The
Founder of Anthroposophy
To Diana
From: Patrick
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 10:19 am
Subject: To Diana
Dear Diana,
I'm still curious why you never replied to
my post....
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Founder of Anthroposophy
Dear Diana,
It is not true that most of first grade
in a Waldorf school should be spent learning to copy the alphabet.
<snip>
It is not true that most of first grade in
a Waldorf school should be spent learning to copy the alphabet.
If the teacher is doing this he or she is not well-trained or
is idiosyncratic. The children should receive: (1) an artistic
introduction to the 26 letters of the alphabet -- children of
course copy the letters in order to make them correctly; (2)
the presentation of each letter must include the sound that the
letter generally makes and this sound symbol relationship must
be rehearsed and reviewed in order that the children make the
connection; (3) the teacher then makes or chooses a little verse
that contains the letter and sounds being recognized or rehearsed
and the process of discovery and learning of symbols and words
begins; (4) words and sentences are not taken out of context--
the children learn a sentence or verse by heart, see it written
on the board, hear it spoken as they follow the words with their
eyes, read it together, and copy it. This process of relating
to the symbol and sound with active human feeling, a learning
to recognize the gestalt of the word, the phrase, and the sentence
through writing and reading what you have heard and learned by
heart is the basis of the Waldorf approach to reading. This is
done over the course of a year. We also work with phonetics as
we help children learn to spell. The group writing technique
that you mention is done not in order to keep the children from
learning to write on their own, but just the opposite! It encourages
the children to be active in oral composition, to discuss and
discover different ways of expression, and to learn from each
other. Done repetitively and with enthusiasm, this method helps
children to learn to write on their own. There are, of course,
subsequent steps. The next step, having modeled it in group composition
exercises, is to form smaller groups and so on until individuals
are writing on their own. By the end of first grade it was Steiner's
intention that children could write simple sentences on their
own. Of course, not all children will achieve this: but many
can and do. Children are always encouraged to do as much as they
can do. Waldorf education trains the thinking; it merely avoids
abstractions and definitions while doing so. Any Waldorf teacher
with a good training and good mentoring works in this manner.
I know this because I have been a Waldorf teacher for 20 years
and now, for the past seven years, also train teachers.
Sincerely,
Patrick
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:02 pm
Subject: To Diana
Dear Diana,
I'm still curious why you never replied to
my post....
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re:
The Founder of Anthroposophy
Dear Diana,
It is not true that most of first grade
in a Waldorf school should be spent learning to copy the alphabet.
<snip>
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:30 am
Subject: Re: To Diana
Patrick, I must have missed it first time
around. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you did not mean
to post this THREE TIMES to me within a couple of hours.
I notice that a couple of posts from me appeared
during that interval, so perhaps you thought I was online and
could be induced to respond immediately. Or perhaps it was just
a mistake. My posts to this list, on a regular basis, go to other
places and people, show up hours or days after I send them, and
sometimes never show up at all. I have no idea why, as I do
(Tarjei) send them the same place every time. I don't really
care.
Anyway, I was not online when you wrote to
me THREE TIMES requesting a reply to the post below. This is
a busy list and I don't read everything and whenever it was that
you wrote about this originally, I missed it.
Frankly, glancing at it briefly, it doesn't
seem to say anything new. Everyone knows Waldorf first graders
spend most of the year copying the alphabet. It's a big topic
with me but my time is better spent than replying point by point
to yet another standard, tired old Waldorf jargony explanation
of how spiritual and wonderful it all is, how they learn with
"human feeling," etc. I have done so elsewhere many
times, search the critics archives if you want details on my
views of reading instruction in Waldorf.
Diana
P.S. I would, however, be interested in your
source for the statement that Steiner wanted children to write
simple sentences on their own by the end of first grade. Not
saying he didn't say this - but elsewhere he says it would really
be better if children did not write at all until after age 14.
IMO the standard Steiner statements about the dangers of hardening
and dead abstractions etc. etc. associated with reading and writing,
damaging children, go much further to explain the Waldorf approach
to reading and writing in the early grades than your justifications
below.
You seem to be describing the old "look-say"
reading approach in New Agey jargon. Waldorf isn't the only place
with poor reading instruction, though they do seem uniquely removed
from any interest in the ever-raging debates about reading instruction,
since professional development for Waldorf teachers is often
just reading more Steiner. (And Steiner's views haven't changed
recently) :)
It is not true that most of first grade
in a Waldorf school should be spent learning to copy the alphabet.
<snip>
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 12:38 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Diana
Dear Diana,
Yes, it was indeed as you said, I made two
posts that did not appear for some time, so I reposted and you
have the three posts. No, I didn't think you were online. I quite
understand your situation as it is the same as mine. I have other
responsibilities and cannot stay online all the time. You will
note that I do not post that often.
Thank you for finally answering. I thought
that you would read my answer because it was a thread you were
continuing and would likely read any replies to your posting
on that thread. Please allow me to comment on your statements
regarding my post.
First of all, I think you have misinformation,
and I, too, must ask you for a reference. What is your reference
for Rudolf Steiner's supposed statement that children should
not write before 14? Did you mean read before 14? In either case
I must express my astonishment! I think I have read everything
that Steiner wrote on education, have worked in Steiner education
for 20 years, and I have never heard or seen anything remotely
similar to either of those statements. My reference for Steiner's
comment that children should be able to write simple sentences
in the first grade will be found in the volumes, Meetings with
Rudolf Steiner. You also say, and I quote:
Frankly, glancing at it briefly, it doesn't
seem to say anything new. Everyone knows Waldorf first graders
spend most of the year copying the alphabet. It's a big topic
with me but my time is better spent than replying point by point
to yet another standard, tired old Waldorf jargony explanation
of how spiritual and wonderful it all is, how they learn with
"human feeling," etc. I have done so elsewhere many
times, search the critics archives if you want details on my
views of reading instruction in Waldorf.
Frankly, I don't care if you respond to my
post point by point. I do care that you get your facts straight.
I did not say that "Waldorf first graders spend most of
the year copying the alphabet." In the classroom of a competent
Waldorf teacher, the letters of the alphabet will all have been
introduced by January. And as I tried to point out, during the
introduction an equal amount of time is spent in recognition
and auditory discrimination. The rest of the year is spent writing
sentences and words that have meaning and practicing and learning
digraphs and blends. Yes, part of what we do could be compared
to the "look say" method. The other parts of what we
do are included in two other common methods known colloquially
as "phonics" and "the spelling method". Steiner
outlines these methods in two books entitled, "A Child's
Changing Consciousness" and "Soul Economy and Waldorf
Education." I realize that you are entrenched in your position
and have a lot of emotion invested in it, but it might behoove
you to reconsider. In addition, you might consider, that at the
Sacramento Waldorf school at least, reading comprehension scores
on standardized tests showed that on average, our classes rank
in the 80th percentile or above. That is, by the way, not the
highest scores in the class but the class average! It is simply
not true that our methods do not work. It is my experience, again
from 20 years of teaching, that children who have early reading
instruction may tire of reading and find it uninteresting after
grade 5. Not all, of course, but a significant number. I have
not found this phenomenon in our students. On the contrary, we
have a few students in our classes who may not "click in"
to reading until third or fourth grade but who show a steady
ascent in reading competence and enjoyment from that time on.
My own son did not read until third grade and regularly has scored
his highest percentiles in reading and reading comprehension,
generally from 95 to 99th percentile. My other son taught himself
to read at 5 years old while sitting on his daddy's lap and watching
the words as daddy read to him. He also scores in a similar range.
I don't know who you have heard from or talked to, but what I
say is the norm.
Yours, in hopes of understanding,
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: winters_diana
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:30 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Diana
Patrick, I must have missed it first time
around.
<snip>
Reading
and writing: do early readers burn out?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:32 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Diana
At 21:38 10.04.2004, Patrick wrote:
It is my experience, again from 20 years
of teaching, that children who have early reading instruction
may tire of reading and find it uninteresting after grade 5.
Not all, of course, but a significant number. I have not found
this phenomenon in our students. On the contrary, we have a few
students in our classes who may not "click in" to reading
until third or fourth grade but who show a steady ascent in reading
competence and enjoyment from that time on. My own son did not
read until third grade and regularly has scored his highest percentiles
in reading and reading comprehension, generally from 95 to 99th
percentile. My other son taught himself to read at 5 years old
while sitting on his daddy's lap and watching the words as daddy
read to him. He also scores in a similar range. I don't know
who you have heard from or talked to, but what I say is the norm.
I think we should pay attention to the word
"instruction" here. I could read at age 4, having nagged
myself into it from age 3 by having my parents read out neon
advertising signs to me and get me an ABC and so forth, and then
later, asking them to help me spell when writing. I experienced
great pleasure in reading novels and what have you from the fifth
grade onwards into adulthood, and my spelling and grammar was
always pretty good.
My math was another story, perhaps because
my paternal grandparents, who were both retired schoolteachers,
decided to instruct me in algebra when I was still a preschooler,
which made me experience it as a laborious chore, and throughout
my schoolyears, the math teachers had to nag me into doing my
homework, which was a drag to me.
It's the "instruction" I think.
Another thing to notice is that Rudolf Steiner had a preference
and knack for mathematics, but hated spelling and grammar and
couldn't write without mistakes before he was into his late teens.
If he had been like me instead, perhaps he would have suggested
that the Waldorf kids wait with math and start reading at an
early age.
I believe there's always a problem with inflexible
or fixed theories or methods or curricula that supposed to be
perfect for everybody. Learning should be a joy, not a chore,
and the kids should have some freedom too.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:27 am
Subject: Re: To Diana
Tarjei:
I think we should pay attention to the
word "instruction" here.
Agreed. And to be fair to Patrick, he referred
not to "early readers" but to kids who have had "early
reading instruction" and in a later post clarifies that
he is not opposed to "early reading" per se. (Steiner
was, though.) What we can say about "early reading instruction"
depends on what we mean by "early," "instruction,"
and even "reading."
Another thing to notice is that Rudolf
Steiner had a preference and knack for mathematics, but hated
spelling and grammar and couldn't write without mistakes before
he was into his late teens. If he had been like me instead, perhaps
he would have suggested that the Waldorf kids wait with math
and start reading at an early age.
An interesting point, except that the curriculum
and pedagogy are supposed to come from Steiner's clairvoyant
insights and are supposed to represent a universal sequence of
fixed stages in every child's spiritual development paralleling
the development of the consciousness of humanity. Hm – does
make more sense that it was just Steiner's own bias.
Diana
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
