Site Map: MAIN / A Reader's Journal, Vol. 2 Webpage Printer Ready
A READER'S JOURNAL
Rudolf Steiner in the Waldorf School, GA#298
by
Rudolf Steiner
26 Lectures, Addresses, etal from 1919 to 1925
Introduction by Gayle Davis
Translated by Catherine E. Creeger
ARJ2 Chapter: Spiritual Science
Published by Anthroposophic Press/NY in 1996
A Book Review by Bobby Matherne ©2018
Like Us? Subscribe to Receive a Monthly Email
Reminder of New Reviews & New DIGESTWORLD Issues — CLICK
In December 1919, Rudolf Steiner addressed the assembly of the very first Waldorf School and asked the children, "Do you love your teachers?" He received a resounding reply of "Yes!" — as Gayle Davis relates in her Introduction to this book, which includes Lectures and Talks that Steiner gave to Waldorf students, parents, and teachers from 1919 to 1925, during the last six years of his lifetime. Each time he came in front of Waldorf students he asked this same question and received a loud and enthusiastic Yes!
Davis wrote in her Introduction in 1996:
[page xii, Introduction] The numerous Waldorf schools in Germany may have had some hope of carrying this mandate to influence social life, but in America there were only ten schools as late as 1965. In the last twenty years, however, a change has taken place and there are now over one hundred twenty schools and several public Waldorf teacher training colleges, university education departments, and state and local departments of education.
Currently, in 2018, according to Google, there are over a thousand Waldorf schools in 60 countries. In a recent news broadcast, I heard that top executives of large Silicon Valley tech companies are sending their children to a Waldorf school where they are not allowed to use computerized gear, but write using paper and pencil instead. These parents who know high-tech tools best are choosing to have their children taught in a living spiritual way using their hearts and hands by teachers who love them — this is truly the highest tech of all.
Steiner realized that a truly love-filled teaching can reach individual students even in larger classrooms. His view counters the popular illusion that small class sizes makes for the best individualized teaching environment, and he explains why this is so. Note that "life-filled" teaching refers to a teaching which flows from soul-to-soul on the wings of words(1).
[page 4, 5] What teachers do . . . must be born anew, in each moment of their activity, out of their living understanding of the developing human being. Naturally, the objection can be raised that life-filled teaching of this sort will fail because of classes with a large number of students. Within certain limits, this objection is certainly justified. However, those who take it beyond these limits only demonstrate that they are speaking from the viewpoint of an abstract, normative [rule-based] theory of education. In fact, a living art of teaching, one that rests on a true understanding of the human being, has a thread of strength running through it that stimulates individual students to participate, so that it is not necessary to keep their attention through direct "individualized" treatment. It is possible to structure the subject that is being dealt with so that each student learns and grasps it in an individual way. For this to happen, what the teacher is doing need only be sufficiently strongly alive. For those who have a sense for a true understanding of the human being, the developing human being becomes one of life's riddles to solve, to such an extent that their attempt at solving it rouses their students to participate. Participation of this sort is more fruitful than individualized treatment, which all too easily paralyzes the student as far as real independent activity is concerned. Still staying within certain limits, it may be stated that larger classes with teachers who are full of the life that is stimulated by a true understanding of the human being will achieve greater success than small classes with teachers who are incapable of this because they take a normative theory of education as their starting point.
The term Normal College was formerly applied to a college which educated teachers in the norms of pedagogy and curriculum. This term has been replaced by Teacher's College in recent years, but the name itself indicates the basis for teaching teachers was normative or rule-based.
Teachers who use a rule-based theory of education can become computerized representatives of a top-down bureaucracy rather than human beings who love and care for the children entrusted to them. Children who hate school do so for this very reason. No such bureaucracy could get children to reply to this question, "Do you love me?" with an enthusiastic "Yes!" If you are looking one prime reason for sending your children to a Waldorf school, you have found it.
Why is it important to start off a child in school using paper and pencil? With a keyboard, for example, the child has no chance of feeling the artistic flow of the letters from its finger-tips, a process which activates the entire human being, not just the intellect, as the use of the keyboard does. Learning to write is a life-filled activity, not an intellectual one and, rightly understood, works best for a child's maturation when it precedes the intellectual activity of reading. After writing out the various letters with its own hand, the child will be excited to see those same letters formed into a word at a later time! This is one example of life-filled teaching which one finds in Waldorf schools.
[page 6 italics added] If our teaching one-sidedly takes advantage of the children's intellect and abstractly acquired abilities, their willing and feeling nature will be stunted. In contrast, if the children learn in a way that allows the whole human being to take part in the activity, they will develop in a well-rounded way. When children draw or do rudimentary painting, the whole human being develops an interest in what is being done. This is why we should allow writing to develop from drawing. We should derive the forms of the letters from shapes that allow the child's naive artistic sense to make itself felt. We should develop writing, which guides us toward the element of meaning and intellect, out of an activity that is artistic and attracts the interest of the whole human being. Reading, which draws our attention very strongly into the intellectual realm, should be allowed to develop only as a result of writing.
Rote learning often gets criticized as bad for children, but it is good and important if it's done for children between teeth change and puberty. Steiner says on page 6, "learning certain things purely through memory is related to the developmental forces that are present between the sixth or seventh year and the fourteenth year of life." He emphasizes that it is important for "people later on in life when something they learned purely by rote at an earlier stage reawakens in their souls, and they find that they now understand it out of themselves because of the maturity they have gained." (Page 8) He stresses that teachers should not strive to have their children understand everything, but rather to leave some things to be understood later. This is a process I have learned to respect and refer to it as the "power of the unanswered question"(2). Steiner respected and explained how the process works.
[page 8] Through things that are still beyond their understanding in some respect, an awakening force is enkindled in the children by the teacher's living ardor. This force will remain effective throughout their entire lives.
What is education? Few have expressed it as cogently as Rudolf Steiner:
[page 16]
Science that comes alive!
Art that comes alive!
Religion that comes alive!
In the end, that is what education is.
Note carefully that Steiner does not say "Materialism that comes alive." We cannot educate living human beings with tenets from a dead science such as promulgated by the supporters of Bacon and his materialistic followers. Steiner does not downplay the importance of science and technology, but recognizes its limitations in educating our youth.
[page 16, 17] Now, it has never occurred to me to denigrate contemporary science. I am full of regard for all the triumphs it has achieved, and will continue to achieve for the sake of humanity's evolution, through a scientific viewpoint and method that are based on understanding nature. But for that very reason, it seems to me, what comes from the contemporary scientific and intellectual attitude cannot be fruitfully applied to the art of education. Its greatness does not lie in dealing with human beings or in insight into the human heart and mind. . . . It is impossible to develop the living art of education out of what makes our times so great in mastering dead technology.
In Waldorf education, Steiner strove to "raise what is alive in the human being from the dead." (Page 17) He explains further:
[page 17, 18] The dead — and this is the secret of our dying contemporary culture — is what makes people knowing, what gives them insight when they take it up as natural law. However, it also weakens the feeling that is the source of teachers' inspiration and enthusiasm, and it weakens the will. It does not grant human beings a harmonious place within society as a whole. We are looking for a science that is not mere science, that is itself life and feeling. When such a science streams into the human soul as knowledge, it will immediately develop the power to be active as love and to stream forth as effective, working will, as work that has been steeped in soul warmth, and especially as work that applies to the living, to the growing human being. We need a new scientific attitude. Above all, we need a new spirit for the entire art of education.
The human being evolved along with the cosmos in which we find ourselves. This happened over cosmic time scales as Steiner outlined in his book, Occult Science. Closer to home, we can understand that the human being today evolved over historic times, but lacking a true science of history, few understand the implications of that process.
[page 19] As long as we have no real science of history, so these educators(3) say, we will also not be able to know how an individual human being develops, because the individual human being presents in concentrated form what humanity as a whole has gone through in the course of its historical development.
What passes for historical analysis is actually a process of retrodiction which projects our current understanding of the world back into historical times when such human understanding had not yet developed, all of which creates an illusory history and a shaky foundation for understanding humankind in past times.
[page 20] We must know all the mysterious things that are going on in the body as a result of a completely new physiology that is not yet available to modern science. But we must also know what is accompanying this transformation on an emotional level. We must know about the metamorphoses of human nature. In the case of individuals, we will at least not deny, although we may be powerless to fully recognize the fact, that humans experience metamorphoses or transformations on the basis of their inmost being.
If this fact does not resonate in you with meaning, hold it as an unanswered question for now. Steiner shows us the effects of a recent evolution of human consciousness in the fifteenth century, when one giant leap in consciousness occurred. There are many of these, and the presence of these leaps are ignored by historians at their own peril and lay waste to the value of their conclusions.
[page 20] We do not accept that great leaps have taken place in humanity's historical evolution. Looking back over historical developments, we find the last leap in the fifteenth century. Humanity's ways of feeling, conceptualizing, and willing, as they have developed in more recent times and as we know them now, have only taken on this subtle character among civilized humanity since the fifteenth century. How this civilized humanity differs from that of the tenth or eighth century is similar to how a twelve-year-old child differs from a child who has not yet reached his or her seventh year.
Look around you and you may realize how important the leap of consciousness that humankind took in the fifteenth century affects you now in the twenty-first century.
[page 21] And everything we are living with now in the twentieth century — our striving for individuality, the striving for new social forms, the striving to develop the personality — is only a consequence of what the inner forces of history have brought up since the time in question.