Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Reception

In line with the comments made by various people, I have considerably reduced the extent of quotation in the reception section and changed it from "positive reception" to "reception by mainstream educationalists". Both positive and negative reception would thus have place here, in line with the NPOV policy.

I have kept the quotations in the footnotes for the moment; at some point we may want to drop these, as well. They may be useful to check the accuracy of my summations, or people may want to modify how I have changed the section. Hgilbert 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is better. I still dont understand last one about "healing". I dont know what that means. Maybe this is a sign to why the quotes are not working for me. I can figure out the meaning in the first two but all three quotes are isolated. The integration of arts to curriculum was talked about in the article someplace else.But how does the article explain how Waldorf education teaches seven intelligences besides the quote? I dont know what healing education means, and it isnt shown in the article how it ties to a Waldorf philosophy or practice.Venado 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we think that the reception section should only repeat elements already mentioned in the article? It could simply reflect the reception of Waldorf education amongst mainstream educational authorities (both positive and critical). If someone wants to know more about Gardner's theory of intelligences s/he can follow the relevant link, for example; it is not necessarily the purpose of the Waldorf article to explain this as well.

The quote about healing education is less easy to follow up on; there is no Wikipedia article on the subject to link to, for example. Nevertheless, it is a significant focus of Waldorf educators (for example, there are regular conferences on the subject, called the Kolisko conferences, attended by both doctors and teachers). I don't know of material that would meet our verifiability standards to further explain what is meant by this, however. It is obviously a significant point for Peterkin, and will be understood, I suspect, by many educators. So I would suggest leaving this in, but how do others feel? Hgilbert 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion about controversies

I think it would be better to write about controversies i there own section.

1. Controversy about public waldorf and law suit in America.
2. Controversy about Report Mainz TV show in Germany
3. Controversy about outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany
4. Controversy about reading (other sources talk about this and using them to would make this better)

The Urban school study and the Swedish school studies arent controversial so they should go somewhere else, probably a section about studies.Venado 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the headings you use here are a lot more descriptive than the headings you seem to be happy with in the article. Why is that?--Fergie 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I was saying yesterday: "The section titles can be improved, but please dont make them worse. Dont add titles that distort the information found from the sources." The ones in the article are at least accurate and because of that they are more "descriptive" than section titles that are completely inaccurate. If we have a section "Controversies", the subtitles under it should just be "Report Mainz broadcast in Germany", "Outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany" ect. It would not be good style to repeeat "controversy about" in each subtitle. These controversies are sourced, and it is a good NPOV method I think to report them as controversies here. Then all sides shown in the controversy given by the sources can be reported in the article. It is not NPOV to just pick out parts on one side or another when more are given in the source.Venado 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Waldorf schools

The history section has been changed to a "first Waldorf school" section. I'm not entirely happy with the resulting lack of a general history of the school movement. What do others think? Do we want both (first school and general history)? Just one or the other? Hgilbert 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited that section because I thought some of it was redundant to the daughter page. Also the third paragraph was not about history. Perhaps a little bit could be added here, but I don't think anything lengthy would be appropriate. Henitsirk 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any reference sources telling more about general history.One of the footnote articles says that history of the first school is significant memory to the other schools. (Oberman). May be the history section sticks out of place because there isnt transition to themes in the rest of the article.Venado 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By the schools growth chart by the history section it look like there were no schools after Hitler until 1962, then none again between 1965 and 1975 and they restarted after 1975.Venado 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Stuttgart school reopened in 1945 under the American occupation of Germany.--MinorityView 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

Fergie has made some strange edits. One is the change of the sub title "Swedish study" to "Study: Nazism and Racism Amongst Swedish Waldorf Pupils". The twisted title says: Nazism and racism is found among Swedish Waldorf pupils. The opposite is the truth. They display a markedly greater anti-Nazism and anti-racism than pupils at public schools. I have therefore changed the subtitle to correspond to what the study described says. Thebee 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another edit by Fergie has been to change "Concerns over Immunizations" to "Refusal to Vaccinate Pupils". The sub title implies that Waldorf schools refuse to vaccinate Waldorf pupils. This is untrue. Waldorf schools do not vaccinate or refuse to vaccinate Waldorf pupils. Parents do. Changing the title to imply that Waldorf schools refuse to vaccinate pupils is another twisted distortion by Fergie for some strange reason also of what the text in this section says. Thebee 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Those edits were to tabloid and did not represent with any accuracy what the sources say. We are trying to work to good article. It has to be accurate. I dont think this is the time for careless language and mispresented references. Do schools vaccinate pupils, or doctors and nurses do this? There was no claim made in any reference given I see that the schools refused to vaccinate pupils. There was a claim in one reference that one school in Germany discouraged vaccinations. We have been discussing how to find better sources so the WP article can say more about this subject, but we dont have any that say schools refuse to vaccinate pupils.

The title change of the Swedish study was distorted because the findings were huge (93% Waldorf compared to 72% municipal) to show the opposite (active antiracism and antinazism, not racism and nazism).The title change served no good purpose. I do not agree this new reverted title though either. The subsections make no sense any more. The swedish study is not about "reception" or about "controversy".

I also disagree with the other section title change on German TV program because it leaves debate out. I would not disagree with something about "debate about racism". The TV show claimed it did not accuse or imply proof there was racism, only broadcast accusations made by others, and thats what the court debate was about.

The section titles can be improved, but please dont make them worse. Dont add titles that distort the information found from the sources. Maybe rethink if the titles and sections still make sense.THe Swedish study was in a section about racism and antiracism.That made sense. Now it is in controversy -reception section, but we dont describe any reception or controversy of this study.Venado 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the last change. Changing "mainstream educationalists" to "a mainstream educationalist" is not accurate. three different ones are quoted. We have also have above a discussion in process how to do that section better, but it is a misprepresentation in title to say those quotes there now are all the same person.Venado 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The section titles are vague and non-descriptive and they could be improved. I am by no means a 'Waldorf-Critic', yet it has been a very long time since any edit I have made on the page has been allowed to stand, and I usually get a good flaming to boot (see this thread). I am going to rise above the hysterical cries of 'flasehood', 'twisted distortion' and 'untruth' and instead direct Thebee, once again, to WP:OWN, and WP:AGF. I would also caution Thebee that he has been walking on thin ice since arbitration, and continuing to confrontationally edit in the absence of PeteK will not be looked upon kindly--Fergie 06:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support your comment about flaming; we need to avoid all personal comments here.

At the same time, the section titles should be accurate; obviously edits that make them less so should not stand. Given the history of this article there are understandably strong allergic reactions to what may seem like polemical edits from any side. Our best strategy is to avoid any sense of polemical intent; we need to rebuild mutual trust. We need productive, objective editors here; please do contribute positively. Hgilbert 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits can be criticisized and called so if the information is false and distort sources. We are trying to raise this article to good article status, and those edits were not NPOV, inaccurate distortions of the sources, and the section headings were changed so they no longer follow WP:Style. Every ones edits have been changed again and again to get exactly accurate, NPOV, without disporportionate weight, and every one has been told to justify with reasons on the talk page. Even things people worked hard to write is being removed by there author to make the article better overall. Every editor is entitled to WP:AGF when they give good reasons to justify edits. Section headings can stand to be changed or improved but not turned into inaccurate distortions. The Featured Article for today is vague in all of its section titles. "Modern era", "Language", "Religion", "Institutions". Vague is better than wrong.Venado 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Venado, you are describing edits in terms of 'right', 'wrong', 'true' and 'false'. I will remind you that what we are aiming for here is verifiability- assigning value judgements such as right/wrong or true/false to content is a sure road to an edit war. Also, I suggest you review WP:AGF, as you seem to be a little confused as to what this guideline is all about.--Fergie 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you have not understood what I am saying. What is "wrong" or "false" is how the sections were retitled, not whether the information in them was verified true or false. The sections involved were verified. But when the section title was changed to say "Schools refuse to vaccinate" and that does not match the content of its section or the statements in the sources used to verify the content of that section, then the title is false, it is inaccurate, it is wrong. Similar happened repeatedly before the arbitration.Sometimes for biased effect. The sources said one thing, and how it was written here was altered or misrepresented to say something else.Because of that problem arbitrators in Review voted unanimously to Principal "Proper Use of Sources: The information used from a source in an article should accurately reflect the information contained in the source". When words chosen by editors are not accurate description of there sources, it isnt a dispute about verified/unverified. The dispute is about mischaracterization of content. I believed I understood WP:AGF, and rereading it did not changed my understanding. All editors are entitled to it. So am I. "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence." During arbitration, one person treated me just the opposite.Then I was accused only of having a bad motive while this one accuser refused to identify even one of my actions or edits as unfair or inappropriate.Venado 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's Input

I looked up this article after reading a favorable comment on Waldorf education in a parenting community and wanted to know more. I didn't notice the article's neutrality was questioned when I first began reading, but by the end I thought 'this article can't be considered neutral/up to regular Wiki standards,' and when I scrolled back up to the top, yes, there was the tag I'd missed.

The article felt very disjoint to me. Many parts of it felt random or out of place or perhaps badly integrated. For example, the racism controversy. I went attended a public school and heard racist comments all the time. Is there any particular reason to think that racism is more notable in Waldorf schools than other schools? If so, It seems that a more cogent explanation for these reasons could be presented at the beginning of the racism section, and the rest of the examples could be used to illustrate different sides of the issue. In the current article, I do not get a sense of any overall point to the racism section.

Likewise, more broadly on the subject of NPOV, the article reads to me like it's swinging back and fort from favorable to unfavorable. The good parts read as too good and the bad parts read as too bad. Overall I felt like I didn't have a very clear view of the advantages and disadvantages of a Waldorf education for my child--which I speculate is a major reason people would look up this article. There's a lot of information here, but I think it could be better presented.

Keep up the good work!----Electron —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.52.149 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

You are right in saying that racism and racist comments are present in every school. Afterall, kids are kids everywhere, no matter what school they attend.

Now you asked a good question as to why some people feel that Waldorf is inherently more racist than other school system. I can only speak for my experience, though, and it has been my experience that Waldorf teachers are actually the LEAST racist teachers there are; they are simply too good at teaching and too determined to help every child to grow.

Now there are critics who allege that Steiner himself was racist, but any reasonable amount of investigation into this proves, I believe, just the opposite. And these critics are quick to point out the faults of a few bad teachers, but, again, I can only speak from experience when I say that I have seen nothing but teachers who dedicate their lives to helping kids blossom.

So there's this teeter-tottering of facts when researching Waldorf education. But the bottom line, to me, the only way to really know anything for sure is to really visit the school, ask questions, and talk to your child's potential teacher. Ask tough questions about anything that concerns you and go from there, based on what your experience tells you. Bellowed 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An Insiders View on the American Urban Waldorf School

I read this article, in particular the part on the study of the American Urban Waldorf School. I was a student there and I am appalled at the comments about racism in the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf School. I did not experience any racism at all while attending the school. Also I have read the report in question and I would like to point out it is very positive and the small quote defending their combat of racism does any justice.

Also, I will point out some of the Teachers were African-American, and also the respect among teachers was paramount.

If you have any questions on The Waldorf School System (because this site does not do it justice)or would like to challenge my statements please contact me at voteruud@hotmail.com. THANK YOU

I agree. The presence of the section is absurd and does not accurately reflect the study. You are correct in stating that the overall findings of the study were positive. I believe that the study should accurately reflect the study itself, or be deleted from this article. Bellowed 16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Elementary education/looping

The extensive material about the advantages of teacher continuity seems not to relate particularly to Waldorf education; should it not be put in the Loop (education) article? Hgilbert 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I put that extensive material in the article because, the way it was written, it was sourced from an anthroposophic source on the benefits of having one teacher for years. So instead of deleting the benefits altogether, I decided to put in materials from an outside source, looping, because it's the same thing. But feel free to edit freely; I just wanted to make sure that the benefits were supported from an a permissible source. Bellowed 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism Sections

Okay I have just got back from holiday - and I have a great concern over what has happened to the racism section - this version. Now I am not going to go through all the article and talk history yet - but I thought I would ask:

1. Why has the McDermott study got no title, and why is it not with the German media debate section.
2. Why is the "Swedish Waldorf pupils markedly anti-racist" not with the the German media debate section also - that would make it flow much much better, and why has it got such an opinionated title.

Please look at this link - this was pretty much how it was before I had technical issues and before I was on holiday. Although I can understand why this section may have been condensed, I am extremely concerned with the mess that has now been made.

So is there a good explantion for what is going on?

Cheers Lethaniol 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like many have taken a turn changing there. The whole thing was botched before to. Objectively, only German media section was controversial. It was not a study. Anecdotal stories and comments were shared on a broadcast about racist material and practice in German Waldorf schools. But the Sweidish study is not a "controvery" or "reception" issue, it is an outcome issue. It is a research finding that students in the Swedish Waldorf schools scored equally high to compared students in attitudes against racism and much higher than compared students in tendency to respond actively against racism. The Milwaukee study is not a controversy, and the racism issue was not an outcome. The study only raises a question whether or not the Waldorf method is adequate to counter a population of students afflicted with racist and negative self-images learned in there communities, media and society at large. So this was also not a "reception" or "controversy". The study did not measure any findings about racism in the school, it only posed this as important but so far unanswered question. Quoting the prejudices observed in the students is highly misleading in quote form because the article said those were examples of stereotypes and negative images students were learning from "society at large". The relation to Waldorf education was to question if this new alternative school method would work well in urban student populations to undo those kinds of racist stereotypes and negative images, and this study did not answer the question.Venado 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some really good interesting points Venado. Obviously I think the current version is broken - but I understand that some of these studies/reports do not fall neatly under our current section headings. I should add though that the article should flow - so if report A is under section B, and report C works well as a rebuttal even though it would not be in section B usually, it should follow report A. Hence why I think it would be a good idea to try and keep the whole "Racism" reports together, in one section/subsection - so that someone reading it can take it all in one go.

The concern over the use of the Swedish and Milwaukee is interesting. These reports/research have only been used previously to argue the Racism/Anti-racism issue, but of course that is not what any of them were just set up for. That is the difficulty with using only a small part of a report/research - it does not give the whole picture. But I do think the previous version gave a relatively neutral account (tweaking is needed) of the only notable/neutral reports/research on this issue- and of course gave access to the original documents.

I believe we should go back to the old version - maybe even merge the Studies section into the Reception and Controversy section - and start again from there.

Cheers Lethaniol 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Immunizations sections

Hello everyone, I have been taking an extended break, and even still am only looking in to see what's been going on.

A probably very minor thing caught my eye: "The official position of Waldorf Education is that childhood immunization is a matter of parental choice." I don't know if long discussion went into this, so I will not edit it directly but will say: I don't think it's appropriate to say there is any "official position" given the independent nature of Waldorf schools, and given that the very beginning of the paragraph states "Waldorf schools have never taken an official stance on vaccinations." Perhaps it would be more clear to say that "The official position of ECSWE is..." Thanks, Henitsirk 03:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I have been looking at the article and in my opinion it could be made to sound more neutral, and I made one version. I tried to make it sound more like an encyclopedia. I also made some other kind of changes which I hope are understandable. There were two changes made after I started working with this: Eurythmy was removed from a wrong section, but in my version it's there in another place (I left it because it's something unique to Waldorf schools). And then another change which I didn't know whether it came from a source. Erdanion 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the English grammar of the revisions, which look great. The eurythmy section may still need some work. Hgilbert 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I discovered that the references were scrambled up in the process of this revision. I have tried to relink the correct references with the correct material; this may need further checking. I have also reintroduced the (heavily-referenced) sentence about the increasing use of Waldorf methods outside of Waldorf schools. Hgilbert 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I couldn't always be sure which reference connected which sentence there being so many of them, I tried to do my best but sorry if I made mistakes. About the sentence Waldorf methods been used by some other teachers, I only transfered it to the reception section. Erdanion 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

reading/literacy

The to-do box at the top of the talk page still lists reducing the quotes for the reading/literacy section as a goal. I've had a look at this section; the main quotation actually summarizes the questions around this very succinctly, and I don't see how to reduce it without a danger of making it one-sided in one direction or another. Hgilbert 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As a periodic reader of this article (I read it first maybe three years ago), the version now is so much better in every way than the previos ones. Both in terms of NPOV and clearly explaining the program. If a suggestion is appropriate it would be to freeze/lock out all editing of the article for a period of time (longish - 30 days or something) to let everyone get used to the where it is now then maybe fix up the tiny problems, find the peer reviewed critisism (if applicable) and such. Have a great day. -johnb (not a real editor)