the global norm for Waldorf in general."
So you consider over 10 years of abuse involving over a dozen teachers and administrators going all the way to AWSNA an "isolated incident". Is this one of your "hard knocks" jokes again?
There are REAL REASONS behind why this happens in Waldorf. Your "isolated incident" claim is like making a claim that it's an "isolated incident" when measles breaks out in a Waldorf school. NOT TRUE! There are very specific reasons measles break out in Waldorf schools frequently - VERY specific reasons related to Waldorf and Steiner. If you follow Steiner's recommendations, you will have a poorly immunized population where measles (or whooping cough) break out. The REASON is in Steiner's works - just like the REASON for Waldorf's abusive teachers can be found in Steiner's works as well. Steiner instructed teachers to be dishonest with parents. That's what they do!
" Thus, the statisitics of proof in your favor rest on you, not me."
You wrote: "I doubt that you could refute the statistics on its success"
OK... produce the statistics of their success then. Here's what I see... Waldorf has been around for 100 years. They have 1000 schools... each presumably graduating students. Let's say 20 grads per school - that's 20,000 grads per year... every year. So far, Waldorf success stories hover around the CEO of Am Ex and Jennifer Aniston. Who else have these schools of innovative thinkers produced in the past 100 years? Anybody we've heard of? Everybody knows Waldorf can produce actors and actresses... (abused children learn these skills automatically). Where are the famous thinkers? Where are the famous scientists? Where are the famous engineers? Seriously... Jennifer Aniston is the best they could produce? With 94% of grads going on to attend college? I'd LOVE to see some statistics from Waldorf. Got any?
Pete Karaiskos
Waldorf whistleblower
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete K on December 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM
If one looks at the series of comments that you have made since this article was first printed, it seems clear that your experience of Waldorf education is a disaster, to be sure. Yet, nowhere else can it be judged to be what you say it is. You sound like a lone-wolf, or whistleblower, as you say, but one who expounds a rather isolated incident as if it was the global norm for Waldorf in general. Thus, the statisitics of proof in your favor rest on you, not me.
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/Profile/Com…
So, go to work and make your case.
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/Profile/Com…
So, go to work and make your case.
Posted by Rafael on December 22, 2011 at 8:04 PM
"It certainly sounds like you have issues that go far beyond this article. Yet, the author, J. Adrian Stanley, seemed to know about your concerns, even as she wrote and submitted it."
So, you believe she knew about my concerns but still she allowed herself to be shown to be a fool - YOUR words not mine. How does that make sense to you? To me, it's obvious she DIDN'T do any serious investigation into the criticisms of Waldorf... (or into the "positive" aspects of Waldorf for that matter).
"Thus, it appeared to me that her article took the general flavor and milieu of Waldorf education into account, rather than the singular problems of one local school, which is obviously your issue."
How many times are you going to try to claim that this is a single problematic school? Are you hoping somebody might read your conclusion and not bother reading the other comments? Deceptive advertising is a problem with ALL of Waldorf education. Problematic teachers are SUPPORTED by AWSNA - the head of Waldorf in the North America.
"Yet, you exacerbate your concerns over the whole genera of a system of education that has proven itself to be important, successful, and what people want for their children. "
You chose your words carefully. They have proven they are what? "Important?" "Successful?" "What people want for their children?" How about GOOD LEARNING INSTITUTIONS? You can't make that claim can you? Neither can they. They haven't proven they're good learning institutions.
"I doubt that you could refute the statistics on its success"
Post some... let's see? Oh wait... there AREN'T ANY!
"nor could you give any reasonable explanation of why anyone should doubt Harlan Gilbert, who you vilify as if you know something sinister about him. What gives?"
Conflict of interest. Do you know what that is? He's a Waldorf teacher who is writing articles in Wikipedia about Waldorf from a supposedly "unbiased" point of view. That is, I'm afraid, quite impossible. References from Anthroposophical authors have been specifically excluded from Wikipedia for this reason (I know first hand) - yet Mr. Gilbert is somehow permitted to not only post but control those articles. It's an obvious conflict of interest on Wikipedia. It is evidence of how poor a source Wikipedia is when it comes to information about Waldorf, Steiner, Antrhoposophy and about 50 other articles related to Anthroposophists and Anthroposophic enterprises.
Mr. Gilbert arrived here, AGAIN, with a conflict of interest pretending to be a satisfied parent of a Waldorf school. Were I not here to point out who he is... his comment would have slipped by as that of a satisfied customer... promoting the education their children received. His behavior is shameful, but certainly not the worst we've seen from Waldorf representatives. There are far more sinister people than Mr. Gilbert working (getting a paycheck) to promote Waldorf.
You seem unable to see what is very obvious here. The problem I'm describing runs through ALL of Waldorf - and by luck was demonstrated right here in the first comments to this article.
BTW, I think we're finally getting somewhere. You're going to post some statistics of the successes of Waldorf students, right? I'm very interested in those. Hopefully, they will have been produced by someone other than Waldorf, but even if they have been, let's see the reports. Feel free to post links to anything that has been peer-reviewed, any studies that have been conducted, and so forth. I'm always happy to discover new evidence supporting the notion that Waldorf is doing a great job - to help balance the evidence that they aren't.
Pete Karaiskos - Waldorf Critic / Parent / Advocate
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
So, you believe she knew about my concerns but still she allowed herself to be shown to be a fool - YOUR words not mine. How does that make sense to you? To me, it's obvious she DIDN'T do any serious investigation into the criticisms of Waldorf... (or into the "positive" aspects of Waldorf for that matter).
"Thus, it appeared to me that her article took the general flavor and milieu of Waldorf education into account, rather than the singular problems of one local school, which is obviously your issue."
How many times are you going to try to claim that this is a single problematic school? Are you hoping somebody might read your conclusion and not bother reading the other comments? Deceptive advertising is a problem with ALL of Waldorf education. Problematic teachers are SUPPORTED by AWSNA - the head of Waldorf in the North America.
"Yet, you exacerbate your concerns over the whole genera of a system of education that has proven itself to be important, successful, and what people want for their children. "
You chose your words carefully. They have proven they are what? "Important?" "Successful?" "What people want for their children?" How about GOOD LEARNING INSTITUTIONS? You can't make that claim can you? Neither can they. They haven't proven they're good learning institutions.
"I doubt that you could refute the statistics on its success"
Post some... let's see? Oh wait... there AREN'T ANY!
"nor could you give any reasonable explanation of why anyone should doubt Harlan Gilbert, who you vilify as if you know something sinister about him. What gives?"
Conflict of interest. Do you know what that is? He's a Waldorf teacher who is writing articles in Wikipedia about Waldorf from a supposedly "unbiased" point of view. That is, I'm afraid, quite impossible. References from Anthroposophical authors have been specifically excluded from Wikipedia for this reason (I know first hand) - yet Mr. Gilbert is somehow permitted to not only post but control those articles. It's an obvious conflict of interest on Wikipedia. It is evidence of how poor a source Wikipedia is when it comes to information about Waldorf, Steiner, Antrhoposophy and about 50 other articles related to Anthroposophists and Anthroposophic enterprises.
Mr. Gilbert arrived here, AGAIN, with a conflict of interest pretending to be a satisfied parent of a Waldorf school. Were I not here to point out who he is... his comment would have slipped by as that of a satisfied customer... promoting the education their children received. His behavior is shameful, but certainly not the worst we've seen from Waldorf representatives. There are far more sinister people than Mr. Gilbert working (getting a paycheck) to promote Waldorf.
You seem unable to see what is very obvious here. The problem I'm describing runs through ALL of Waldorf - and by luck was demonstrated right here in the first comments to this article.
BTW, I think we're finally getting somewhere. You're going to post some statistics of the successes of Waldorf students, right? I'm very interested in those. Hopefully, they will have been produced by someone other than Waldorf, but even if they have been, let's see the reports. Feel free to post links to anything that has been peer-reviewed, any studies that have been conducted, and so forth. I'm always happy to discover new evidence supporting the notion that Waldorf is doing a great job - to help balance the evidence that they aren't.
Pete Karaiskos - Waldorf Critic / Parent / Advocate
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete K on December 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM
It certainly sounds like you have issues that go far beyond this article. Yet, the author, J. Adrian Stanley, seemed to know about your concerns, even as she wrote and submitted it.
Thus, it appeared to me that her article took the general flavor and milieu of Waldorf education into account, rather than the singular problems of one local school, which is obviously your issue. Yet, you exacerbate your concerns over the whole genera of a system of education that has proven itself to be important, successful, and what people want for their children. I doubt that you could refute the statistics on its success, nor could you give any reasonable explanation of why anyone should doubt Harlan Gilbert, who you vilify as if you know something sinister about him. What gives?
Thus, it appeared to me that her article took the general flavor and milieu of Waldorf education into account, rather than the singular problems of one local school, which is obviously your issue. Yet, you exacerbate your concerns over the whole genera of a system of education that has proven itself to be important, successful, and what people want for their children. I doubt that you could refute the statistics on its success, nor could you give any reasonable explanation of why anyone should doubt Harlan Gilbert, who you vilify as if you know something sinister about him. What gives?
Posted by Rafael on December 21, 2011 at 8:46 PM
"Pete, you only prove my assertion that you have a vendetta against Waldorf. And then you go on to make J. Adrian Stanley look like a fool in her reporting, which was as objective as possible, considering that she left your singular "school of hard knocks" out of her article. Using Wikipedia these days is useful as a source, as it has gained in accuracy for the benefit of the internet audience."
So, you want to rehash everything we've been over? OK. BTW, thanks for characterizing the school that abused my children as a "school of hard knocks". I'm sure it gives readers a good impression of how callous one must be to promote Waldorf educators in light of the harm they do to children regularly.
I didn't make J. Adrian Stanley look like a fool... so if she looks like a fool, that is her own doing. She came here praising Waldorf and suggesting - "It must be so - since I read it on Wikipedia". She had help in her fool's errand, of course, from the very author of the Wikipedia articles she used for her info, Waldorf teacher Harlan Gilbert, whose perfectly-timed post drove home my point about the dishonesty in Waldorf. And NO, Wikipedia hasn't gotten better "these days" nor has it "gained accuracy" - that's ridiculous and unsupported nonsense (or perhaps wishful thinking).
"Therefore, it seems to me that what she is indicating to you, in knowing about your situation, in no way lessens the importance of Waldorf as an alternative-to-public school system. And that is why she felt the need to report on it. "
Waldorf is very important TO AVOID as an alternative to public school system. I've given many reasons why, not the least of which is the systematic abuse of children and their parents through their dishonest enrollment practices. Attrition is HUGE in Waldorf and the reason is dishonesty (as demonstrated by - and thanks to Mr. Gilbert) - dishonest representation of the curriculum, dishonest representation of the skills of the teachers and the success of their methods. For every child that graduates Waldorf, a dozen have had their education interrupted - or faced much WORSE. Well-meaning parents believe they've found something wonderful in Waldorf. They sometimes do no more research than J. Adrian Stanley did before putting their kids there. That's what Waldorf is counting on. It means my work is only just beginning. Exposing Waldorf's true nature is important work. I do it so other people's children may not have to suffer.
"In other words, its more global and positive rationale yields results that cannot be denied, even as there are sad results like yours."
Again, ATTRITION wasn't taken into account in the global "results". Nor did she investigate the "94% of Waldorf graduates attend college" claim very well. Globally, Waldorf is under attack for their deceptive practices. Public Waldorf in the UK has run into huge opposition. Same in Australia. This article is a puff-piece for a school system that doesn't deserve one. But if you're going to do that, at least get a few facts correct. Ms. Stanley didn't. She didn't even offer readers a real answer about why Waldorf doesn't use technology in classrooms... all she got was the public face of Waldorf - like so many prospective parents get.
"She told you this in the beginning of her very well-considered response to you. Yet, you don't listen. Why is that?"
I'm glad you asked! Because I have DECADES more experience with Waldorf than she has. Which is why she should be listening to me - not the other way around (and so should her readers). And unlike Waldorf representatives, I DON'T have a reason to be dishonest. Waldorf isn't MY place of employment, and I don't have a stated missionary goal to indoctrinate as many people as possible - Waldorf people DO. I'm not an Anthroposophist. I haven't devoted my life to following a guru's words and teachings, right or wrong as they may be... Waldorf teachers HAVE.
I have very GOOD reasons to be completely honest. I'm suing Waldorf for millions of dollars... for things they did as individuals and for things they conspired to do under the Waldorf system. I'm sure I wouldn't get too far if I've been spreading lies on the internet, would I?
Pete Karaiskos
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
So, you want to rehash everything we've been over? OK. BTW, thanks for characterizing the school that abused my children as a "school of hard knocks". I'm sure it gives readers a good impression of how callous one must be to promote Waldorf educators in light of the harm they do to children regularly.
I didn't make J. Adrian Stanley look like a fool... so if she looks like a fool, that is her own doing. She came here praising Waldorf and suggesting - "It must be so - since I read it on Wikipedia". She had help in her fool's errand, of course, from the very author of the Wikipedia articles she used for her info, Waldorf teacher Harlan Gilbert, whose perfectly-timed post drove home my point about the dishonesty in Waldorf. And NO, Wikipedia hasn't gotten better "these days" nor has it "gained accuracy" - that's ridiculous and unsupported nonsense (or perhaps wishful thinking).
"Therefore, it seems to me that what she is indicating to you, in knowing about your situation, in no way lessens the importance of Waldorf as an alternative-to-public school system. And that is why she felt the need to report on it. "
Waldorf is very important TO AVOID as an alternative to public school system. I've given many reasons why, not the least of which is the systematic abuse of children and their parents through their dishonest enrollment practices. Attrition is HUGE in Waldorf and the reason is dishonesty (as demonstrated by - and thanks to Mr. Gilbert) - dishonest representation of the curriculum, dishonest representation of the skills of the teachers and the success of their methods. For every child that graduates Waldorf, a dozen have had their education interrupted - or faced much WORSE. Well-meaning parents believe they've found something wonderful in Waldorf. They sometimes do no more research than J. Adrian Stanley did before putting their kids there. That's what Waldorf is counting on. It means my work is only just beginning. Exposing Waldorf's true nature is important work. I do it so other people's children may not have to suffer.
"In other words, its more global and positive rationale yields results that cannot be denied, even as there are sad results like yours."
Again, ATTRITION wasn't taken into account in the global "results". Nor did she investigate the "94% of Waldorf graduates attend college" claim very well. Globally, Waldorf is under attack for their deceptive practices. Public Waldorf in the UK has run into huge opposition. Same in Australia. This article is a puff-piece for a school system that doesn't deserve one. But if you're going to do that, at least get a few facts correct. Ms. Stanley didn't. She didn't even offer readers a real answer about why Waldorf doesn't use technology in classrooms... all she got was the public face of Waldorf - like so many prospective parents get.
"She told you this in the beginning of her very well-considered response to you. Yet, you don't listen. Why is that?"
I'm glad you asked! Because I have DECADES more experience with Waldorf than she has. Which is why she should be listening to me - not the other way around (and so should her readers). And unlike Waldorf representatives, I DON'T have a reason to be dishonest. Waldorf isn't MY place of employment, and I don't have a stated missionary goal to indoctrinate as many people as possible - Waldorf people DO. I'm not an Anthroposophist. I haven't devoted my life to following a guru's words and teachings, right or wrong as they may be... Waldorf teachers HAVE.
I have very GOOD reasons to be completely honest. I'm suing Waldorf for millions of dollars... for things they did as individuals and for things they conspired to do under the Waldorf system. I'm sure I wouldn't get too far if I've been spreading lies on the internet, would I?
Pete Karaiskos
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete K on December 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Pete, you only prove my assertion that you have a vendetta against Waldorf. And then you go on to make J. Adrian Stanley look like a fool in her reporting, which was as objective as possible, considering that she left your singular "school of hard knocks" out of her article. Using Wikipedia these days is useful as a source, as it has gained in accuracy for the benefit of the internet audience.
Therefore, it seems to me that what she is indicating to you, in knowing about your situation, in no way lessens the importance of Waldorf as an alternative-to-public school system. And that is why she felt the need to report on it. In other words, its more global and positive rationale yields results that cannot be denied, even as there are sad results like yours.
She told you this in the beginning of her very well-considered response to you. Yet, you don't listen. Why is that?
Therefore, it seems to me that what she is indicating to you, in knowing about your situation, in no way lessens the importance of Waldorf as an alternative-to-public school system. And that is why she felt the need to report on it. In other words, its more global and positive rationale yields results that cannot be denied, even as there are sad results like yours.
She told you this in the beginning of her very well-considered response to you. Yet, you don't listen. Why is that?
Posted by Rafael on December 19, 2011 at 10:20 PM
You've linked to her first response to me. Why? It's right here in the comments? She was mistaken in that comment, as I pointed out. She relied on Wikipedia (something high school students aren't allowed to do) for her information. Wikipedia articles about Anthroposophy are intentionally distorted by Waldorf teacher Harlan Gilbert. I've already shown this.
"I'm sure she's gone on to other investigative writing projects since then. So, the vendetta charge seems accurate to me. "
I'm sure she has thought twice about "investigative writing" through the use of Wikipedia... LMAO! The author, if she's halfway intelligent, learned a valuable lesson here... don't write about stuff you haven't researched thoroughly. The fact that her source has a severe conflict of interest is something she should have, BY NOW, returned here to mention. She left it up to her readers to discover that she hadn't done her homework about Waldorf. That's shamefully shoddy "investigative writing" to me.
"In any event, I liked the report and felt it fair and impartial in terms of the present WWS (Waldorf World Situation)."
How could it be "fair and impartial?" It relies on "facts" supplied by WALDORF! As I said initially, their JOB is to pull the wool over people's eyes. The author obviously missed a LOT of what Waldorf is about by simply asking them. Unfortunately, this is often the same mistake parents make when enrolling their children. It's hard to believe educators would outright LIE to people when you don't understand WHY they lie. It takes some serious digging to determine the reasons Waldorf representatives lie to people... but it's there if you look. As I pointed out, Steiner INSTRUCTED them to deceive the outside world. They do a good job of this. But that's changing.
"Of course, as she states outright, she knows about those who have problems with the Waldorf education system. And I felt she dealt with that very handily."
Really? I think she crawled under a rock when she realized how badly she had misrepresented Waldorf this article. I'm happy she'd heard about the problems with Waldorf, of course, but the fact that she didn't investigate them other than to ask Waldorf about them is probably VERY embarrassing. What if parents send their children to Waldorf based on THIS article? That would be silly, I know, but "investigative, fair, impartial" are not words one might use with a straight face to describe what was written here.
Here's a news flash for you... Waldorf won't admit they have problems. They won't admit they're dishonest. They won't admit they're racists. It's up to people like me to point out to people like the author of this article and everyone who reads it that they are not what they appear to be. The more Waldorf is in the news, the more opportunities critics like me have to reveal what they are really about. Get used to it!
Pete Karaiskos / Waldorf critic / Whistle-blower / Advocate
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
"I'm sure she's gone on to other investigative writing projects since then. So, the vendetta charge seems accurate to me. "
I'm sure she has thought twice about "investigative writing" through the use of Wikipedia... LMAO! The author, if she's halfway intelligent, learned a valuable lesson here... don't write about stuff you haven't researched thoroughly. The fact that her source has a severe conflict of interest is something she should have, BY NOW, returned here to mention. She left it up to her readers to discover that she hadn't done her homework about Waldorf. That's shamefully shoddy "investigative writing" to me.
"In any event, I liked the report and felt it fair and impartial in terms of the present WWS (Waldorf World Situation)."
How could it be "fair and impartial?" It relies on "facts" supplied by WALDORF! As I said initially, their JOB is to pull the wool over people's eyes. The author obviously missed a LOT of what Waldorf is about by simply asking them. Unfortunately, this is often the same mistake parents make when enrolling their children. It's hard to believe educators would outright LIE to people when you don't understand WHY they lie. It takes some serious digging to determine the reasons Waldorf representatives lie to people... but it's there if you look. As I pointed out, Steiner INSTRUCTED them to deceive the outside world. They do a good job of this. But that's changing.
"Of course, as she states outright, she knows about those who have problems with the Waldorf education system. And I felt she dealt with that very handily."
Really? I think she crawled under a rock when she realized how badly she had misrepresented Waldorf this article. I'm happy she'd heard about the problems with Waldorf, of course, but the fact that she didn't investigate them other than to ask Waldorf about them is probably VERY embarrassing. What if parents send their children to Waldorf based on THIS article? That would be silly, I know, but "investigative, fair, impartial" are not words one might use with a straight face to describe what was written here.
Here's a news flash for you... Waldorf won't admit they have problems. They won't admit they're dishonest. They won't admit they're racists. It's up to people like me to point out to people like the author of this article and everyone who reads it that they are not what they appear to be. The more Waldorf is in the news, the more opportunities critics like me have to reveal what they are really about. Get used to it!
Pete Karaiskos / Waldorf critic / Whistle-blower / Advocate
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete K on December 18, 2011 at 8:40 AM
Well, here's what the lady had to say back on November 23, 2011. It seemed pretty good to me.
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/Profile?oid…
I'm sure she's gone on to other investigative writing projects since then. So, the vendetta charge seems accurate to me.
In any event, I liked the report and felt it fair and impartial in terms of the present WWS (Waldorf World Situation). Of course, as she states outright, she knows about those who have problems with the Waldorf education system. And I felt she dealt with that very handily.
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/Profile?oid…
I'm sure she's gone on to other investigative writing projects since then. So, the vendetta charge seems accurate to me.
In any event, I liked the report and felt it fair and impartial in terms of the present WWS (Waldorf World Situation). Of course, as she states outright, she knows about those who have problems with the Waldorf education system. And I felt she dealt with that very handily.
Posted by Rafael on December 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM
Vendetta? No... Whistle-blowing... Yes! People shouldn't write articles about stuff they don't know about or haven't researched thoroughly. But you can't blame the author - Waldorf is VERY GOOD at hiding their true intent. They have been doing it for quite some time now and pulling the wool over this article's author's eyes was clearly very easy to do. With the rise of the internet, Waldorf's true nature has been revealed and it's not very pretty... in fact it's quite sinister. People promoting a hidden philosophy to other people's children - covertly... that's quite a problem. I've proven, right here on this thread (see the earliest posts regarding Waldorf teacher Harlan Gilbert pretending to be simply a satisfied parent making a comment) how dishonest Waldorf teachers are with regard to promoting Waldorf. If Waldorf teachers are willing to be so dishonest, without provocation, imagine what happens when a child is harmed! They simply LIE and it's up to people like me to hold them accountable. When Waldorf promotes dishonesty (and they do) they leave themselves open to public scrutiny and, in my case, legal action. This isn't a case of one or two bad teachers, it's an entire movement built on dishonesty. It's my moral obligation to do what I can to expose them. Pete Karaiskos, Waldorf parent/advocate http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete K on December 15, 2011 at 9:37 AM
This sounds like a vendetta Pete on a little independent newspaper wherein J. Adrian Stanley wrote an article for reading. Goodbye and good luck, as someone famous used to say ;)
Posted by Rafael on December 14, 2011 at 9:23 PM
"Nobody loses, except those who did not find value in the system of Waldorf, and its aims."
In other words - EVERYBODY loses except those who find value in Anthroposophy. Outside of promoting Anthroposophy, Waldorf has no value to be found. It is a ruse set up to deliver Anthroposophy - EXACTLY as Steiner intended and instructed. Waldorf education is valuable to Anthroposophists.
" And that could easily be reduced to geographic location, and even a specific school that had the right mix of bad teachers, bad administrators, bad students, and the reactive parents reacting against it. "
Yet, the same problems are reported WORLD WIDE. Your argument makes no sense - particularly because Waldorf teachers are not confined to a "specific school" - they are in ALL Waldorf schools. Where do they get their training? AT THE SPECIFIC SCHOOL I AM TALKING ABOUT. Highland Hall is the TRAINING facility for Southern California. Teachers all over the world are trained by the very same "mix of bad teachers".
BTW, what are "bad students"? That sounds like something Steiner would say.
"It all makes sense to me that the failure of a child's education should be taken seriously."
Ya THINK? So, why doesn't Waldorf take criticism of the harm they do seriously - especially when they cannot demonstrate any value at all in their educational system? Do you think the WORST teachers should be training other teachers? Do you think maybe that's why we have so many stories in the news about abuse by Waldorf teachers. The Waldorf teachers at Highland Hall BROKE THE LAW TO COVER UP ABUSES. They lied directly to the parents of children who were abused. "Reactive parents"? The worst offenders have moved to other schools, hoping to evade attention. Hopefully, those abusers who have been hired at other Waldorf schools from Highland Hall won't continue abusing children and parents at their new school. I'll make sure to publicize their locations (and new names when they've changed them). They don't belong around children and I'm doing my best to ensure they are discovered wherever they are.
"As for "Faculty Meetings", wasn't that published by Bob and Nancy; at least they have made it easily available on the internet? And they fully support Waldorf Education."
No, it wasn't first published by Bob and Nancy. Keep trying though...
In other words - EVERYBODY loses except those who find value in Anthroposophy. Outside of promoting Anthroposophy, Waldorf has no value to be found. It is a ruse set up to deliver Anthroposophy - EXACTLY as Steiner intended and instructed. Waldorf education is valuable to Anthroposophists.
" And that could easily be reduced to geographic location, and even a specific school that had the right mix of bad teachers, bad administrators, bad students, and the reactive parents reacting against it. "
Yet, the same problems are reported WORLD WIDE. Your argument makes no sense - particularly because Waldorf teachers are not confined to a "specific school" - they are in ALL Waldorf schools. Where do they get their training? AT THE SPECIFIC SCHOOL I AM TALKING ABOUT. Highland Hall is the TRAINING facility for Southern California. Teachers all over the world are trained by the very same "mix of bad teachers".
BTW, what are "bad students"? That sounds like something Steiner would say.
"It all makes sense to me that the failure of a child's education should be taken seriously."
Ya THINK? So, why doesn't Waldorf take criticism of the harm they do seriously - especially when they cannot demonstrate any value at all in their educational system? Do you think the WORST teachers should be training other teachers? Do you think maybe that's why we have so many stories in the news about abuse by Waldorf teachers. The Waldorf teachers at Highland Hall BROKE THE LAW TO COVER UP ABUSES. They lied directly to the parents of children who were abused. "Reactive parents"? The worst offenders have moved to other schools, hoping to evade attention. Hopefully, those abusers who have been hired at other Waldorf schools from Highland Hall won't continue abusing children and parents at their new school. I'll make sure to publicize their locations (and new names when they've changed them). They don't belong around children and I'm doing my best to ensure they are discovered wherever they are.
"As for "Faculty Meetings", wasn't that published by Bob and Nancy; at least they have made it easily available on the internet? And they fully support Waldorf Education."
No, it wasn't first published by Bob and Nancy. Keep trying though...
Posted by Pete K on December 12, 2011 at 8:49 AM
Nobody loses, except those who did not find value in the system of Waldorf, and its aims. And that could easily be reduced to geographic location, and even a specific school that had the right mix of bad teachers, bad administrators, bad students, and the reactive parents reacting against it. It all makes sense to me that the failure of a child's education should be taken seriously.
As for "Faculty Meetings", wasn't that published by Bob and Nancy; at least they have made it easily available on the internet? And they fully support Waldorf Education.
As for "Faculty Meetings", wasn't that published by Bob and Nancy; at least they have made it easily available on the internet? And they fully support Waldorf Education.
Posted by Rafael on December 11, 2011 at 8:59 PM
"The context is faculty meetings that you weren't present at and have no idea of what the full context was, now isn't it?"
After 700 pages? UM... I think we can ALL get the full context of what he was saying. After all, that's exactly why the faculty meetings were documented in the first place - so that future Waldorf teachers could be trained in Steiner's methods. If there's a more "full" context to this work (there isn't), certainly new teachers entering Waldorf teacher training aren't going to be aware of it.
"In fact, 700 pages were given in meetings with the fledgling first teachers of Waldorf, and I doubt by your allegations that Waldorf has to hide anything, since they published them in full."
Waldorf didn't publish them.
HIDE? They're not hiding anything, they're TEACHING this stuff to new teachers. It's on Waldorf teacher reading lists everywhere. I'm just helping people who aren't teachers learn what Waldorf teachers are learning and WHY. The "why" is the important part. The author of this article hadn't heard of this apparently.
"Taking someone's words and phrases out of context is a well-know ploy used to denounce someone."
If the context of the entire 700 page volume isn't enough context to get the gist of what Steiner was saying, there are 40 books and 6000 lectures by Steiner to fill in the context. If there is anything in any of them that conflicts with or changes the context of Faculty Meetings, please feel free to present it. Additionally, there are LOTS of other books on Waldorf teacher reading lists... this just happens to be one that IS available on-line. If you would rather discuss Knowledge of Higher Worlds and its Attainment (also required reading for Waldorf teachers) we could do this too. But, Faculty Meetings is the book the most directly applies to Waldorf education and it establishes the methods Waldorf teachers use when they deal with children. We see this confirmed time and time again in Waldorf.
Here's a quote from Knowledge of Higher Worlds - Also REQUIRED reading by Waldorf teachers:
"Critical thinking is especially hazardous. Good children "have a respect that
forbids them, even in the deepest recess of their heart, to harbour any thoughts
of criticism or opposition." [KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT,
p. 10.]
And also in the same book:
"For peoples and races are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally appear in harmonious perfection." (Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds p. 207)
Steiner's ideas about races and racial perfection are all fed to Waldorf teacher trainees, right along with his "insights" about children (and how they shouldn't think critically). That's part of Waldorf teacher training and Waldorf's missionary role in spreading Steiner's philosophy to unsuspecting students.
"Nice try, but you lose."
When people work dishonestly to feed our children their guru's nonsense, WE ALL LOSE!
After 700 pages? UM... I think we can ALL get the full context of what he was saying. After all, that's exactly why the faculty meetings were documented in the first place - so that future Waldorf teachers could be trained in Steiner's methods. If there's a more "full" context to this work (there isn't), certainly new teachers entering Waldorf teacher training aren't going to be aware of it.
"In fact, 700 pages were given in meetings with the fledgling first teachers of Waldorf, and I doubt by your allegations that Waldorf has to hide anything, since they published them in full."
Waldorf didn't publish them.
HIDE? They're not hiding anything, they're TEACHING this stuff to new teachers. It's on Waldorf teacher reading lists everywhere. I'm just helping people who aren't teachers learn what Waldorf teachers are learning and WHY. The "why" is the important part. The author of this article hadn't heard of this apparently.
"Taking someone's words and phrases out of context is a well-know ploy used to denounce someone."
If the context of the entire 700 page volume isn't enough context to get the gist of what Steiner was saying, there are 40 books and 6000 lectures by Steiner to fill in the context. If there is anything in any of them that conflicts with or changes the context of Faculty Meetings, please feel free to present it. Additionally, there are LOTS of other books on Waldorf teacher reading lists... this just happens to be one that IS available on-line. If you would rather discuss Knowledge of Higher Worlds and its Attainment (also required reading for Waldorf teachers) we could do this too. But, Faculty Meetings is the book the most directly applies to Waldorf education and it establishes the methods Waldorf teachers use when they deal with children. We see this confirmed time and time again in Waldorf.
Here's a quote from Knowledge of Higher Worlds - Also REQUIRED reading by Waldorf teachers:
"Critical thinking is especially hazardous. Good children "have a respect that
forbids them, even in the deepest recess of their heart, to harbour any thoughts
of criticism or opposition." [KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT,
p. 10.]
And also in the same book:
"For peoples and races are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally appear in harmonious perfection." (Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds p. 207)
Steiner's ideas about races and racial perfection are all fed to Waldorf teacher trainees, right along with his "insights" about children (and how they shouldn't think critically). That's part of Waldorf teacher training and Waldorf's missionary role in spreading Steiner's philosophy to unsuspecting students.
"Nice try, but you lose."
When people work dishonestly to feed our children their guru's nonsense, WE ALL LOSE!
Posted by Pete K on December 10, 2011 at 8:29 AM
The context is faculty meetings that you weren't present at and have no idea of what the full context was, now isn't it?
In fact, 700 pages were given in meetings with the fledgling first teachers of Waldorf, and I doubt by your allegations that Waldorf has to hide anything, since they published them in full.
Taking someone's words and phrases out of context is a well-know ploy used to denounce someone. Nice try, but you lose.
In fact, 700 pages were given in meetings with the fledgling first teachers of Waldorf, and I doubt by your allegations that Waldorf has to hide anything, since they published them in full.
Taking someone's words and phrases out of context is a well-know ploy used to denounce someone. Nice try, but you lose.
Posted by Rafael on December 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM
The context is a faculty meeting. Steiner fielded questions from the very first Waldorf teachers and responded to them. It was quite a different experience for him I'm sure - than simply writing about the idealistic education he envisioned. When teachers came to him with real-life problems, Steiner had ridiculous answers. Anthroposophical doctors couldn't determine any physical difference between a "large-headed" and "small-headed" child for example... yet Steiner claimed such differences existed. Below is an example of Steiner talking with Waldorf teachers about how to spot demonic possession in children... pretending that he has "facts" about this when questioned by a teacher, but then tells the teachers not to tell the world about his nonsense - since there was already considerable opposition to Waldorf schools in his time. From Faculty Meetings:
Dr. Steiner: “That little girl L.. in the first grade must have something very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I [the highest element of one’s spiritual being]; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the [1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons.”
A teacher: “How is that possible?”
Dr. Steiner: “Cosmic error is certainly not impossible. The relationships of individuals coming into earthly existence have long been determined. There are also generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence and be connected with physicality, or immediately leave at the very beginning. In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in.... They are also quite different from human beings in regard to everything spiritual. They can, for example, never remember such things as sentences; they have a memory only for words, not for sentences....
“I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings. Nevertheless, these are facts. Our culture would not be in such a decline if people felt more strongly that a number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form.
“Nevertheless, we do not want to shout that to the world. Our opposition is already large enough. Such things are really shocking to people. I caused enough shock when I needed to say that a very famous university professor, after a very short time between death and rebirth, was reincarnated as a black scientist. We do not want to shout such things out into the world.” (Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Anthroposophical Press, 1998, pp. 649-650.)
Dr. Steiner: “That little girl L.. in the first grade must have something very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I [the highest element of one’s spiritual being]; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the [1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons.”
A teacher: “How is that possible?”
Dr. Steiner: “Cosmic error is certainly not impossible. The relationships of individuals coming into earthly existence have long been determined. There are also generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence and be connected with physicality, or immediately leave at the very beginning. In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in.... They are also quite different from human beings in regard to everything spiritual. They can, for example, never remember such things as sentences; they have a memory only for words, not for sentences....
“I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings. Nevertheless, these are facts. Our culture would not be in such a decline if people felt more strongly that a number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form.
“Nevertheless, we do not want to shout that to the world. Our opposition is already large enough. Such things are really shocking to people. I caused enough shock when I needed to say that a very famous university professor, after a very short time between death and rebirth, was reincarnated as a black scientist. We do not want to shout such things out into the world.” (Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Anthroposophical Press, 1998, pp. 649-650.)
Posted by Pete K on December 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Well, with all due consideration, I feel that Pete K. definitely is paranoid when he refers to Steiner's "Faculty Meetings With Instructors" in short crib-notes in an otherwise 700 page volume. Please give the context in which the negative words were said, Pete. Thank you.
And relative to the Science of the Spirit, aka, Anthroposophical Spiritual Science, I would humbly advise Mr. K. to attempt an informed judgment before denouncing something he admits to knowing nothing about.
And relative to the Science of the Spirit, aka, Anthroposophical Spiritual Science, I would humbly advise Mr. K. to attempt an informed judgment before denouncing something he admits to knowing nothing about.
Posted by Rafael on December 7, 2011 at 8:18 PM
"why did you mistake me for a teacher?"
You wrote with such an air of authority in defense of so-called "anthroposophy" that I assumed you were a representative of the school. It was a simple and honest mistake and it was made precisely because I know nothing about the school except what I read in this blog.
" Are you closer to Waldorf than you're saying?"
That is a curious question. Would I be more likely to mistake you for a teacher if I was closer to Waldorf? Or do you suffer from a touch of paranoia?
"Sounds like it."
Indeed!
You wrote with such an air of authority in defense of so-called "anthroposophy" that I assumed you were a representative of the school. It was a simple and honest mistake and it was made precisely because I know nothing about the school except what I read in this blog.
" Are you closer to Waldorf than you're saying?"
That is a curious question. Would I be more likely to mistake you for a teacher if I was closer to Waldorf? Or do you suffer from a touch of paranoia?
"Sounds like it."
Indeed!
Posted by Mr. K-- on December 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM
"I thought Stanley's article was excellent, factual and truthful, and that is why I felt obliged to contribute to this discussion."
Again, should we consider obvious omissions of the facts "truthful"? Your idea of "truthful" and mine are quite different. Omitting the truth isn't truthful in my view.
"The comments extend only because of unfortunate poor feelings about Waldorf education, and the science of the spirit itself."
Those poor feelings, for many parents, stem from the very untruthfulness I'm talking about. Waldorf has a very dishonest attitude - and it comes directly from Steiner's directives. "Science of the spirit" - is a topic for adults - not something that should be covertly introduced to people's children without their knowledge and against Waldorf's stated purpose.
"Thus, in a world where nothing is perfect, it can be expected that nothing is perfect. But, when something has been made perfect in theory and ideology, as clearly demonstrated by Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy"
Hold on... nobody has ever demonstrated Steiner's theory and ideology is perfect.
"and its application to the education of the child, it can only be adduced that the human factor could intervene in order to create errors of judgment and application in these fields. Assuredly, that has taken place, but just as assuredly, these fields have achieved success far surpassing those unfortunate errors of human nature and its consequences."
No... I don't agree. Steiner DIRECTED Waldorf teachers to lie directly to parents - (have you read Faculty Meetings yet? I provided the link?). When harm is done to children, it's when teachers follow Steiner's instructions rather than common sense - or even the LAW. In my case, it made more sense to teachers to cover up harm that was happening to my child than to follow mandated reporting laws. Steiner directed teachers to keep quiet to outsiders about what goes on in the school. I guess that includes the police. Anyone who doesn't think Waldorf teachers lie can try this simple test... JUST ASK THEM A DIFFICULT QUESTION.
Rafael, I believe you've completely misunderstood what is going on in Waldorf teacher training. They learn MUCH MORE than Steiner's ideals, they learn Steiner's practical methods for dealing with children and parents. Those were not "perfect in theory" - they were horrible! Why wouldn't they be? Steiner was NEVER an teacher and knew nothing about teaching in a classroom of children. But that didn't stop him from trying to come up with some ideas about how teachers should do it. It's just like the fact that Steiner never met a black person, yet he developed all kinds of ridiculous ideas about black people without having any knowledge or experience. Wouldn't it be better for Waldorf teachers to get their instructions from a great teacher instead of a great con-artist?
Again, should we consider obvious omissions of the facts "truthful"? Your idea of "truthful" and mine are quite different. Omitting the truth isn't truthful in my view.
"The comments extend only because of unfortunate poor feelings about Waldorf education, and the science of the spirit itself."
Those poor feelings, for many parents, stem from the very untruthfulness I'm talking about. Waldorf has a very dishonest attitude - and it comes directly from Steiner's directives. "Science of the spirit" - is a topic for adults - not something that should be covertly introduced to people's children without their knowledge and against Waldorf's stated purpose.
"Thus, in a world where nothing is perfect, it can be expected that nothing is perfect. But, when something has been made perfect in theory and ideology, as clearly demonstrated by Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy"
Hold on... nobody has ever demonstrated Steiner's theory and ideology is perfect.
"and its application to the education of the child, it can only be adduced that the human factor could intervene in order to create errors of judgment and application in these fields. Assuredly, that has taken place, but just as assuredly, these fields have achieved success far surpassing those unfortunate errors of human nature and its consequences."
No... I don't agree. Steiner DIRECTED Waldorf teachers to lie directly to parents - (have you read Faculty Meetings yet? I provided the link?). When harm is done to children, it's when teachers follow Steiner's instructions rather than common sense - or even the LAW. In my case, it made more sense to teachers to cover up harm that was happening to my child than to follow mandated reporting laws. Steiner directed teachers to keep quiet to outsiders about what goes on in the school. I guess that includes the police. Anyone who doesn't think Waldorf teachers lie can try this simple test... JUST ASK THEM A DIFFICULT QUESTION.
Rafael, I believe you've completely misunderstood what is going on in Waldorf teacher training. They learn MUCH MORE than Steiner's ideals, they learn Steiner's practical methods for dealing with children and parents. Those were not "perfect in theory" - they were horrible! Why wouldn't they be? Steiner was NEVER an teacher and knew nothing about teaching in a classroom of children. But that didn't stop him from trying to come up with some ideas about how teachers should do it. It's just like the fact that Steiner never met a black person, yet he developed all kinds of ridiculous ideas about black people without having any knowledge or experience. Wouldn't it be better for Waldorf teachers to get their instructions from a great teacher instead of a great con-artist?
Posted by Pete K on December 4, 2011 at 9:07 AM
I thought Stanley's article was excellent, factual and truthful, and that is why I felt obliged to contribute to this discussion. The comments extend only because of unfortunate poor feelings about Waldorf education, and the science of the spirit itself.
Thus, in a world where nothing is perfect, it can be expected that nothing is perfect. But, when something has been made perfect in theory and ideology, as clearly demonstrated by Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy, and its application to the education of the child, it can only be adduced that the human factor could intervene in order to create errors of judgment and application in these fields. Assuredly, that has taken place, but just as assuredly, these fields have achieved success far surpassing those unfortunate errors of human nature and its consequences.
Wouldn't you agree?
Thus, in a world where nothing is perfect, it can be expected that nothing is perfect. But, when something has been made perfect in theory and ideology, as clearly demonstrated by Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy, and its application to the education of the child, it can only be adduced that the human factor could intervene in order to create errors of judgment and application in these fields. Assuredly, that has taken place, but just as assuredly, these fields have achieved success far surpassing those unfortunate errors of human nature and its consequences.
Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by Rafael on December 3, 2011 at 9:41 PM
Rafael, what difference does it make? Why did you mistake me for Mr. K? People sometimes make mistakes. Who cares. How about some substance?On my blog here: http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2011_07_…
I point out instances where Waldorf teachers from Highland Hall are doing exactly what Harlan Gilbert did... post reviews of their school pretending to be just parents. This omission, again, is tantamount to fraud! Just as with Harlan Gilbert, when they do this, I'm there to point it out. Fraudulent practices will be Waldorf's undoing. People who are dishonest by nature are definitely not people parents should trust their kids to. I learned the hard way. I hope, no I KNOW I've helped many parents avoid Highland Hall specifically and Waldorf education in general. But when I see misguided articles like the story that prompted these comments, I know there's much more work to be done.
