Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"Alternative"

Of the two versions shown here[1], I do not see the version which ousts "humanistic" in favour of "alternative" as an improvement in the article's opening sentence. In that place, "humanistic" has some immediately recognisable content, but "alternative" is a vague expression, and in that place it is practically vacuous to the point of tautology. Some of the article's cited sources use "alternative" in their titles, but I see no mention of it in the text, while there is the intelligible statement: Tom Stehlik places Waldorf education in a humanistic tradition, and contrasts its philosophically grounded approach to "value-neutral" secular state schooling systems., which characterises this form of education in a way which is descriptively informative in a way which "alternative" cannot be. According to Wikipedia, The U.S. Department of Education describes an alternative school as “a public elementary/secondary school that: 1) addresses needs of students that typically cannot be met in a regular school; 2) provides nontraditional education; 3) serves as an adjunct to a regular school; or 4) falls outside the categories of regular, special education, or vocational education, which seems to be about something quite different from what the Waldorf education article is describing. I am not sure, but, given the use in the cited titles, maybe the 'Alterntive education' article could be made a 'See also'. Qexigator (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Stehlik made an effort to characterize the education. The paper is a reliable source. Why not use it? Jellypear (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Stehlik is a reliable primary source for his own view, and in the article body his view is properly attributed. However, this is now asserted in the lede in Wikipedia's voice as fact. This good secondary source refers to Stehilk's research refers as research into "alternative education". We should follow this (and other) secondary sources rather than what editors here personally prefer. (Add: note also this article is categorized as "Alternative education" and features in our alternative education article. Not sure why there's a move to deny the obvious in favour of calling it "humanistic" - which will be opaque to most readers.) Alexbrn (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Mere mention of "alternative" in a source is not sufficient to merit inclusion in the opening sentence, for the reasons above stated.This is not a question of personal preference but good editing practice. Qexigator (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We should follow the WP:PAGs and they call for us to base content on secondary sources. Jellypear is usually hot on this point. Alexbrn (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you like holistic better? In the original citation Stehlik writes "Steiner education can be firmly placed within the humanistic/holistic tradition, and resonates strongly with the curriculum work that Macdonald (1981) has termed “mythopoetic.” I think it is important to note that Stehlik is classifying here, as an educational scholar, rather than merely offering an opinion and we are using his classification expertise. In addition, the sources that cite him don't challenge or make an issue of his classification which should indicate to us that saying it is "humanistic" is not controversial to scholars working in this area (at least at the present moment). Personally, I'm indifferent to "alternative", "holistic" or "humanistic" which have all been used by credible sources. What do you want the sentence to be? Jellypear (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Another reference to Waldorf Education as "humanistic". "The Waldorf Schools offer an approach to humanistic education which has stood the test of time." Sarah W. Foster, "An Introduction to Waldorf Education", The Clearing House, Vol. 57, No. 5 (Jan., 1984), pp. 228-230. Jellypear (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact the wording there is to what the "schools" "offer" rather than classifying the movement. The same author has written "The Waldorf Schools: An Exploration of an Enduring Alternative School Movement". But why are we using primary sources and stating the authors' opinions as fact when we have numerous secondary sources which either explicitly interpret the primaries we use to be research into "alternative" education, or when he have titles to hand which make the classification plain? The Ashley book chapter we use is entitled "Alternative Education for the 21st Century: Philosophies, Approaches, Visions" for goodness' sake. Why not just be neutral and reflect the best secondary sources? Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So you are arguing that "holistic" and "humanistic" are not descriptive terms used by educational scholars but are value-laden judgements or personal opinions? I'm still not seeing a good reason why, if these terms are used in several RS as a way to describe and differentiate this pedagogy from other educational approaches, that wikipedia ought to avoid these terms? Jellypear (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm just wondering why we are skipping to secondary classification from an "in universe" view, and stating it as fact rather than picking the plain top-level classification that would be most understandable to lay readers. You know, like real publications do when they choose their book and chapter titles (see the sources we use). As to "holistic education"? -- that is the kind of term seemed designed more to obfuscate than explain. Brochure wording again. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Holistic Education is not merely “brochure wording”. You can familiarize yourself with holistic education here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_education. How to characterize different educational approaches is a serious concern for curriculum studies and in the philosophy of education. I think that accurately reflecting where something “fits” in relation to other things similar or different to it is one of the main tasks of an encyclopedia entry. Ron Miller prefers to call Waldorf “holistic”, Stehlik agrees and includes the term "humanistic". As for the plain top-level classification, keep in mind that not all pedagogies that are alternative are holistic or humanistic but all holistic and humanistic pedagogies are alternative – at least according to ed scholars like Stehlik and Miller. For ex., in the United States there is a growing movement to sit kids in front of computer adaptive screens for 5 hours a day with the “teacher’s” role being to float amoung the classroom of 40 students analyzing their output data and offering technical assistance and other guidance. This is surely an “alternative” to current mainstream schooling in which the teacher often begins the day with “open your books to page 47 and we’ll read aloud this passage on polar bears” but if you lump this and Waldorf together as “alternative” it is not that informative. If, however, your description says that the computer adaptive approach has a human-machine interaction pedagogy (just making that up I have no idea what pedagogical tradition to place those schools in) and Waldorf has a holistic pedagogy…well then you’ve offered some kind of useful description of the two by placing them in a larger philosophical context. If this work has been done for us by RS, why not use it? Jellypear (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem concept for me, except for its use here. To expect the reader of this article to have undergone a "familiarization" process before they can even get past the first sentence pretty much sums up what's wrong with the editing of this article. We should start with an easily-digestible concept, and dig down into detail later in the body. And follow good secondary sources rather than swerving around them to get the brouchure terms. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Alex. Our Alternative education article seems to give the reader a good idea of the meaning of what is covered here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Waldorf education is an alternative approach to education that incorporates holistic[link] and humanistic[link] teaching methods." Jellypear (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My problem with Alex's version was not with its inclusion of the term alternative, but with its exclusion of much else. I'm happy with the above solution, or something like:

• Waldorf (Steiner) education is a humanistic form of alternative education based on the educational philosophy of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy. The pedagogy emphasizes the role of imagination in learning, striving to integrate holistically the intellectual, practical, and artistic development of pupils. HGilbert (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No good sources agree on this, with "humanism" up front like this, and your proposed text quickly devolves into sales-pitch in Wikipedia's voice (your job after all to sell this stuff, eh?). Let's just follow the good secondary sources and leave the woolier concepts till later in the body when they can be explained in a way which lay readers will understand. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF, please, and pull back the aggressive tone. The task of a teacher is to teach well, not to sell anything whatsoever. HGilbert (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"No good sources agree on this..." I think the point you are missing is that there is no disagreement on the part of the sources. The schools are variously described as "alternative" "holistic" "humanistic" "arts-focused" etc., according to the needs and interests of the writers and they are all viewed as veracious and useful descriptions that aim to distinguish this approach from other approaches out there. Interestingly, I just checked Montessori, democratic schools, Quaker schools and Reggio schools and none of those pages refer to the education as "alternative". I'm not opposed to the term "alternative" if you or anyone else thinks it is helpful but all of these pages start with three things 1) who founded the approach and when 2) what is the stated goal or purpose of the schools and what is the method being used. They're filled with language that looks like "brochure speak" on the face of it but if you read them all together very different goals and methods are being discussed.

The Reggio Emilia Approach is an educational philosophy focused on preschool and primary education. It was developed by Loris Malaguzzi, who was a teacher himself, and the parents of the villages around Reggio Emilia in Italy after World War II… The aim of this approach is teaching how to make them useful in everyday life. The program is based on the principles of respect, responsibility, and community through exploration and discovery in a supportive and enriching environment based on the interests of the children through a self-guided curriculum.

Friends Schools are institutions that provide an education based on the beliefs and testimonies of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Friends schools vary greatly, both in their interpretation of Quaker principles and in how they relate to formal organizations that make up the Society of Friends. Most Friends schools are similar in their mission however: to provide an academically sound education while also instilling values of community, spirituality, responsibility and stewardship in their students.

Montessori education is an educational approach developed by Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori and characterized by an emphasis on independence, freedom within limits, and respect for a child’s natural psychological, physical, and social development.

Democratic education is an educational ideal in which democracy is both a goal and a method of instruction. It brings democratic values to education and can include self-determination within a community of equals, as well as such values as justice, respect and trust. Democratic education is often specifically emancipatory, with the students' voices being equal to the teacher's.Jellypear (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this: "Waldorf (Steiner) education is a form of alternative education based on the educational philosophy of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy. The pedagogy emphasizes the role of imagination in learning, striving to integrate holistically the intellectual, practical, and artistic development of pupils." Jellypear (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As discussed so far, the proposed wording may read better thus: "Waldorf (Steiner) education is a form of alternative education <+>, introduced in Stuttgart in 1919 at the first Waldorf school,</+> based on the educational philosophy of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy....." In my view (see comment below) the inclusion of "alternative" in this opening sentence would be less than informative, detracting from a concise characterisation of this education, whether or not "alternative" is sometimes used for some purposes for an indefinite category, which has no meaning beyond "otherness", without at the same time mentioning the other contrasting alternative. Qexigator (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Or simply "Waldorf (Steiner) education is based on the educational philosophy of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy. The pedagogy emphasizes the role of imagination in learning, striving to integrate holistically the intellectual, practical, and artistic development of pupils. HGilbert (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That gets my vote. It follows the format of the other types of education mentioned above as it simply states who developed it and what is the basic approach taken. Qexigator I completely agree with you that using the phase "alternative education", while somewhat descriptive, mainly summons the question "alternative to what". What do others think? Can we put this to bed and move on to other things? Jellypear (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely cap A for Anthroposophy there? He did not found anthroposophy, any more than the founders of the Theosophical Society founded theosophy. That wording would be acceptable, but there is no need there to put "the Austrian philosopher": it suffices to put "based on the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy". Qexigator (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I still tend to favor the use of alternative education in the lead as it gives our reader a way to place this style of education in the wider circle of types of educational methods. It seems like a pretty good article to me and Waldorf, for one, is mentioned in the article.

@ Alex - this sort of talk, your job after all to sell this stuff, eh? is absolutely not OK here. Please be civil to the editors here who are working for consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I was curious and did a survey of how encyclopedias of education describe Waldorf, for what it's worth:

• One uses the phrase "alternatives to state schooling” unambiguously (Woods’ Education for the 21st century), one the phrase "regarded as alternative" (Farenga/Ness' Encyclopedia of education and human development), which is slightly different, and one describes Waldorf as an "alternative to Germany’s socially conservative, stratified school system" (Marlow-Ferguson, World Education Encyclopedia), which whole phrase would have to be included to keep the sense of the passage.
• Two use the phrase "independent school" (Cochran & New, Early Childhood Education: An International Encyclopedia; Unger’s Encyclopedia of American Education), not alternative school
• One uses "Holistic education" and "developmentally based education" (Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy, D. C. Phillips)
• Four never use alternative but offer no clear alternative formulation (Guthrie’s Encyclopedia of Education; Hayes Encyclopedia of Primary Education; Hunt & Lasley, Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent; McCulloch & Crook, The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Education)

That's a total of 1 using "alternative" straightforwardly, 1 using it ambiguously ("regarded as alternative"), 1 using it to contrast with a specific context within Germany, and 7 not using the phrase at all. It certainly does not seem to be an essential characterization.

To make matters worse, the term is more than a little confusing, for in the UK, "Alternative provision" and "Alternative education provision" refer to education for children with academic or social special needs, or are "at risk". This is sometimes the case in the states too![2]. To make things even more confusing, alternative school can also "refer to a school that provides a learner centered informal education" in the style of Summerhill. HGilbert (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but those are encyclopedias of education which is quite different than WP. It would be assumed that anyone reading the examples that you offer does not need to first understand the broad concept of alternative education since the works themselves are descriptions of the different (alternative) types of education. (or something like that--I'm up way past my bedtime) :) Gandydancer (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Gandy: Given that humanistic is not "waffle" as one commenter has asserted, and that some readers may have, and others not have, pre-conceived ideas about 'education' or 'alternative' or 'alternative education', how can we suppose that in the opening sentence using "alternative" will be helpful to readers who do not know the usage here intended and may be none the wiser after following the link to Traditional education and finding 'alternative education is the opposite of traditional but also somehow distinct from Progressive education ("a pedagogical movement that began in the late 19c.") and "modern" educational approaches based on developmental psychology? Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

+ I have inserted an inline link to alt.ed.[3]Qexigator (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't like that new edit Qexigator but rather than reverse it straightaway I decided to make a comment here. It adds a new (and seemingly random) idea about a single book at the end of a paragraph about the history and diffusion of Waldorf ed. Why highlight this particular book when no other books are highlighted in the text? I think we've had a thorough discussion of the merits of "alternative ed" to describe of Waldorf ed and we now know more about what the RS have said. So, good for us. The current intro sentence is informative, neutral and doesn't require too much outside expertise on the part of readers nor does it call upon existing ideas readers may have (such as "alternative" schooling in the UK perhaps being for students that need special accomodation). Let's get going on that "to do" list so we can remove the advertisement tag. Jellypear (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that sensible comment, but the edit in question leaves it open to others to expand with similar works related to npov reporting on the extent to which the locution "alternative education medicine" has been considered by reliable sources to have any connection or disconnection with Waldorf education, without unduly discoursing on this side issue. Comments on this page seem to suggest there is some need for a mention of some kind. As to what section to put this in, it can be seen as part of the History, and follows on from the statement cited in the paragraph before: In recent years, China has seen a major expansion of alternative teaching establishments such as those that operate under the educational principles of Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner. But it may be better to treat it as peripheral only, and leave it at "See also" instead. Qexigator (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture in trying to include the alternative idea, but agree with @Jellypear that the way it is formulated doesn't fit well. There are many descriptions of WE that can be found in books; why single out this one? HGilbert (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, here are three examples which show conclusively that 'alternative education' has no place in the article:

• A Publication of the National Dropout Prevention Center, South Carolina,[4]
• 'The Real Meaning of Alternative Education' Focal Point A National Bulletin on Family Support and Children's Mental Health (2001),[5] and
• Definition: Alternative schools are designed to educate students who have not been successful in regular schools, often because of behavior, disciplinary, and safety concerns. An alternative school may involve a range of different educational settings other than the typical school. Many alternative schools have regular and special education programs and use building-wide behavior intervention programs.[6]

Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there any disagreement with this being used as the first para?

Waldorf (Steiner) education is based on the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy. The pedagogy emphasizes the role of imagination in learning, striving to integrate holistically the intellectual, practical, and artistic development of pupils. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, it is acceptable, the best so far offered, and, in view of comment on this page, we can let it be and now move on. Qexigator (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(The following 2 comments were moved here to make a coherent discussion):

We cannot assume that an inquirer coming to the topic afresh knows what is the 'other' of the two alternatives. Why should s/he? Given the use of 'alternative' in the titles of some of the sources, to my mind it makes sense to link Alternative education as a 'See also', but the content of that article itself shows that it is, in this context, no more than tautologous, even after following through to Traditional education and finding 'alternative education is the opposite of traditional but also somehow distinct from Progressive education ("a pedagogical movement that began in the late 19c.") and "modern" educational approaches based on developmental psychology. But to use the term humanistic in the opening sentence directly gives the reader a classifier or descriptor which is npov, valid and generally accepted, with definite content derived from longstanding usage. To assert otherwise is to make a straw man with possible intent to prove a particular pov which regards 'humanistic' as waffle, a poor starting point for credible editing, perhaps least of all about education. Qexigator (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a See Also (in the wrong place) when Alternative education is already navigable as this article's first category. See also links are generally for tangential topics. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree -- perhaps you have a suggestion for a good way to weave the term in? HGilbert (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be, not at an impasse, but at a roundabout interchange,[7] after converging by more than one route, and now uncertain who will enter the interchange first and find the exit for further progress. From UK Highway Code (184-190): "On approaching a roundabout take notice and act on all the information available to you...decide as early as possible which exit you need to take...be aware of the speed and position of all the road users around you...check whether road markings allow you to enter the roundabout without giving way. If so, proceed, but still...watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all...select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout...In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to...traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly...At double mini-roundabouts treat each roundabout separately and give way to traffic from the (driver's side)...At some complex junctions, there may be a series of mini-roundabouts at each intersection. Treat each mini-roundabout separately and follow the normal rules." Qexigator (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's right. And if some people are not following the rules you end up with a bunch of cars pointing at the circular green portion in the center, and all honking their horns, because they are unable to move in any direction. That is what happened to me in Boston at Christmas shopping time season. That does not happen in Minnesota (Minnesota Nice) because people in Minnesota follow the traffic rules. :P Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, all the world knows that people in Minnesota are strong, good looking and above average.[8] Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL Gandydancer & Qexigator! Jellypear (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Advert Tag

Can we get a specific list of "promotional" passages that need to be addressed? Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Various improvements have been made and are in progress. Meantime, lacking specifics, one bellicose editor's tag is not a consensus for retaining it.[9] Qexigator (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a RfC ongoing and its direction is plain: we have a problem with this article reading like a "hard sell". Editors have made comments (e.g. "Sources that may not be neutral are used to support statements in the article that are in WP's voice") and attempts to address this - starting with the very opening sentences of the lede with its "humanistic" waffle - are being reverted. The problem runs through the entire article in pretty much every section. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What are these "sources that may not be neutral"? Please name them so we can get to the bottom of this. I have already argued that the term "humanistic" is a description viewed offered by one ed scholar and that there is NO discussion in the RS literature suggesting any active controversy about this classification. So any "humanistic waffle" does not come from within the body of RS, which we are obliged to use as the basis of our editing. On the other hand, we don't need to use "humanistic". We could chose a different classification used by ed scholars. Using it does not mean that wikipedia is taking some kind of position any more than using "holistic" or "alternative pedagogy" would. Once again, will editors please offer a specific list of passages that make this entry written as "an advertisement" with "promotional content and inappropriate external links" and without "encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view."Jellypear (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to note that there has been no reply to repeated requests to specify which sources are problematic. Please stop claiming this is a general problem if you cannot give a single concrete example. HGilbert (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a primary classification, it's a view about the tradition WE sits in (I have no disgreement with relaying that, properly framed). The problem is to a new reader coming to this topic fresh we should choose, at the outset, the highest possible level of classification in accord with the best sources. A secondary concern is that the article is being massaged because the word "alternative" does not sit happily with the preferred PR narrative of the Waldorf movement. I find it odd editors are effectively arguing against what is plain in secondary sources. As to specific examples, plenty have been given above of "problem" wording; by and large, those have not been addresses but we get more demands for specifics. Please read what has been said and try and engage with it before demanding more. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll work on the specifics above. I'm looking for a "to do" list that we can work on to reach resolution of this matter. Jellypear (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Alex (or others) needs to make a to do list as well. It is my impression that all editors are interested in improving the article, but we must be able to see what needs to be done spelled out in a concrete way much the same as when a reviewer lists the improvements needed to produce a GA. In that way editors can work on issues and check them off as improvements are completed. With no list editors become frustrated feeling that there is no forward movement. IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The challenge with the list given above is that @Alexbrn chose to critique passages with multiple citations to independent authorities. If the best sources describe Waldorf in these terms, should we not adopt their descriptive vocabulary? It seems to me that we should not be interposing evaluations of our own (in either direction), but rather seek to accurately represent how the best RSs characterize the education.

Perhaps Alex can propose how he would modify the statements while adequately representing the sources they cite. HGilbert (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I am a reasonably intelligent person. My IQ puts me at just a few numbers below what is considered as a person smart enough to brag that I'm a member of MENSA. But I'm just totally lost when it comes to the arguments here and what needs to be done to correct them. It is in my nature to want to break things down into small segments that can be dealt with, resolve them, and then move on to the next. Otherwise one is left with a traffic jam (see example above) where nobody can move forward. As far as I can tell we have resolved the opening para. Could we resolve one more problem and then move on to the next?

Getting real

Let's go one by one through the above.

Keep posting these and I'll keep tracking down the original citations as I have time. Assistance from other editors is welcomed, especially the editors who believe that these are not RS or that the text does not faithfully represent the sources. Also, editors should be very careful about citing the exact page they are citing in the future. It is time-consuming to go back and find it after the fact. I haven't read many of these sources in over a year.Jellypear (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

1

• From article

American state and private schools are drawing on Waldorf education – "less in whole than in part" – in expanding numbers.

• Discussion

What's the problem? HGilbert (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Language closely adheres to the original text of a RS. Here is the direct quote from the source. It can be found on page 81. I recall that the Harvard Education Letter (blanking on the author of that piece at the moment) says something similar about the expansion of Waldorf schools.

"Rudolf Steiner, a German educator who in the early part of the 20th century developed the Waldorf system of education, is another whose ideas are reproduced, often less in whole than in part, in many schools today." Jellypear (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Notifications

If anyone here has sent me a message please note that a change in the Wikipedia system seems to have disabled my access, click as I might. Do others have this problem? Qexigator (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Now seems to be back in working order. Qexigator (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"brand and messaging"

As a guide for what could be unacceptably promotional, the article can be compared with AWSNA's 'brand essence map' (p.17).[10] I see nothing in the article that should be purged by reason of resemblance to anything in the 'map', but the map may be seen by editors as a useful checklist of points for inclusion in the article in npov, non-promotional style. Qexigator (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Useful comparison, perhaps. But that probably shouldn't be an external link for the article. I'm removing it, but would not battle over the issue if you really feel it needs be here. HGilbert (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What category?

Can anyone explain the anomaly of including 'Alternative education' in the Category box ? As a result of discussion on this page, I have been looking for a rationale for it, but there seems to be none. It first appeared there in January 2006[11]. It may have been one of those mistakes made in good faith, and, after a break from July 2012, the contributor was editing other articles in January 2015. To take two examples of distinctive types of school in UK, where one name self-identifies 20-30 schools:

• Bluecoat school = Category:Bluecoat schools
• Woodard Schools = Category:Woodard Schools

Both of those groups are alternative to the public system of education, and have a distinct ethos of their own. The other Categories in the box are: Anthroposophy, Philosophy of education, Pedagogy, School types, Waldorf education, 1919 introductions, Progressive education: none of those are anomalous. In the USA, if Waldorf schools are private schools, why is that not also a Category? Qexigator (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Category structure: it might conform more to WP category structure were Category:Waldorf education to be created as a subcategory of Alternative Education, and this article associated with that subcategory. This is what has been done for Category:Montessori education and Category:Democratic education, for example.

Regarding the other point: there are both private and public Waldorf schools. I'm not sure what that means for categorization! HGilbert (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But, as mentioned above, here are three examples which show conclusively that 'alternative education' has no place in the article, and equally is not properly in that Category, nor, so far as I can see, is Montessori education, which has the categories Educational psychology, Pedagogy, Montessori education (q.v.)

• A Publication of the National Dropout Prevention Center, South Carolina,[12]
• 'The Real Meaning of Alternative Education' Focal Point A National Bulletin on Family Support and Children's Mental Health (2001),[13] and
• Definition: Alternative schools are designed to educate students who have not been successful in regular schools, often because of behavior, disciplinary, and safety concerns. An alternative school may involve a range of different educational settings other than the typical school. Many alternative schools have regular and special education programs and use building-wide behavior intervention programs.[14]

Qexigator (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments: allegations of promotional tone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a critique that this article has a promotional tone. I'm listing all the objections made above separately, so that each may be discussed.

Claim of Sources from within movement

The claim has been made that there are too many sources from within the Waldorf movement. A request for examples was ignored, so that the claim has not been supported by a single concrete instance.

As far as I can see, the citations in this article are all to WP:Reliable sources. The only times sources internal to the Waldorf movement are used is for matters of fact such as school counts, which are not under dispute here. HGilbert (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Claim of Promotionalism

A number of specific passages have been critiqued as "promotional" in tone, as well as the article generally.

I believe it is important to differentiate between descriptions of an institution's intent or mission, and what it actually accomplishes. It should be possible to describe both, so long as it is clear which is being referred to. It seems to me the critique is confusing the two; it is not promotional to say that a school system has as one of its chief goals (fill in the blank), so long as it is clear that this does not constitute a claim that the system achieves this.

All the passages listed above as problematic are given here with the original citations (in one case no citation was originally given, but one is provided here). The latter seem to me to meet WP:RS in every case.

1. "Steiner/Waldorf education is fundamentally about the development of free-thinking individuals"

   This source was praised by the same editor criticizing this quote. If it is a good source, quotes from it should be acceptable in the article.

   Resolved by replacing quote with a clearer and more comprehensive one (by the same author). HGilbert (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

2. " In order that students can connect more deeply with the subject matter, "

   Excellent sources

3. "Elementary school educators' stated task is to present a role model children will naturally want to follow,"

   Is there any doubt that this is what the "stated task" is? But I have added two citations for this, and filled out the statement using one of the sources added. HGilbert (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

4. The overarching goals are to provide young people the basis on which to develop into free, morally responsible and integrated individuals, with the aim of helping young people "go out into the world as free, independent and creative beings".

   Excellent source

5. " to cultivate a sense of the "meaningful wholeness of nature; a wholeness from which the human being is not separated or alienated""

   Excellent source

6. "Waldorf education is infused with spirituality throughout the curriculum, "

   Excellent sources

   Resolved by removing quote (the theme is already covered in better language elsewhere in article)

7. " a high degree of creative autonomy" , ;exact quote is "One of Waldorf education's central premises is that all educational and cultural institutions should be self-governing and should grant teachers a high degree of creative autonomy within the school"

   Excellent sources

8. "American state and private schools are drawing on Waldorf education ... in expanding numbers.".

   Statement of fact supported by academic-published source HGilbert (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC Comment: As a neutral editor, I see the problem here to be that the comment below ("Survey") needlessly mentions FCOI and arbcom, making that comment look more like pursuit of a vendetta than a dispassionate editorial evaluation on the merits. That is not to say that the article is in perfect shape: few are, but let improvements be made in npov manner. I see small reason for quibbling about the sources listed above numbered 1 to 8, but the use made of them in their contexts in the article may deserve some tweaking or trimming. Qexigator (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Survey

• Yes, we have a problem. This is not a very helpfully framed RfC, since it omits mention of the objections to the current article because of it's cherry-picked sourcing and omissions of critical material. However, even within the examples shown the article's problem's are apparent. It is not enough that text in our articles can be defended as somehow mirroring some text in a source. Sources must be reliable, must be used fairly and with due weight. This is not was has been happening in this article. To take just the first example, our article has, as a brochure-like "pull quote":Steiner/Waldorf education is fundamentally about the development of free-thinking individuals

Yet the source has much more pertinent to say, since this statement devolves around what people in the Steiner movement believe, having as context, e.g.: :Ogeltree (1998) in a large international study of 234 Waldorf/Steiner schools found that over 90 percent of the teachers believed that Steiner/Waldorf education develops free-thinking individuals. [my bold]

The full sentence in the source is thus treating this as a proposition to be considered, not an absolute statement of fact. The full sentence (we give no indication, BTW, that we have elided text) is:Given that Steiner/Waldorf education is fundamentally about the development of free-thinking individuals, it is reasonable to ask if this is achieved. [my bold]

And so, crucially, the source then goes on to qualify the text Wikipedia uses with this omitted material:It is difficult to assess however, whether Steiner/Waldorf schools really do achieve this aim. We were presented with much anecdotal evidence during our own study, but as with the two studies above, it was compromised through originating from within the Steiner/Waldorf movement itself.

Later in the source there is a related discussion of how Steiner alumni's "surfeit of individuality" may sit uneasily with democratic societies. But we do not mention this either, thus being partial in our approach to the source. So, overall this is a rather partial use of the source which results in Wikipedia being used for promotionalism. It should also be noted that the instigator of the RfC, who has a FCOI, has been censured by arbcom before for promotional editing and incautious use of sources. So the problem we have in this article is a chronic one. Unfortunately, it is going to be necessary for neutral editors to go through the text and sourcing in detail to try and undo all the damage that has been done. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The source treats the intention and the achievement quite properly as two independent questions. It is very clear about the intention, and this can properly be quoted. It concludes that there is insufficient data to determine the actual achievement in this regard. This could also be mentioned in a neutral way. HGilbert (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have a problem with cherry-picking and accuracy;

1. Ashley's statement that many state teachers and parents "would" find the role of spiritual guidance problematic was changed to "have proved problematic," a completely different claim.
2. Ashley's statement "Anthroposophy underpins a pedagogy of education toward freedom that sees schools and teachers charged with the sacred task of helping the child’s threefold being (body, soul, and spirit) to incarnate" was changed to read "Anthroposophy forms the basis of Waldorf education, which is seen as a sacred task in which a child's threefold being is helped, with the aid of schoolteachers, to move from a prior spiritual state and become flesh in the real world of the present." The emphasis on freedom, which is consistent throughout Ashley's text, was dropped completely. I have placed Ashley's exact wording in the article now to avoid any danger of cherry-picking on either side. HGilbert (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, poorly formed RfC. First, I agree that the RfC is poorly formed. The POV of the OP very evident; if an OP cannot understand both sides of an issue, the OP should ask others to state the opposing side, not dismiss it as part of the RfC intro. Perhaps as a result of this, the RfC has quickly dispersed to several smaller issues, so it's hard to know where I should respond to the RfC. Okay, now for my attempt to respond to the RfC...
• Yes, promotional. Sources that may not be neutral are used to support statements in the article that are in WP's voice. Also several peacock and weasel words have gotten in; even if a source uses such words, WP shouldn't. Some critique of the system is present, but enfeebled and dis-proportionally under-developed, such as California court challenges are mentioned, but in a single sentence, and doesn't even say why it was challenged. Whatever arguing individual issues may do, the article as a whole ends up unbalanced. For the record, I like what I've heard about these schools, but not what I read here. In total, it comes off as a hard sell; readers will be put off by this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: That seems more or less fair comment, and I feel some tweaking would improve the article here and there, but overall it looks like a reasonable description of the topic, and as I look at the archives, it seems it has not been easy to save the article from going the other way and becoming unduly hostile. Qexigator (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it does say exactly why they were challenged. Are we looking at the same section? And what sources are you talking about? HGilbert (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• very poorly formed RFC, but yes, the content is overly promotional and relies too much on non-independent sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but the above request to name any non-independent sources (used for something other than undisputed facts such as counts of schools or history, as in footnotes 20-27 and 115-120) has received not a single response. Can you give examples, please? HGilbert (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm here via the RFC but I can't make heads/tails of it. Is the issue promotional tone and proper sourcing? Most of the example footnotes above are not "excellent sources" (well, perhaps they are for other things, but...)—extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Statements on the nature of Waldorf education, especially overview parts, should not be sourced to individual studies in journals but to tertiary source works that provide an overview of the topic. (E.g., lit reviews of Waldorf education, definitive histories, feature articles in magazines). This is to say that the sources in this article should be mostly from the overview level and not from studies of individual schools, which would be better served for smaller claims (and even then would be best when vetted by another source). This article needs a lot of work, which is surprising for something so heavily edited. The numerous low-level headings should be obliterated and the prose restructured for a better overview of the topic. The two-sentence paragraphs and frequent bullet lists should be restructured as prose. Apply liberal amounts of TNT.  – czar 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar: I very much appreciate your suggestions, and we can work on the structure.

RE the citation problems you mention: as far as I can tell, only example 6 above is sourced to an individual study, and (as noted above, directly below the example itself) the text was long ago removed because the same content appears elsewhere, but better sourced. All the other examples have citations to tertiary sources as per your description (research reviews, book-length analyses, chapter-length treatments in books devoted to a range of alternative pedagogies, in-depth magazine articles). Can you point to one which does not (other than the removed #6)? HGilbert (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Going forward

Right now we have a series of well-sourced statements that are being critiqued. It's hard to see how to go forward with these.HGilbert (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Let us go forward. Of 1 to 8 above, 1. has been done, while, given that the sources are acceptable, the text of the others is acceptably descriptive of the article topic, with the possible exception of 6."Waldorf education is infused with spirituality throughout the curriculum", which may be seen as voice of WP unless tweaked, and may be better left out: infused with spirituality is not too helpful without some fuller explanation, which, if sufficient in another sort of context, would probably be excessive ("undue") here. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

+ Item 6: Is there not some (unhelpfully confusing) duplication in this passage and section with what is written under 'Anthroposophical basis'? I feel the 'Spirituality' section would be improved by tweaking the lead sentence to read more simply:

Waldorf education is infused with spirituality throughout the curriculum, educating children aims to educate children about a wide range of religious traditions without favoring any one of these.< ref name="McDermott _etal"/ >

As it stands, that passage of the article appears to reduce the "spirituality" "infusing" the curriculum to "a wide range of religious traditions without favoring any one of these", which is too commonplace to be worth special mention, and (in my view) is no better than verbiage. If, instead of any particular explanation in this article, a link is made to "Spirituality", the reader would find this: Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity, personal growth, or blissful experience. It is often separated from organized religious institutions, as in the phrase "spiritual but not religious". Traditionally, spirituality refers to a process of re-formation of the personality to live a life according to divine will, but there is no single, agreed-upon definition of spirituality.... Surveys of the definition of the term, as used in scholarly research, show a broad range of definitions, with very limited similitude. etc. Would that be good enough? In fact, Steiner proposed a definite philosophical foundation for linking spiritual activity with what in his native German language is named "freiheit". The title of Rita Stebbing's 1992 translation was " The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity: A Philosophy of Freedom" (my italics): that looks as well said as could be in English for an encapsulation in less than a dozen words of Steiner's intentions here.[15], and Metaxa's translation of 1923 has the title "The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity". [[16]]

Qexigator (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You are correct; historically the passage in item 6 stems from a time before the separate section on the 'Anthroposophical basis' even existed. Nice catch. HGilbert (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

At least way back to June 2007, I see: Throughout the curriculum, Waldorf education is implicitly infused with spirituality; one school review committee described this as "an appreciation of the complexity and mystery of both nature and human experience."[17] Qexigator (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

...' free-thinking individuals'...

This passage: Most Waldorf teachers believe that the Waldorf system produces free-thinking individuals, but it is difficult to know whether this is really so because the evidence for it comes from within the Waldorf system, and so is considered unreliable does not make much sense from any point of view, regardless of source, but it seems to imply a pov opposed to letting education have the production of free-thinking individuals as a principle or a principal objective. Is the article on Waldorf education the place to make a politically or philosophically biased point of that kind? All in all, it is better to let the article be trimmed and leave out this tendentious passage, which anyway lacks informative value. Is the passage based on the supposition that other teachers, and other thinking people generally, hold that the education offered, for example in public schools of USA, does not have the production of free-thinking individuals as a professed aim or purpose? Is there evidence for that, and where is it discussed? Or is there a view that the Waldorf system has that aim and purpose no less than others? What criteria apply for evaluating any of the systems in this respect? The Education article includes A right to education has been recognized... Right to education (my quoting selectively) includes "passing on the social, cultural, spiritual and philosophical values of the particular community": what does that mean in relation to English speaking countries of north America and western Europe or in the south eastern part of the globe (Australia, NZ)? Do not the sort of democratic institutions and professed values which have evolved there have the production of free-thinking individuals as an aim or purpose for modern education? See also Liberal education. How does it compare with education offered or prescribed in other countries? We may suppose that Waldorf teachers are not alone in seeing education, especially of children, as a sacred task, free from scare quotes. Qexigator (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's how a high-quality secondary source comments on the system. We reflect such sources here to build an encyclopedia. It's one of the least problematic pieces of text in the entire article in that respect! Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken in your evaluation, for the reasons I have stated above, whether or not it suits your pov, which appears not to be entirely without some bias. You should reconsider your position on this, but I am happy to agf. Qexigator (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In what way am I mistaken? This is what this very good source says on this topic; we relay it fairly and plainly (not like it was before). This is the essence of building an encyclopedia. What we don't want to do is to remove any content that fails to hit the promotional note this article otherwise so consistently sounds - that would be to perpetuate the whitewashing problem. The key to a neutral article is to make a fair summary of accepted knowledge in WP:RS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict...

Actually Qexigator, Alexbrn is not mistaken. We cannot and must not analyze our sources for their so called truth. An encyclopedia is a sum of all published human knowledge but does not include an analysis of that knowledge as might be the case in an academic or research paper. We are in effect gathering the information that has been published on the topic rather than commenting in any way in our articles on those topics.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

Please read my comment at the top of this section, which is not about the source but about the use made of it in the article: its quality was manifestly below par. Qexigator (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of using space to say that nothing is known about something? HGilbert (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Settled issue HGilbert (talk)

• Yes, settled. Qexigator (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we follow fundamental policy and properly reflect what the best sources say. No amount of argument not based in policy will overturn that. You do not have to "see the point" for the views in strong RS to become eligible for inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Waldorf education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051001100719/http://steinercollege.edu:80/At%20Risk%20Youth/AMonks%20article.pdf to http://www.steinercollege.edu/At%20Risk%20Youth/AMonks%20article.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726144412/http://www.hearttohand.org/PDF/Boston_Globe_Waldorf_Way.pdf to http://www.hearttohand.org/PDF/Boston_Globe_Waldorf_Way.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Misc

Jellypear: The article link to "AWSNA, Registered Trademarks" seems to be in need of repair. Qexigator (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have taken care of this. HGilbert (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Waldorf education → Steiner Waldorf education – In some countries the schools are known as Waldorf schools, but in other countries they are known as Steiner schools. Choosing one of these name are confusing to people that only knows of the other one, so I suggest that the page name is changed to Steiner Waldorf education, so that everybody has a chance to make the correct association, no matter which of names they are used to or looking for. This is surely the reasoning behind the name "Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship", "the membership organisation for all the Steiner schools and independent Steiner Early Years settings in the UK and Ireland", as it says on their web site (http://www.steinerwaldorf.org/). To mention Steiner in the page name is especially appropriate since we are talking about Steiner Waldorf education, and not purely the name of the schools; I would argue that the educational system is even more closely linked to Rudolf Steiner's name than the schools, per se. The exact page name could be written as Steiner Waldorf education or Steiner/Waldorf education, or something slightly different. The important thing is to mention both Steiner and Waldorf in the name. The old name should be a redirect to the new one, obviously. Dash (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a valid point. While the current redirects allow anyone looking for either name to find their way here, why should one name be preferred over the other?

The disadvantage to changing the article's name to Steiner Waldorf education is that virtually no one (other than the UK Fellowship) ever uses this mouthful in practice. People either say Waldorf education or Steiner education. WP:Article titles suggests the criteria are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. We are faced with a choice between precision, on the one hand, and naturalness and conciseness, on the other. I don't know which should be given priority. HGilbert (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that this is a trade-off, but I would rather say that the choice is between Recognizability and Precision on one side versus Conciseness on the other. The Naturalness criterion is "unstable" in this case, since two completely different names are used on the same concept, thus Naturalness is not a criterion that will guide us in one particular direction. Dash (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure this proposed change would be an overall improvement to the current approach. The schools are known as Waldorf Schools (and trademarked as such) in North America. In addition, the international organization is translated as "Friends of Waldorf". The page title in German Wikipedia is "Waldorf School". "Steiner Schools" seems to be a term favored by the UK (but also Australia and New Zealand). For some reason "Waldorf" didn't catch on there as much as "Steiner" did. Although I can appreciate that "Waldorf" is unexpected for readers in the UK and these other English speaking countries, the term "Steiner-Waldorf" would be very strange to readers in North America as the schools are never called "Steiner-Waldorf" schools here and the trademark only encompasses the phrase "Waldorf School". Jellypear (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant non-English speaking countries are in the naming of the English language wikipedia page, but since you mentioned the German name, I will add that the education/schools are known only as "Steiner" in Denmark, Finland, and Norway. I see that the French page is called Steiner-Waldorf. I don't know if that is because of the same type of compromise the UK Fellowship is using (and I am proposing here), or if they actually use the mouthful in normal parlance. My main argument for the change is that the leap from "Steiner" to "Steiner Waldorf", and from "Waldorf" to "Steiner Waldorf" surely is smaller than the leap from "Steiner" to "Waldorf" (or "Waldorf" to "Steiner"). The suggestion is a typical compromise - a solution no one really loves, but not a truly bad choice either (which the present is for the "Steiner" only camp). Dash (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. HGilbert (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I continue to disagree and feel that the redirect handles the matter appropriately because entitling the page "Steiner-Waldorf Education" would mean imposing the UK-based variant for all English speaking Wikipedia readers rather than acknowledging that it is a variant unique to some countries but never used in the United States or in Germany, where Waldorf originated. In the UK people are already using the two terms Steiner-Waldorf both in public parlance and in the official names of their organizations. Since both words are commonly used together, the redirect shouldn't be a problem. This isn't the case in the United States. It is known simply as "Waldorf education" in public parlance and legally. Another matter to consider is that of the growing number of Waldorf-inspired schools in the United States. There is no such thing as a Steiner-Waldorf-inspired school. In my view, "Waldorf eduction" is something pursued by schools that call themselves "Waldorf schools" in North America (after the original "Waldorfschule" in Stuttgart, Germany and after waldorfpedagogik) and "Steiner Schools" in the UK, Australia and NZ. We needn't confuse the educational approach (which is directly translated as waldorf pedagogy) with how the schools are called in their local context. So...it seems I am a Yank through-and-through on this topic!! Why must the page be re-titled to enshrine the daft British way when they should have called their schools Waldorf schools to begin with! ;) It seems a bigger issue for Wikipedia to use the parenthetical title rather than the original: either Waldorf pedagogy or, more simply, Waldorf education. Jellypear (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In my view, Jellypear's reasoning is acceptable also from a UK pov with local knowledge (and see my Oppose below). Qexigator (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose : I would be inclined to leave as is, given that

_search for "Steiner education"[18] gives redirect[19], and sundry articles where "Steiner" is a keyword.

_Waldorf lists "Waldorf education, an educational philosophy".

_The opening words of the article itself resolves the point: ""Waldorf (Steiner) education..."

_A websearch (Google)[20] results:

"Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship – What is Steiner Education? Rudolf Steiner & Steiner Schools. The first Steiner school opened in Stuttgart in 1919 for children of workers at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory",

"Waldorf education - Wikipedia: Waldorf (Steiner) education is based on the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner...",

"Why are Steiner schools so controversial? - BBC News: ... My first encounter with Steiner education was some years ago.",

"About SEA - Steiner Education Australia: Steiner Education Australia is the not for profit national association/peak body representing over 40 Steiner/Waldorf schools and 10 Associate members ..."

Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Search page for "Steiner Education Australia"[21] gives: "Steiner Schools Australia", etc. Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, there is no solution that works for everybody. By the official count, there are 84 schools located in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand and thus presumably using the term "Steiner school" and 143 schools located in the US and Canada, and thus presumably using the term "Waldorf school." There is no overwhelming consensus in either direction, albeit a slight advantage to the term "Waldorf school." Steiner-Waldorf or Waldorf-Steiner is almost never used. What about Waldorf (Steiner) education as a title, with redirects from all variants? (I'm just exploring options here.) HGilbert (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If acceptable to others, will not oppose. But when "Waldorf (Steiner)" was used as a search term, the only web result was the opening words of the article itself, followed by seven others which did not have that exactly but, eg "Characteristics of Steiner Waldorf Education | ECSWE: The European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education.", and then the eighth "DC's Improbable Science: The true nature of Steiner (Waldorf) education. Mystical barmpottery at taxpayers’ expense[22] Qexigator (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think the hyphenated or parenthesized "Steiner" is helpful. Follow the article naming conventions and stick to the common name—if it's enough to switch from one to the other so be it, but I have yet to see such an argument compellingly made. As it stands, I see no reason to change the status quo.  czar 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Leave it as is, link to it from whatever other terms are used, and clearly point out in the lede which terms are used where. Creating a bastardized version for the title doesn't seem like a good idea to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 05:58, February 9, 2016‎

• There seems to be no great enthusiasm for this. Let's leave it as is for now and ensure that redirects exist from every possible alternative. HGilbert (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two science sections merged

@‎Totodu74 added a science section with nearly identical material to the existing section. I have merged the two. As the material on the PLANS case is already referenced in other sections of the article, I left this out, but am open to suggestions that it should be included in this section as well in some form or another. HGilbert (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Excessive external links, moved from article

Per WP:ELNO and WP:NOTDIR, I've moved these from the article to here. If and as they are useful, they should be digested into the article as proper references.

• Education Section at the Rudolf Steiner Archive, An Online Library
• Gallery of Waldorf student artwork

Studies

• Research papers - Outcomes for Waldorf/Steiner School Students
• Larrison, Abigail L., Alan J. Daly, and Carol VanVooren. 2012. "Twenty Years and Counting: A Look at Waldorf in the Public Sector Using Online Sources" Current Issues in Education 15:3.
• 2008 overview of all Australian academic studies of Steiner education and Steiner philosophy by Jennifer Gidley: Turning Tides: Creating Dialogue between Rudolf Steiner and 21st Century Academic Discourses
• "Learning From Rudolf Steiner: The Relevance of Waldorf Education for Urban Public School Reform" by Ida Oberman (PDF)
• Association of Waldorf Schools of North America Study of Waldorf graduates in the USA, Part I, Part II

Articles

• "Steiner schools' could help all" by Branwen Jeffreys. BBC News Report on British government-funded study on Waldorf education in the UK, 5 July 2005.
• "Waldorf Succeeds in Public Schools" by Claudia M. Lenart. Conscious Choice, August 2000.
• "Who was Rudolf Steiner and what were his revolutionary teaching ideas?" Richard Garner, Education Editor, The Independent
• "Schooled in spirituality" by Chrisanne Beckner. Sacramento News and Review, 3 February 2005.
• Elizabeth Daniels and Carmen Gamper. "The Yin and Yang of Waldorf and Montessori in Early Childhood Education" (comparison of the two systems). Common Ground part 1, part 2
• Cincinnati Enquirer Waldorf goes against school grain by Maggie Dons

Documentaries

• The Waldorf Promise (2005) directed by Eric Stacey

- David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to move the first two back to the article. The one is a library of related works, such as many articles on philosophical themes, etc., include. The second is a valuable resource of images of work by students. Since Waldorf is known for its artistic programs, this seems relevant. I don't see that either of these contravenes the guidelines you mention, @David Gerard. User:Clean Copy (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

fine by me :-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

done. Clean Copy (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Link policy

Wikipedia policy lists "social networking sites...[and] chat or discussion forums/groups" as external links to be avoided. I have removed the recently-added discussion forum from the external links section, accordingly. Clean Copy^talk 03:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No criticism section

The whole article is a too glowing overview of Waldorf education. A quick Google search show lots of critiques of the system. 172.251.75.106 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WP relies on WP:reliable sources. Try searching Google Scholar instead of Google.HGilbert (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally criticism sections make articles into 'he said, she said' things, much better to discuss the full range of information in each section. As far as critiques, most of the ones i've found are personal anecdotes of someone's negative experience, or rants about Rudolf Steiner himself, and not the educational program, and not reported in a reliable source. If you find some, lets look at what can be included. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Totally concur - this entire article reads like an extended Steiner advertising brochure and the tone is shamelessly hagiographic. There is a total absence of references to or quotations from any of the many critics of Steiner and his methods and ideas (many of which are pure quackery). Completely unbalanced and lacking any critical rigour. This needs to be addressed. Dunks (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

In harmony with WP:Criticism, which states, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias," there is a Reception section rather than a Criticism section. Clean Copy^talk 04:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There are various concerns with the approach mentioned at various points in the article. I think the main problem is that none of this is summarised in the lead. It does say "Public funding of Waldorf schools in English-speaking countries is increasingly widespread but has encountered controversy" and that's it. Specifics on what aspects people disagree with would be useful.

Taking this further, we could also be more specific in the body. For example, the section on educational theory and practice says '...to help children to incarnate their "unfolding spiritual identity", carried from the preceding spiritual existence, as beings of body, soul, and spirit in this lifetime. Educational researcher Martin Ashley suggests that the latter role would be problematic for secular teachers and parents in state schools.' What is the spiritual thing that people are objecting to? "carried from the proceeding spiritual existence" implies a belief in reincarnation, but it is an oblique way of putting it. Also, do the schools actually teach that reincarnation is true? Or is it just that Steiner believed in reincarnation and this informed his educational philosophy. This is not made clear.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added the unbalanced template in an effort to address what seems to me to be a serious lack in the article. Totorotroll (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've started a new section and added some examples of controversies, plus linked to the PLANS article. I've confined the discussion to reputable sources, the BBC, the Independent, SFGate, and am searching for information about the events around 2009 in Sweden where teaching training was halted for a time and the Waldorf teacher training at Stockholm university was ended. This is, it goes without saying, with the aim of creating a more balanced article that reads less like an advertisement and more like an encyclopedia entry.Totorotroll (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but should news reports that only reference individual schools or teacher trainings really be included? There are tons out there, and this article will be overloaded. (For example, there are lots of news reports about a Waldorf school in the middle of Silicon Valley serving families with links to the technology sector, but since they chiefly focus on the one school, would they deserve reporting here?) I've removed the two sections that only referenced a single location.

And what we really shouldn't do is cherry-pick such reports, choosing only negative (or positive!) ones. Clean Copy^talk 02:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned above, WP:Criticism advises, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." Would the newly-added material be better merged into the relevant sections?"Clean Copy^talk 03:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That Waldorf teacher training in a particular European country came under sufficient criticism from the government that it was stopped for a time, seems to be sufficiently serious to warrent inclusion in my view. We're not talking about an occurence at one particular Waldorf school, but a parliamentary decision that affected all Waldorf schools in Sweden.Totorotroll (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, this was about just one teacher training -- the government didn't say all Waldorf teacher training should stop in the country. Also, do you have a source that indicates how or if this affected the schools in the country? Or are you just assuming this?

Bigger picture: Articles have been published about many other Waldorf teacher training programs -- in China, Israel, Brazil, Germany, etc.,-- and if we are going to include any news about these, we will need a big section on the theme. Same with individual schools. It would behoove us to establish an objective criterion in advance: when should news about individual schools or trainings be reported here? Clean Copy^talk 17:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, keeping this as a one-sided article, that almost exclusively focuses on positive views of Steiner education really isn't good enough. Steiner education has come in for a lot of critique from many different directions and sweeping this under the carpet doesn't do anyone any favours, if anything it contributes to a view of Waldorf as being somehow secretive, dishonest and cult-like. Totorotroll (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should strive for neutrality. The question I raised is whether critical views should be integrated into the article thematically, as WP:Criticism strongly recommends, or put in a separate section, which that same policy discourages. Clean Copy^talk 17:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Tag

As far as I can tell, there are no concrete suggestions for what reliable sources or views are not included here. Is there any objection to removing the NPOV tag? -- and if there is, please give a clear picture of what reliable sources can be drawn on to fill out the picture. Clean Copy^talk 20:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Race

The BBC source gives no mention of the actual number of alleged teachers. Because Wikipedia is a publication which is often, at best, skimmed, it is important to put Waldorf education's real stance on this issue first, before any mention of a handful of alleged cases. Otherwise, this section might as well be slander. People reading this article might read the first paragraph and write off Waldorf education as a whole after reading about "racist Waldorf teachers." It matters in what order you place your facts. Proposed change:

In response to allegations of racist attitudes and behavior among Waldorf teachers, Waldorf associations in many countries -- including the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, the Steiner/Waldorf Schools Fellowship of the United Kingdom, and the Association of Waldorf Schools in Germany -- put out statements that their schools did not tolerate racism, and indeed "contribute to building a society based upon solidarity between and the coexistence of all human beings....The schools regard all human beings as free and equal in value and rights, regardless of ethnic, national, or social origin, gender, language, religion, and political or other beliefs."

Such allegations about racist attitudes and behaviour have been reported in particular Waldorf schools, including teachers reportedly expressing a view that individuals reincarnate through various races. Newspaper articles have reported claims that Steiner believed in a hierarchy of races, with the white race at the top, and associated intelligence with having blonde hair and blue eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.168.26 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this section has nothing to do with "reception."--98.116.168.26 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Vaccine exemption

"A 2010 report by the UK Government noted that Steiner schools should be considered "high risk populations" and "unvaccinated communities" with respect to children's risks of catching measles and contributing to outbreaks.[166]"

This link has been deleted, so these quotes need a new source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7E0:B7E0:F0E7:DECC:B22B:11B7 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added a "Dead link" template. Clean Copy^talk 15:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead: mixing three themes

The current lead concludes with the sentence, "Public funding of Waldorf schools in English-speaking countries is increasingly widespread but has encountered controversy due to widespread anti-vaccinationism among the schools' parent bodies[7] and failure to adhere to normal standards of education (e.g. in literacy[8])"

This confutes three areas:

1. public funding, the controversy over which in the US has centered on the Establishment Clause
2. Waldorf's novel approaches to pedagogy, which are more often praised than faulted (see Waldorf education#Reception), and indeed the article cited to support this also goes out of its way to praise some of Waldorf's non-standard methods for their positive results. (The lead does not represent critical responses to this methodology remotely fairly at the moment.)

   Has Waldorf's methodology been a significant issue in discussions over public funding? It did not come up at all in the California court case, for example.

3. low vaccination rates among the parent bodies. This has been criticized in W. schools generally, without regard to public/private status. It has not (so far as I know) been an issue cited in the public funding debate.

It would be good to separate these issues and give fair treatment to the reception in the lead. Clean Copy^talk 09:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The methodology has come up as an issue insofar as it has spiritual or mystical origins. Also, I would say that public funding has come up in the UK as well, with regards to safety standards, educational standards, and other similar lines. Vaccination has definitely been brought up re: public funding in the US and in the UK. So it is not out of the question to link methodology and controversy. Over the next several weeks, I'm going to add a few more sources outlining these points in the body, so they will better support the lead. The current ongoing controversy in the UK, for instance, links these well.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Outbreak in children"?

Outbreaks of disease do not happen "in children", but in communities. @Shibbolethink: will you fix this, please? Clean Copy^talk 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: I'm sorry but I think you might be mistaken about the syntax and usage of the word "outbreak".... It is perfectly right and just grammatically to use the phrasing "Outbreak in [demographic]" such as "an outbreak of osteoporosis in elderly patients" or "an outbreak of kuru in Guinean tribesmen." For instance, here are 11 academic publications in peer reviewed journals using the exact phrase "outbreak in children" in their titles. As I said in my diff, I'm a professional vaccine and virus researcher and I use this exact phrasing on a near daily basis. It's perfectly valid and I'm not quite sure why it makes such a difference... some public health experts prefer the phrasings "outbreak among [demographic]" or "outbreak affecting...." and either would be fine with me. I'll go ahead and change it to the latter in the article text. But I think the one thing we should not do is remove the context of who is affected by the outbreak, as that's explicitly noted in the source material. -Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for changing this. Much better! For the record: the previous text actually read, "outbreak in 36 children," which is certainly not correct usage: the 36 children are not the demographic group, but the ones within the group affected. Clean Copy^talk 12:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, this is exactly what I meant. That usage is entirely permissible grammatically and is in no way "wrong." An outbreak is an event, much like a hysteria or a mania or a disquiet. There is nothing wrong with saying "A hysteria broke out in 36 schoolteachers all attending a conference on spiritualism." It's no less grammatically correct than "An outbreak in 36 children" or "An outbreak of hysteria in 36 schoolteachers."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Removal of well-cited and relevant material

@Clean Copy: you recently removed some material relevant to the topic and well-sourced in the section "Origins and History" of this page. Why?

For the record, I thought you had stated you were recusing yourself from editing this article and related subjects to avoid accusations of COI. Now, you've removed information relevant to Anthroposophy and its relationship with Waldorf education. If you do this again, I will be happy to involve administrators (@Winged Blades of Godric:) and eventually the ArbCom. Please consider sticking to your own stated intentions and contribute in the fashion recommended for COI editors. Thanks --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies; I did not see this as a POV question, but a WP style question (usually where there is a Wikilink to a person biographical information about that person is not added as well, as readers can pursue the link if interested) -- but you are right, I will avoid editing in any situations where there is any question of COI. Clean Copy^talk 20:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement tag?

Does this tag need to be here anymore? 69.112.244.165 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe it does. There are still quite a few sections of the article that need editing. There are also quite a few other articles that have had such tags for far longer periods of time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed arbitration motion concerning Waldorf education

Please see the proposed motion here. The comments of any editors active on this page would be welcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette Company

Is it necessary to mention this twice in one section? It is specified in the opening paragraph of the history, and this might be enough. Clean Copy^talk 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary. I went ahead and removed the redundancy. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The redundancy of "school" in the prior way this paragraph was written is terrible wikistyle and merits a reorganization of the sentence. I was going for a middle ground between the two, keeping the sentence structure but changing the antecedent. We should change something about it, either way.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There, how's that? I think just using "the original one" in that sentence serves the same purpose, but without reading like lazy historiographic writing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration: anthroposophical sources

The arbitration rulings have consistently asked that we avoid using anthroposophical sources, but instead use quality (academic/peer-reviewed/or equivalent) reliable sources for this article. I have removed text sourced to anthroposophical sources for this reason. Clean Copy^talk 01:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the words, "psychic," and the planetary references (Mercury, Venus, etc.) are not in any of the sources you quote. Clean Copy^talk 01:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yknow, I don't think that's what the ArbCom said. What they actually said is:

Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources.

In this case, multiple multiple WP:RS (The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Guardian, Ahern's book etc.) have asserted that Steiner believed in 7-year cycles based on magical thinking. For matters of fact and of belief by Steiner himself, his writings are a great primary source, and though they are not traditional WP:RS, secondary sources discussing his beliefs that have wide circulation and meet all other criteria are. It is not controversial that he believed in these seven year cycles.

And since this content is covered in both primary AND secondary sources, it merits inclusion. It also is couched in subjective language, and this is, as I've discussed, exactly what is necessary when discussing the bizarre in-universe ideas of an Anthropsophist. It is a verifiable WP:RS-supported fact that Rudolf Steiner had crazy ideas like these spiritual cycles. It merits inclusion here that it was the basis for his Waldorf ideas.

Your removal of this content is reflective of your COI and your POV bias. It has been said that it hurts Waldorf schools and schoolteachers like yourself when parents become more educated about the spiritual and magical underpinnings of your school system. Steiner himself said this. If you remove content like that again, I will notify the NPOV noticeboard, the fringe theory noticeboard, and pertinent wikiprojects. Then if wiki consensus is not forthcoming, or you continue to disruptively edit out important facts that describe the complete reality of Steiner's theories of education, I will then notify uninvolved admins and ask them to impose the discretionary sanctions. Please stop pushing your POV and work together with me to make a more accurate article. Not a more digestible one or a less controversial one for the benefit of your organizations.

As to your second point, that is also not true. Here are quotes:

From birth until the seventh year development is connected primarily with the physical body, then for seven years with the etheric body, then for seven years with the astral body, the sentient soul, and so on. The evolutionary factors pass over more and more decisively from the external to the inner nature of man. That is essentially characteristic of the seven-year periods.

Perhaps a better wording is in order. Or a better source that reflects that exact wording. I'll find one or the other tonight, or I'll remove the material.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is an exact lecture where Steiner describes his belief in the association between these planetary bodies and the 7 year cycles:

We behold the living, weaving activity of the Moon sphere in place of the tableau of early childhood from birth until the seventh year....And so Initiation in the form that is normal and right for this present age brings us knowledge of the secrets of the Moon sphere...

Then, if we observe the tableau of life between the seventh and fourteenth years and again obliterate the pictures in the consciousness of Inspiration, we gaze into the Mercury sphere.

By looking back into our experiences from the fourteenth to the twenty-first years and obliterating the pictures in the consciousness of Inspiration, we are led to the secrets of the Venus sphere...

He literally says those exact words. I've also added the Ahern source which explicitly references the seven year cycles and their spiritual underpinning (specifically on pp 20-21).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-WP:RS in "Educational Scholars" section

I think some of the sources cited and content POVs-presented in this section are non-WP:notable. Particularly the paragraph about David Elkind. The publication cited is Education Next, a journal known for its POV-slant and willingness to pay-to-publish for controversial opinions. The article was not traditionally peer reviewed, has little-to-no editorial oversight, and the journal itself doesn't qualify for WP:RS. See this SourceWatch page for a good summary of the POV-slant of the publication in general. Here are several other sources describing the lack of credibility and POV-slant of the journal. Further, it has very low citation/article numbers and low circulation. In other words, it's a political source that's cited in-universe by slanted academics.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Why in lead?

Why are individual school closures in the lead? This seems more like material for the body. 96.78.146.170 (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Israel / Palestine / Whatever

I appreciate the motivation for this revert -- the reverted edit summary contained an offensive assertion about Palestine. However I think the non-Christian-oriented Waldorf schools in question are unambiguously in Israel proper. Most are serving Jewish Israelis, several in Shefa'amr and Hilf serve some mixed mostly Arab populations and respect a variety of religions. Looking at the Freunde Waldorf list of international Waldorf schools I don't see any in Palestinian areas. -- M.boli (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP uses the present official designation of the area. Clean Copy^talk 15:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Views on race and how this impacts schools

Hi folks, I am aware of two Steiner schools in New Zealand that have been in the media with regard to how his views on race have had to be managed. I think this could be noted on the page as the outcomes were not negative and the citations reliable. One school is considering changing their name; the other one was found innocent of racism. Anyway, here are two possible sources:

I am just putting it out there in the interests of transparency.Realitylink (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added these citations with some explanatory text. Realitylink (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Evaluations of students' progress section

This section reads like a promo for Steiner schools. At a cursory glance there are claims about Steiner vs state schools, but no mention of within which national or local government area the comparisons are made, education standards and outcomes can vary wildly from local government area to local government area, let alone nation to nation. We are not here to praise Steiner, this should be treated with a more even hand. In Australia for example they generally perform no better than state schools at NAPLAN, in the UK they have been found to be under performing in various areas. Bacondrum (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I searched and found only one comparison that might have been unclear; it was the second sentence of a paragraph, the first sentence of which explicitly compared European Waldorf and state school students. I added "European" to the second sentence, as well. Are there more places I'm not seeing where this specificity is absent?

Do you have sources for the Australian and UK comparisons? We can add these in. Clean Copy^talk 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Waldorf schools/draft" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Waldorf schools/draft. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#Waldorf schools/draft until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cartogram

The cartogram near the top of the page is nice in principle, but it seems difficult to make much out there. Retain? Remove? Share your thoughts, please. Clean Copy^talk 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Replace with a regular color-coded map. Some countries in heavily-distorted regions like the Middle East are hard to identify. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Putting here to work on and then insert back:Clean Copy^talk 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A cartogram of Waldorf Schools—countries are resized according to how many Waldorf schools in that country.

References

Study removed

When it come to science, we expect to see peer review and even then one study without follow up should get only a brief mention, if that. Plus it is quite old. Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been reverted. In the first place, this study was self-published--that should send a red flag up right away. Furthermore, it is 18 years old--we have no idea if Wladorf is still teaching the same material. Per Wikipedia RS:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

The editor needs to revert. Gandydancer (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Andreas Schleicher

In this review about the history of Waldorf movement is noted that Andreas Schleicher, director of PISA, is himself a proponent of the Waldorf movement. This is relevant to the section and, furthermore, it has been noted by himself in interviews (ES Andreas Schleicher sur la pédagogie Steiner-Waldorf | ÆTHER) and the fact that Schleicher is a proponent of the Waldorf education is cited by the Waldorf schools, and here.

But the edition was reverted by M.boli, arguing that Cited reference is mere trash-talk, not a reliable source. And attended Waldorf school as a child does not equal "part of the Waldorf movement.". We can discuss that, but the reference is a well stablished scientific webpage on skepticism, which notes exactly that Schleicher was a student at Waldorf, and that he is a promoter of the Waldorf idea. Which is true. So, the source is reliable, the comment is right and the facts are true. -Theklan (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please review our policies on reliable sources; blogs and other self-published materials do not qualify.

Schleicher is Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills at the OECD. His work and that of this organization certainly does qualify as reliable sources. Clean Copy^talk 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is what the reference says about Schleicher, translated from Spanish by google translate. Schleicher attended Waldorf school as a child. The claim -- completely without evidence -- is therefore PISA assessments are garbage and this is why Waldorf schools score well in science. The reference also detours into the notion that Schleicher relies on mystical nonsense for his work.

Coincidentally, these days and in apparent support of the massacre against public education undertaken by the extremist Spanish government, Andreas Schleicher, director of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD ), stated that there are too many teachers per student in Spanish public education.

This of course was received with delirious jubilation by what in Spain is known as "the media cave", a group of manipulative media and journalists that includes militants of fundamentalist Catholicism, social ultraconservatives, economic neoliberals, nostalgic for Francoism, neo-Nazis irredentist, caricature anti-communists and mixed rightists, all of them identified as having a colossal vociferous capacity inversely proportional to their arguments, and a total absence of good faith.

But it turns out that Don Andreas Schleicher is also part of the Steinerite sect. In fact, he is a graduate of a Waldorf school (we do not know if he is clairvoyant, but we suppose not, if he were, he would not have to do studies but only go into a trance like Steiner and consult the universal wisdom contained, say the members of the sect, in the “Akashic record”, which is where Steiner learned, without having to study them in real books, pedagogy without having educated a child, agriculture without having harvested a tomato, medicine without having treated a patient and economics without having worked a day in their life).

In any case, the seriousness of the PISA program (invented by Andreas Schleicher himself and according to which Waldorf schools are always examples of excellent education, what a surprise) is quite questionable. Again, Don Andreas can believe in any religion or superstition, but this should not set the course for him when he is in charge of a major OECD office.

I call hooey. This is not an authoritative source that says PISA is biased toward Waldorf education. It is trash talk which does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- M.boli (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@M.boli: It would be interesting not to use words as trash talk in a discussion. Such an aggresive statement towards a good faith edition is out of context and out of the code of conduct we should have. There are some questions we should answer to know if the claim that Schleicher himself was a Waldorf student and is a proponent of Waldorf education is true or not and is relevant here or not. I would like to do this easily:

• Did Schleicher study at a Waldorf school? Yes, he did. This is even cited in his biography here at Wikipedia.
• Has Schleicher promoted the Waldorf education program? Yes, he has.

• Is Schleicher responsible of the PISA Programme? Well, he is the co-ordinator of the programme.

Once we know that in fact Schleicher was the co-ordinator of a programme which gave Waldorf schools the best score AND we know that himself is a proponent of this pedagogy AND we know that he studied there, we can decide whether this information is relevant or not. A way to know if we should include it is to see if this has been mentioned elsewhere. And it has been mentioned, so we can note this because criticism is also knowledge.

Is the source relevant? Well, this is a good discussion. I don't think this is trash talk, you think that a web devoted to scientific knowledge and criticism on sects is trash, but the burden of proof there is yours. I'm not judging in the source is the best one, I'm only saying that there has been criticism on this (true) and that all the points in the critic are true. I'm not judging all the other statements in the source, because I'm only using that one. We can let the critic (which exists and is fact-based) without source, but that would be the worst solution. -Theklan (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is noteworthy. I added it with RS. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed it as having a paragraph in the middle of the "Science" section seem out of place. However, I'm seeing that other articles on schools and colleges have a "Alumni" section, that may be the way to go. --McSly (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

References

OK, thanks as I wasn't sure where to put it. I'll add as you suggest. Gandydancer (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with adding this statement on Alumni, as the criticism on their scientific education disappears. Now, what it was a bug becomes a feature making the claim totally out of context. -Theklan (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

PISA, Schleicher, claim which should be removed.

Regarding the Science section and PISA: The dispute springs from this sentence: Several empirical studies have noted how this method appears effective and even exemplary when evaluated against age-matched peers using the internationally recognized PISA test of 15-year-old students in mathematics and science.

I think that sentence is just plain wrong and should come out. There seems to have been one study in one country, published in 2009, utilizing the PISA 2006 test. I find numerous references to Waldorf education and PISA, every one that contains any sourcing refers back to this one study. And that study showed mixed results: Waldorf students were a bit better in some aspects, a bit worse in others.

Of the three citations for that sentence about PISA, two are irrelevant to the claim. One is English study published earlier than the PISA-based study and contains precious little quantitative comparison. Another is a news report in Die Welt on a study of Waldorf schools in Germany which was generally positive but somewhat mixed. Schleicher seems to have been part of the German study. The third reference is the actual PISA study.

Regarding the El Círculo Escéptico blog post quoted above that one editor wants to cite: it contains only personal attacks and guilt-by-association. There is virtually no information and no citations. Oddly, their trash-talk is misdirected. They allege that PISA always finds Waldorf schools to be excellent. But to repeat: there seems to have been one study in one country 15 years ago. That's it. So they are flinging their venom at something that didn't happen. Showing further it is not a credible source.

Enough! I think the errant claim should come out. There is a Wiki-page Studies of Waldorf education, inserting a link to that page might be appropriate here. -- M.boli (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can google-search for Waldorf PISA and see that this claim is being used again and again, so there might be only one study, but the claim has echo chambers inside the Waldorf movement. If there's a source noting what the problems with this claim are, it should be cited here, even more if the claim is false/not true. The El Círculo Escéptico web is devoted to debunk sects and pseudoscience, so yes, it's normal to have information about sects (Waldorf) and pseudoscience (Waldorf). I would ask again not to say that this source is trash-talk, you are doing it again against the assumption of good faith. -Theklan (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we can use this study with care. I skimmed through it and was impressed with their methodology and coverage. The team met with teachers from 23 Steiner schools in England plus "the research team spoke to teachers from New Zealand, South America and several mainland European countries. It is old but on the plus side it was a government study and included a number of members in the research team. Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The study you are describing has nothing to do with the claim about multiple studies using PISA data (false) finding "exemplary" results (false). I agree with you it likely has value and could be cited, but citing it here in support of the errant statement is wrong. It is almost entirely not quantitative, based on interviews, with very little about the measured effeciveness of Waldorf education. -- M.boli (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

“Discuss on talk page if you disagree”

I read through those news articles that were cited after “he asserted a hierarchy of races with a white race at the top” and the statement of “a white race at the top” is found nowhere in Steiner’s actual books or lectures and is just a very cherry picked statement, it’s also worded very strongly, as if it was actively trying to convince people that the reality of all Steiner schools is entirely racist. Either fix the wording or find some better sources. 94.199.30.34 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That for Steiner white race was the top race is not in doubt. However, Steiner's take was humanitarian, and this distinguishes him from racists. So, he did not say that the white race has to oppress other races. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly i have not seen any actual steiner books/lectures that even contain a heirarchy of races, and "he did not say that the white race has to oppress other races" is fine i guess in context but at first glance it looks extremely racist and in my opinion comes off as extremely biased. 2A00:23C4:DD8C:CB00:9C09:FDD5:BA9C:DC18 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is weird, given his general humanism, but he really did echo the racial hierarchy thinking typical of his period. And also sometimes say that everyone was equal, regardless of race. Some cognitive dissonance there. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Analyzing Steiner's own works is prohibited by WP:OR. We simply WP:CITE WP:RS written by experts in their field (e.g. religion studies). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think some article with a overarching negative tone wrote to incite clicks and emotions is written by an expert on religious studies, and even if the articles were they are clearly not written in a Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL way. There's obvious bias in these sources. 2A00:23C4:DD8C:CB00:596B:CAB7:2B00:BABE (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, we are biased against fringe views and pseudoscience. It's true that Steiner had a racialist worldview, but it is also true that he was well-meaning towards people of other races. I mean: both are true, and dodging one of these is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

European Journal of Educational Studies

A citation to this journal was removed by @Headbomb: as predatory, but Citefactor states "European Journal of Education Studies is an international peer reviewed journal that presents high quality, original and recent research focused on a wide range of thematic areas from traditional to contemporary, from formal education to alternative, examining and comparing various education policies, trends, reforms and programmes..."  ??? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And Citefactor is meant to be a reliable guide? Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

CiteFactor is a purveyor of fake impact factors. It's a front used by predatory journals appear legitimate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's on beall's list of predatory publishers as it is published by EUROPA which has a bad track record for accuracy, retractions, and being "pay to play" [23] [24] [25] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)