The Homeschool Journey

Religion Lessons

Religion lessons do not figure in the Main Lessons curriculum (there is a specific religion lessons curriculum - but to my knowledge, only a handful of schools in this country or in the UK use it) and the Old Testament, Stories of the Saints, the Mahabahrata, or, Greek or Norse Mythologies, are not taught "as religions". Rather, they are 1) taught because at that particular point in the child's development, something in her soul resonates with these particular stories and 2) because we become better human beings when we are exposed to the many facets of the human journey. Thus, the rise of Islam and the life of the Prophet Muhammed as well as stories from the Buddha (and usually, in this country, Native American legends) are also taught.

 

A key element of Waldorf education is that there is a totality of the journey of humanity which can be both traced and understood and that this large journey is mirrored in the individual journey of each human being. This is not hierarchical in terms of value - more recent cultures are not seen as "better" - only in that they have a different relationship to the human being's core struggle toward ever greater freedom. Thus European cultures are not valued more highly than, say, Japanese or Maori cultures - but what is emphasized is the greater impulse toward human freedom. Again, the human journey takes many roads - Steiner was mainly concerned with the road toward individual freedom. This is not to deny or denigrate the great gifts and achievements of other cultures than the ones he focuses on.

 

In third grade, children are separating somewhat from their parents, their individuality is starting to express itself more strongly, they are able to accept the concept of rules, of the Law. This is why the Old Testament stories are taught - to let the children identify within their souls with the struggles that the Israelites had with accepting the Law. As any parent of a 9 year old knows, there is a lot of truth here! Later, the morality - and growing lack of it - of the Norse gods works on the soul of the 10 year old as he struggles to find his place in the world and to know right from wrong - the Fall of the Norse gods, the end of their place in the the heavens,  can be very meaningful for the child who is shedding his earlier phase of childhood, leaving the spiritual worlds behind,  and facing his own individuality. The sagas of the Indian, Persian, Egyptian and finally, Greek gods further explores the human theme of "what is my place on this earth? what is my relationship to the spiritual worlds?" As the 11 year old approaches adolescence, these questions, usually dealt with in the most shallow way in our society, are of great importance and are fed by these myths.

 

Sixth and seventh grade brings the Middle Ages on through the expansion of Europe into other parts of the world. The 12 and 13 year olds are finding a new relationship to the world - first comes the pragmatic 12 year old whose body is becoming denser and whose very musculature is changing - time to study the Romans, those most practical and pragmatic people ever! The 13 year old is striking out into the world, exploring, finding out where new worlds lie. Time to study the Renaissance as well as the relationships between peoples - time to study Muhammed and the way the Europeans and the Muslims met - and not only fought, but exchanged great ideas and brought huge change to the world. Time to study India and China - the depth and breadth of these cultures - so that when history rolls round to the European incursions here, one has a true picture of what this meant.

 

So, in Waldorf schools, history is seen as the story of human kind and thus has both mythic and "real" elements to it. I can't go into all the details here - it's just too involved and is the basis of much of anthroposophy - but suffice to say that one might also ask oneself the question "what is real and what is myth?". Anthroposophy is based on spiritual science - thus some of its facts may not be seen as such by others. I suggest one read Christoph Lindenberg's   "Teaching History: Suggested Themes for the Curriculum in Waldorf Schools" for an excellent introduction to this topic.

Nothing in the Waldorf curric is ever arbitrary, is ever without good reason.

 

Homeschoolers are, of course, free to chop and change and not use it - but if one has even slightly more than a passing interest in this form of education, it behooves one to do some study and find out why certain things are taught when they are. Then if one decides to skip something, one has some sense of its purpose in the curriculum and might choose to find substitute material. Having said that, I have been asked, for instance, if I could think of material with which to replace the Old Testament stories and I really can't. I can't think of a similar struggle in a culture which was presented with the Word, with the Law, in this way. Islam, of course, is also centered on a book, on the Word - but the way it was spread and the way it was received amongst the people was quite different, so I don't see a parallel.

 

I always encourage people to explore how they might work with Waldorf to suit their own religious/spiritual paths. If Waldorf schools can be found in Egypt, Japan, Israel, India, and Thailand, then surely we homeschoolers can also find ways to work with this form of education alongside our beliefs - and without diluting things so as to make them meaningless!

Reading Readiness

The following is from my yahoo discussion group - it is obviously part of a thread but I thought there is enough that might be of interest here to warrant re-printing it.  

 

My experience tells me to be even more conservative than Dr J! My experience tells me that 7 is still too early for many children - and that all the symptoms Dr J lists are just as relavant at 8, 9 or 10 years old - especially if the child is a boy. I keep on beating this drum - but I can't deny what I've seen in scores of situations where children - again, usually boys but not always - "lag behind" in skills such as reading until they are about 9 or 10 (by which time they are receiving all sorts of intervention - much of which is not, I believe, necessary) and then suddenly they fly. It is shocking to most of us that kindergarteners are being pushed so young to read and that those who fail start acquiring labels such as ADHD - but I would argue that this is just as damaging for the many (though certainly not all) children as "old" as 8, 9 ,10 or even 11 years of age who cannot read or write without difficulty. And as Dr J has seen these labels fall off littlies thus "diagnosed", so I have seen the same thing happen with much older children when only the parents wait, relax, trust and support their children's learning pace.

 

Dr J speaks about the change at 7 that happens which prepares children to read - I see a change at around 9 or 10. And I am so grateful for the work of Raymond and Dorothy Moore which confirms this (I have lots of hands on experience but have done no research myself!). They talk in their books about the neurological changes that happen around the 9th or 10th year - and their experience also confirms that this seems to be the case more with boys than girls. Most "regular" homeschool resources carry their books - Better Late than Never is probably most appropos to this discussion!

 

As a committed anthroposophist, as someone deeply immersed in Waldorf education, I find that the curriculum and the methodology make such sense to me and are so healing to children - but I cannot overlook the fact that my experience points again and again to the "better late than early" approach to reading (and usually writing) - and late by Moore terms, not Waldorf terms! (forget what the rest of the educational establishment says!!)

 

TV for Teens

Recently I have started to teach a Social Studies path class at our local Waldorf-inspired high school - sometimes when I am away from teaching for a time I forget how much I enjoy it! Thirteen squirrley, enthusiastic and friendly 14 year olds can fill up a class room with very little effort!

 

Anyway... I had an interesting experience the other morning talking to them about the media images of Hurricane Katrina - and quickly realized that almost all of them came from TV-free households! This was interesting - how to teach a currents events class, how to talk about the huge impact of the media on American society when these kids had no or little experience of this!

 

We were also TV free until my youngest turned 8. By that time, all interest in "the box" had faded - and at 12 and 14 they have no interest in television (now videos - that's another story!). I watch sometimes - I like to keep up with what most of America is talking about - and I have a love/hate relationship with the Jim Lehrer Report on public television. As we have no cable or satellite TV, viewing is pretty limited for us anyway. As a family we have watched the Olympics and a few other things (though the images that stayed with us from the Olympics had more to do with commercials than sports...!). And as the full scale of Hurricane Katrina became known, I encouraged my teen to watch the news with me - his brother wasn't particularly interested and not really ready for it and so stayed away.

 

So I wonder if those of us who are TV free might need to revisit the TV question with older children. Certainly, one could argue that TV news is so biased, so virtual nonsense, that if one actually wants to learn something, newspapers and the internet are a far better resource (both of which, incidentally, my son  and my students all have access to). And I agree - I do not watch television news to become savvy about what is really happening in the world. I watch TV because I  want to know how my fellow countrymen, by and large, learn about what is happening in this country and abroad - I want to know about disinformation and about bias. And I think that by 14 years of age, teens also need to wake up to the reality of what is around them and to be able to see our American media for what it is.

School or Family?

From the earliest days of catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, well-meaning proclamations were issued from governors and other politicians or civil servants from affected states that schools would accept children from displaced families. Reporters talking to families or relaying the seriousness of the situation repeatedly emphasized the need to get children into school .

 

This seems so bizarre to me. The whole mind frame that says "school = normal for children" also says, by implication, "school is where children learn about life." Instead of an emphasis on keeping families together and helping them cope - find new homes, clothes, jobs, support - and school at some point! - the children are issued through one door and the parents another.

 

How are children meant to learn about real life, its problems, hardships and challenges and, most importantly, how real adults cope in such situations (or, of course, don't cope)? I suppose they will learn from the myriad of books on the subject, brought out by caring teachers during a civics class.

 

And what about the emotional toll on these children? They've just lost everything, probably seen dead bodies and a catalog of other horrors, have been surrounded by angry, frustrated, desperate people, shipped off to God knows where in some strange town - and then they're supposed to go to school?! More strangers, more new situations, more adjustments to make! C'mon - would you do that to your child? I wouldn't.

 

People point to the Tsunami relief efforts in the Indian Ocean, to the importance of the efforts to rebuild schools and bus in teachers to help the children gain a sense of normalcy and to cope. In those examples, I would say yes, that was a great thing. School, in those cases, was brought to the children and an effort was made to recreate what had been before. But in the Gulf States at present, this is not the case. Children, adults, families, neighborhoods, friends are scattered in a dozen directions, away from their homes, their land, their cities and towns.

 

My fear is that the alienation that so many of these people live with anyway will just continue to be fed and deepened. Instead of building on a unique opportunity to strengthen families and individuals in the aftermath of disaster, I fear that a continued state of disconnectedness and vulnerability - of adults and children - will go unchallenged!

 

 

Katrina's Orphan

So many awful images from Hurricane Katrina - the ones involving children stand out for me. A desperate father holding up his three week old baby, crying out for formula. Babies in intensive care whose parents were evacuated. And, most poignantly of all, a quick pan over from the camera catching a little boy of perhaps 5, holding onto a white emergency personnel officer's pant leg, his words caught in passing by the camera crew: "My mama dead. She got push in the water." His words, his face, his plight haunt me. Who is that child? Does he have a grandmother, a big brother, a cousin or aunt who will care for him? If so - where are they? Why was he with the rescue person and not someone he knows, someone who loves him? Were they all dead too, slaughtered by the inaction of a government heavy on moral posturing and light on compassion? And would this scene have been televised without fanfare had he been a white child or from a more affluent neighborhood?

 

 

The Nature Institute

The question is not what you look at-but how you look and whether you see. - Thoreau

I’d like to briefly tell you all about The Nature Institute, a wonderful research and education center in upstate New York, dedicated to a Goethean - holistic and empirical - approach to science and nature. They run courses, publish books and articles and undertake research. Projects they’ve recently worked on include: research into a way to "bridge the gulf between the products of biochemical analysis and the unmanipulated whole organism", focusing on the work of molecular biologist Ann Kleinschmidt from Allegheny College in Pennsylvania; publishing a booklet called In the Belly of the Beast: Technology, Nature and the Human Prospect; and beginning a new semester-long course in Goethean Science Studies.

The Nature Institute publishes a free magazine called In Context (they ask for a donation), which lets people know about all the exciting work they’re involved with. The most recent issue contains several very interesting articles, including one by Vladislav Rozentuller and Steve Talbott entitled From Two Cultures to One: On the Relation Between Science and Art. As Goethean scientists this is a major aspect of their work - healing the rift that has split our culture and our ways of thinking into separate boxes labeled ‘art’, ‘science’ and the ‘the humanities’. You can find the article online at www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic13/oneculture.htm

Why do I tell you about the Nature Institute? Because I feel that anyone interested in a holistic approach to science, to the Goethean approach which is at the heart of so much in Waldorf education, ought to avail themselves of the very important work that these people are doing. My own science book, From Nature Stories to Natural Science: A Holistic Approach to Science for Families, is a humble attempt at explaining something of this approach and helping parents infuse their teaching with it. By subscribing to In Context and supporting the work of the Nature Institute, parents will be able to deepen their understanding of a healing approach to science and to support one aspect of its expression.

The Nature Institute
20 May Hill Road
Ghent, New York 12075

Telephone: (518) 672-0116
Fax: (518) 672-4270
Email: info@natureinstitute.org

www.natureinstitute.org

For those interested in technology issues, the Nature Institute publish the e-mail newsletter, NetFuture, which has been called by the New York Times "a largely undiscovered national treasure". See here for more information: www.netfuture.org

For more about From Nature Stories to Natural Science: www.christopherushomeschool.org/nature_stories.htm

The Out of Sync Child

This article first appeared in the Homeschool Journey newsletter, July 2005

As preparation for our latest Christopherus publication, Joyful Movement, I have read a number of books, including The Out-of-Sync Child: Recognizing and Coping with Sensory Integration Dysfunction  by Carol Stock Kranowitz. There are an enormous number of children out there displaying characteristics of sensory integration problems and Waldorf education, being primarily a healing form of education, has so much to offer such children. I read this book to get some perspective on how those outside of Waldorf work with these challenges.

 

I should also say that I had put this book on my "need to read this" list some time ago in response to the number of times I had seen it mentioned in Waldorf circles, including on my Yahoo list (groups.yahoo.com/group/Waldorf_at_Home/ ). I know that this book is based on the work of Dr Jean Ayers, who pioneered Sensory Integration work and she is highly regarded by many in the Waldorf community.

 

So... I have to say that after all this I was quite disappointed by The Out-of-Sync Child. I had expected a lot more. Before I move on to specifics, let me quickly add that I can, of course, see how many parents will find this book of great use, both in affirming their suspicion that something's not quite right with their child and as a rich resource of ideas on how to work with their child to address some of these issues.

 

I'm looking at this book right now. And I'm re-reading the comments on the cover by T. Berry Brazelton, M.D.: "This book is great ... It will let parents off the hook of blaming themselves ... and will help them get on to the job of addressing the child's underlying difficulties."

 

I'm all for a no-guilt approach to parenting. Absolutely. Guilt is a soul-numbing, constricting phantasm that lays us low, immobilizing our will, fogging our thoughts and warping our feelings. So "letting parents off the hook" is a good thing. But ... (here it comes) how do we simultaneously recognize that how we form and hold our child's environment, especially in his early years, is of the utmost importance in raising centered, peaceful children and then not take responsibility? Can I write this without upsetting people and making people feel bad? Can you all imagine that I stretch out my hand in kindness, smile warmly at people and say, "This is not about blame and guilt but about courageous recognition of the truth concerning young children"?

 

And please - I do know that there are certain children who despite the most Waldorf of Waldorf early parenting still exhibit challenges. Of course. But (here it comes again) in my experience this is the minority. In my experience I can see a direct correlation between a go-go-go, always active, always hectic, 'let's stimulate the children' approach to parenting (i.e. what is considered normal by most people including most 'experts') and how comfortable a child is in his or her body and environment and with other children.

 

The Out of-Sync Child    devotes all of one page (out of 322) to "possible causes of SI dysfunction". There is no mention of TV, video or computers. There is no mention of children subjected to before-school care, long days at school and then after-school care. There is no mention of early intellectualism or parenting approaches that stress children by treating them as being older than they are.

 

There is, of course, plenty about children needing appropriate opportunities to use their body and their senses - but no discussion of how our society's norms (early intellectualism, child-unfriendly communities, lack of valuing play, push for early and almost constant socialization of young children, use of the media, parents who want to "have it all") undermine these opportunities.

 

And it is society - it is not a question of simply blaming individual parents for how they have parented. How are parents supposed to know? What are their friends, Dr Phil, Oprah, women's magazines, their mother-in-law and the pediatrician all saying? So again - no guilt here!! No blame. Just the suggestion that people look at their parenting practices in the healing light of Waldorf and say "OK, now I know about something different. This makes sense to me, it feels good and I want to do something new in my family and parenting."

 

One of the most important gifts Waldorf brings to us to help us understand and parent (and educate) our children is the gift of understanding the developmental stages a child goes through. Now this isn't new - Piaget and Montessori also have identified clear developmental stages of children, although somewhat different in sequence and very different in meaning and consequence than Steiner. This is Child Psychology 101 - so I don't quite understand where that has gone in a book like The Out-of-Sync Child. There are so many things described as possible symptoms of SI dysfunction but without the context of age! Yes, if my 10 year old constantly spills things, cannot relate to other children and avoids eye contact with me, I would certainly have some red flags. But a 3 year old? Whose expectations of developmentally-appropriate growth and behavior is this book based on?

 

An example: the book quotes a mother who says, "By the time Rob was two, I felt that he had a special need, but I couldn't figure out what it was. He required constant attention. Time-outs didn't work because I couldn't contain him. He was defiant, disobedient, disrespectful, and demanding. He was always busy, always talking (great verbal skills!), strong willed, contrary and easily frustrated. I felt blessed to have Rob, and wouldn't trade him for the world of course, but he constantly tested and rejected me."

 

There is no context - we do not know if this child spends 12 hours a day in daycare, if he is shuttled between divorced parents, if he spends whole mornings watching TV, if he is given lots of choices and has a chaotic lifestyle. What we do know is that the mother's expectations of what a 2 year old is like are not being met. Somehow she has gotten the picture that her son's behavior is atypical for a 2 year old - and if his environment matches one of the possible scenarios listed above, then she is misinformed. A 2 year old with a lifestyle or environment that is not nurturing, not meeting his needs, will become ... all the adjectives she listed. And even though we don't know what this family's homelife is like, we can infer that it is problematic since she believes, for instance, that one can use time-outs effectively with a 2 year old. She does not have a working knowledge of what 2 year olds are like compared to, say, 5 year olds, and the book does not offer any enlightenment on this.

 

The point here is that this poor mother is not informed about how children develop and grow, what they need and what one can expect. Given that the right environment - a peaceful, calm homelife formed by clear and consistent rhythms; adults who treat a 2 year old as a 2 year old, and do not offer lots of choices and verbal direction; no media; lots of outdoors time; and the presence of a warm child-inclusive but not child-centered parent - then defiance, disrespect and disobedience will transform into a lively and spirited interaction with the world. By magic? No - by hard work and reclaiming of a child's childhood and an affirmation that the number one role of the parent is to create the healthy forms and rhythms of the young child's life and to actively parent. And part of this is a healthy nurturing of the senses and the child's need for activity.

 

Back to The Out-of-Sync Child, Rob's mother has gone on to consult with a number of therapists and doctors. Undoubtedly Mom's parenting has improved as she brings more physical and sensorially-appropriate activities to her son. One assumes that Rob is spending more time receiving the "sensorially rich diet" that the Out-of-Sync  authors refer to and, therefore, is having more of his needs met, thus his behavior is improving. Too bad that this situation had to arise and Rob's mom didn't have a different paradigm to work with. And too bad a well-respected book like this offers intervention as a solution instead of favoring a preventative approach. But prevention in this case means a certain kind of parental responsibility which is not in favor in our society. It is far easier to look toward genetics, allergies and other individual-centered solutions instead of more difficult solutions which challenge us as adults and as part of society.

 

My plea is for parents to really work to understand the developmental needs of their growing children - and to understand that, for the young child, of major importance is formed and rhythmical physical activity. I'm talking about circle games, finger plays, chores like chopping vegetables and polishing wood, free explorations in nature and work in the garden. By meeting these physical needs - as well as her other needs - a child is more likely to be, well, like a child. Silly, unpredictable, playful, exuberant, moody, challenging - but basically a joy to be with, both for herself and others.