5 ms·

The near-inverse of Montessori is Waldorf, which is based on the work of Rudolf Steiner. If Montessori is skilled guides redirecting children to a constrained

by svnt 4y ago

The near-inverse of Montessori is Waldorf, which is based on the work of Rudolf Steiner. If Montessori is skilled guides redirecting children to a constrained set of works until those kids do it themselves, Waldorf is a magical fairy godmother cuing children by song and felted puppets to engage their imagination in story and play. Both seem to have value. I believe Montessori’s methods feel so robotic in America because America is not early 20th century Europe, where so much magic, song, and fantasy was already an omnipresent part of the culture.

BlueTemplar 4y ago
But according to Montessori herself, "magic, song (?) and fantasy" were considered to be bad... at least where children education is concerned, but also probably for teenagers and adults, considering her Catholic views ?
- anon291 4y ago
  Catholics don't hate fantasy, magic, or song. Some of the greatest fantasy novels are the works of devout Catholics, such as the Lord of the Rings, or Catholic-adjacents, such as the chronicles of Narnia.
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  That’s an oversimplification — Montessori believed children have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality until the age of six. Fantasy is limited until that age in a Montessori school.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  P.S.: To be clear, I'm reacting on one hand from this bit from the article : > She also disapproved of toys, fairy tales and fantasy. [...] > She especially disliked the fantastic lies told to children – the tooth fairy and Father Christmas and stories with talking animals. She saw them as an indulgence on the part of adults: > > We are amused by the illusions, the ignorance and the errors of the immature mind, just as at a not very remote date we were amused to see an infant laugh when it was tossed up and down, a proceeding now condemned by infantile hygiene as wrong and dangerous in the extreme. In short, it is we who are amused by the Christmas festivities and the credulity of the child. And on the other hand the hypocritical way in how many Christians classified Christian magic as "not magic" and then decreed magic to be evil (partially as a way to compete with paganism I guess ?)
robocat 4y ago
My friends that went through Steiner in the 80s do not remember Eurythmy fondly. As an outsider, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlmySOg9vsc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlmySOg9vsc from 2016 superficially appears to show Waldorf hasn't changed much.
- svnt 4y ago
  I know a musician who feels similarly. There are definitely shortcomings to both. But how significant it is depends on what your end goal is.
msla 4y ago
The problem with Waldorf is how much is based on blatant pseudoscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education > Steiner considered children's cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development to be interlinked.[81] When students in a Waldorf school are grouped, it is generally not by a focus on academic abilities.[54]: 89 Instead, Steiner adapted the pseudoscientific proto-psychological concept of the classic four temperaments – melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic, and choleric.[82] [snip] > Today, Waldorf teachers may work with these pseudoscientific "temperaments" to design instruction for each student. Seating arrangements and class activities may take into account the supposed temperaments of students but this is often not described to parents, students, or observers.[90][91] Do kids have different personalities? Yes. Should education take that into account, in some fashion? Possibly. Is a Medieval conception of "personality" linked to "fluids" the way to do that? I'm pretty sure we can do better with the benefit of centuries of hindsight and actual research. > Experts have called into question the quality of this phenomenological approach if it fails to educate Waldorf students on basic tenets of scientific fact.[111] The Waldorf approach is said to cultivate students with "high motivation" but "average achievement" in the sciences.[112] One study conducted by California State University at Sacramento researchers outlined numerous theories and ideas prevalent throughout Waldorf curricula that were patently pseudoscientific and steeped in magical thinking. These included the idea that animals evolved from humans, that human spirits are physically incarnated into "soul qualities that manifested themselves into various animal forms", that the current geological formations on Earth have evolved through so-called "Lemurian" and "Atlantiean" epochs, and that the four kingdoms of nature are "mineral, plant, animal, and man". All of these are directly contradicted by mainstream scientific knowledge and have no basis in any form of conventional scientific study. Contradictory notions found in Waldorf textbooks are distinct from factual inaccuracies occasionally found in modern public school textbooks, as the inaccuracies in the latter are of a specific and minute nature that results from the progress of science. The inaccuracies present in Waldorf textbooks, however, are the result of a mode of thinking that has no valid basis in reason or logic.[113] This unscientific foundation has been blamed for the scarcity of systematic empirical research on Waldorf education as academic researchers hesitate in getting involved in studies of Waldorf schools lest it hamper their future career.[114] There is a difference between a philosophy of how to teach kids actual material and a so-called "philosophy" which results in teaching kids nonsense. It also leads to a question: If you remove the pseudoscience, is it still Waldorf?

by svnt 4y ago

BlueTemplar 4y ago

But according to Montessori herself, "magic, song (?) and fantasy" were considered to be bad... at least where children education is concerned, but also probably for teenagers and adults, considering her Catholic views ?

anon291 4y ago
Catholics don't hate fantasy, magic, or song. Some of the greatest fantasy novels are the works of devout Catholics, such as the Lord of the Rings, or Catholic-adjacents, such as the chronicles of Narnia.
marcus0x62 4y ago
That’s an oversimplification — Montessori believed children have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality until the age of six. Fantasy is limited until that age in a Montessori school.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
P.S.: To be clear, I'm reacting on one hand from this bit from the article : > She also disapproved of toys, fairy tales and fantasy. [...] > She especially disliked the fantastic lies told to children – the tooth fairy and Father Christmas and stories with talking animals. She saw them as an indulgence on the part of adults: > > We are amused by the illusions, the ignorance and the errors of the immature mind, just as at a not very remote date we were amused to see an infant laugh when it was tossed up and down, a proceeding now condemned by infantile hygiene as wrong and dangerous in the extreme. In short, it is we who are amused by the Christmas festivities and the credulity of the child. And on the other hand the hypocritical way in how many Christians classified Christian magic as "not magic" and then decreed magic to be evil (partially as a way to compete with paganism I guess ?)

robocat 4y ago

My friends that went through Steiner in the 80s do not remember Eurythmy fondly. As an outsider, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlmySOg9vsc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlmySOg9vsc from 2016 superficially appears to show Waldorf hasn't changed much.

svnt 4y ago
I know a musician who feels similarly. There are definitely shortcomings to both. But how significant it is depends on what your end goal is.

msla 4y ago

The problem with Waldorf is how much is based on blatant pseudoscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education > Steiner considered children's cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development to be interlinked.[81] When students in a Waldorf school are grouped, it is generally not by a focus on academic abilities.[54]: 89 Instead, Steiner adapted the pseudoscientific proto-psychological concept of the classic four temperaments – melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic, and choleric.[82] [snip] > Today, Waldorf teachers may work with these pseudoscientific "temperaments" to design instruction for each student. Seating arrangements and class activities may take into account the supposed temperaments of students but this is often not described to parents, students, or observers.[90][91] Do kids have different personalities? Yes. Should education take that into account, in some fashion? Possibly. Is a Medieval conception of "personality" linked to "fluids" the way to do that? I'm pretty sure we can do better with the benefit of centuries of hindsight and actual research. > Experts have called into question the quality of this phenomenological approach if it fails to educate Waldorf students on basic tenets of scientific fact.[111] The Waldorf approach is said to cultivate students with "high motivation" but "average achievement" in the sciences.[112] One study conducted by California State University at Sacramento researchers outlined numerous theories and ideas prevalent throughout Waldorf curricula that were patently pseudoscientific and steeped in magical thinking. These included the idea that animals evolved from humans, that human spirits are physically incarnated into "soul qualities that manifested themselves into various animal forms", that the current geological formations on Earth have evolved through so-called "Lemurian" and "Atlantiean" epochs, and that the four kingdoms of nature are "mineral, plant, animal, and man". All of these are directly contradicted by mainstream scientific knowledge and have no basis in any form of conventional scientific study. Contradictory notions found in Waldorf textbooks are distinct from factual inaccuracies occasionally found in modern public school textbooks, as the inaccuracies in the latter are of a specific and minute nature that results from the progress of science. The inaccuracies present in Waldorf textbooks, however, are the result of a mode of thinking that has no valid basis in reason or logic.[113] This unscientific foundation has been blamed for the scarcity of systematic empirical research on Waldorf education as academic researchers hesitate in getting involved in studies of Waldorf schools lest it hamper their future career.[114] There is a difference between a philosophy of how to teach kids actual material and a so-called "philosophy" which results in teaching kids nonsense. It also leads to a question: If you remove the pseudoscience, is it still Waldorf?