Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 142
about much more than religious dogma. What draws many people to Waldorf
education is the deep spiritual foundation that encourages us to put aside any
dogmatic beliefs we have about the spiritual world and come to a new study
of the spiritual world based on a 20th century [sic] scientific outlook
(Karlstad, 2001-2002, p. 2).
(…) Anthroposophy is neither religious nor secular. It is a spiritual Idea trying
to find a new place in our thinking that transcends either/or categories. There
is an important difference between an Anthroposophical approach to
education and other approaches. Anthroposophy acknowledges a spiritual
basis to our lives and includes development of the spiritual side of our being
as an important part of the curriculum. This makes it appear as if it were a
religion. Rather it is a new way of looking at the world. Several hundred years
from now, the idea that our lives have spiritual dimension may be easily
incorporated into everyday, public discourse without reference to any specific
religion, or to Anthroposophy (Karlstad, 2001-2002, pp. 2-3).
Years earlier, when I had asked a Waldorf teacher what Anthroposophy is, the answer I got
was—‖the study of man.‖ I would have preferred a more honest approach, an open dialogue
about the very real differences that exist in a Waldorf reality. Better yet, I wish the brochure
I‘d received in the mail as a prospective parent, all those years ago, had informed me that
Steiner‘s esoteric religion is fundamental to Waldorf education and that reincarnation is a
main tenet of the school‘s pedagogy and curriculum. This kind of information would have
spared my family a lot of bewilderment, grief and inconvenience.
―Art‖
Having been asked to hold a fund-raiser for the school, I planned an art competition. The
winning pupil‘s work would be printed on T-shirts to be sold to raise money. I received a
phone call, then a visit. The phone call informed me that competition was not permitted at
the school. Not discouraged, and supportive of the idea of a non-competitive environment, I
suggested that instead T-shirts be printed with a pattern of tiny portraits contributed by all
the children attending the school. These portraits would be quickly drawn by pupils with
black markers on small pieces of paper, then arranged and silk-screened on shirts. Then I
learned that markers were not permitted at the school. Assuming that this was an
environmental concern, which I applauded, I recommended dark pencils be substituted.
Then I learned that pencils were not permitted in the kindergarten and that young children
should not draw linearly! How odd this seemed to me! I was familiar with the work of Rhoda
Kellogg and Howard Gardner who have documented the innate ability of children universally
to express them selves with lines. Also, the Canadian scientist Dr. John Kennedy has shown
that children born blind draw linearly. As a young child I had participated in my mother‘s
studio art classes and had never been prevented from drawing lines. I closely watched my
own daughter‘s linear expressions unfold after giving her a pencil at a very early age—
saving every drawing, planning to document one child‘s artistic expressions and progression
through childhood. Was not Waldorf art-based? Why was line-making in the early grades
taboo?
When the representative from the school who had phoned me arrived at my house she told
me that Waldorf is not an art school, that there is no art or art room in Waldorf and that the
wet-on-wet paintings made by pupils were something else—but what were they, if not art?
Why had I moved across states after graduating from the School of the Art Institute of
Chicago and giving birth to our daughter in Ohio, to give my child what we were led to
believe was an art-based, progressive, nonsectarian Waldorf education? The reality was
slowly sinking in—Waldorf did not offer the kind of art I had expected. There was no free
artistic expression. Typical children‘s drawings were missing from the classrooms. I said to
about much more than religious dogma. What draws many people to Waldorf
education is the deep spiritual foundation that encourages us to put aside any
dogmatic beliefs we have about the spiritual world and come to a new study
of the spiritual world based on a 20th century [sic] scientific outlook
(Karlstad, 2001-2002, p. 2).
(…) Anthroposophy is neither religious nor secular. It is a spiritual Idea trying
to find a new place in our thinking that transcends either/or categories. There
is an important difference between an Anthroposophical approach to
education and other approaches. Anthroposophy acknowledges a spiritual
basis to our lives and includes development of the spiritual side of our being
as an important part of the curriculum. This makes it appear as if it were a
religion. Rather it is a new way of looking at the world. Several hundred years
from now, the idea that our lives have spiritual dimension may be easily
incorporated into everyday, public discourse without reference to any specific
religion, or to Anthroposophy (Karlstad, 2001-2002, pp. 2-3).
Years earlier, when I had asked a Waldorf teacher what Anthroposophy is, the answer I got
was—‖the study of man.‖ I would have preferred a more honest approach, an open dialogue
about the very real differences that exist in a Waldorf reality. Better yet, I wish the brochure
I‘d received in the mail as a prospective parent, all those years ago, had informed me that
Steiner‘s esoteric religion is fundamental to Waldorf education and that reincarnation is a
main tenet of the school‘s pedagogy and curriculum. This kind of information would have
spared my family a lot of bewilderment, grief and inconvenience.
―Art‖
Having been asked to hold a fund-raiser for the school, I planned an art competition. The
winning pupil‘s work would be printed on T-shirts to be sold to raise money. I received a
phone call, then a visit. The phone call informed me that competition was not permitted at
the school. Not discouraged, and supportive of the idea of a non-competitive environment, I
suggested that instead T-shirts be printed with a pattern of tiny portraits contributed by all
the children attending the school. These portraits would be quickly drawn by pupils with
black markers on small pieces of paper, then arranged and silk-screened on shirts. Then I
learned that markers were not permitted at the school. Assuming that this was an
environmental concern, which I applauded, I recommended dark pencils be substituted.
Then I learned that pencils were not permitted in the kindergarten and that young children
should not draw linearly! How odd this seemed to me! I was familiar with the work of Rhoda
Kellogg and Howard Gardner who have documented the innate ability of children universally
to express them selves with lines. Also, the Canadian scientist Dr. John Kennedy has shown
that children born blind draw linearly. As a young child I had participated in my mother‘s
studio art classes and had never been prevented from drawing lines. I closely watched my
own daughter‘s linear expressions unfold after giving her a pencil at a very early age—
saving every drawing, planning to document one child‘s artistic expressions and progression
through childhood. Was not Waldorf art-based? Why was line-making in the early grades
taboo?
When the representative from the school who had phoned me arrived at my house she told
me that Waldorf is not an art school, that there is no art or art room in Waldorf and that the
wet-on-wet paintings made by pupils were something else—but what were they, if not art?
Why had I moved across states after graduating from the School of the Art Institute of
Chicago and giving birth to our daughter in Ohio, to give my child what we were led to
believe was an art-based, progressive, nonsectarian Waldorf education? The reality was
slowly sinking in—Waldorf did not offer the kind of art I had expected. There was no free
artistic expression. Typical children‘s drawings were missing from the classrooms. I said to
