Freedom and Structure in Holistic Education:
Reflecting on the Experience of Three Kinds of Schools
Doralice de Souza, Brazil
(Draft of paper presented at the 8th International Conference of Holistic Education, Guadalajara, Mexico, Nov. 22, 2000)
Today
I am going to be talking about freedom and structure in three different kinds of
schools that define themselves as holistic. This presentation will be partially
based on the research I did for my dissertation as well as on an ongoing
qualitative research and book project I am working on for the Foundation for
Educational Renewal, which is a non-profit organization whose main goal is to promote holistic education.
My
main research question is: “What
is the educational philosophy and practice of these three schools that define
themselves as holistic, and what kind of structure do they provide to students?
The three schools I focused this study were
The School Around Us, The Bellwether School, and a Waldorf School whose name I
will not disclose, since I still do not have their authorization to do so. I
selected these three schools because they define themselves as holistic and
because they have contrasting views on the issue freedom and structure. I
collected the data for the research at the SAU from March to June of 1998, and
for the BW school and the Waldorf school from December to June of this year. I
observed numerous school and classroom activities, participated in school events
and meetings, and conduced extensive interviews with teachers, parents, and
students. I tape-recorded and
transcribed all the interviews (about 150 tapes) and took extensive field notes
during observations.
The
idea of freedom means different things for different people.
In the Western world when we talk about freedom, we are usually referring
to absence of authority, the absence of restraints, and the absence of
influences and obstructions. We
also tend to relate freedom to the concepts of democracy, self-determination,
autonomy, self-dependence, and self-regulation. Besides, we also think of it as
an ability to satisfy desire and give free play to impulses and to express
ourselves. In the Eastern world the idea of freedom relates more to an inner
condition of the individual than to external factors. Freedom in the Eastern
world usually refers to enlightenment and to the absence of conditionings and
fears. I will briefly review three contrasting ways of looking at freedom in the
context of education in order to provide a little framework for my discussion.
John
Dewey (1964) sponsors a different
view on freedom that goes beyond “freedom from restraints,” and “freedom
of choice” sponsored by the libertarians.
Freedom for him does involve choice. However, it also involves
intelligence, knowledge, and objective conditions. According to him, it involves
intelligence and knowledge, since intelligence and knowledge determine various
of our abilities: (1) to thoroughly observe, (2) to foresee the consequences of
our choices and actions, (3) to make plans and judgements, (4) to be effective
in what we do, and (5) to change the course of our plans and actions as needed.
It involves objective conditions because they determine the extent to
which we are be able to think and carry out plans.
Dewey
extensively talked about the role of experience in education. According to him,
learning is based on experience, and each experience builds up on each other
generating more learning. From his
perspective, not all experiences are educative. For example, an experience might
frustrate or generate so much fear in the child that when she faces a similar
experience in the future, she might not want to take part in it.
Considering
his theory of experience, according Dewey, children do need direction and
guidance in their education. While the teachers should base the curriculum on
children’s interests and let the latter participate in decision-making
processes, they should guide them through experiences that can built upon each
other and foster children’s learning and development in ever increasing levels
of complexity.
Dewey
saw self-control as one of the main goals of education. However, for him
decisions shouldn’t be a result of immediate impulses and desires. They should
be the result of well-elaborated thinking process, which is something that the
child can only achieve as she matures. In order to ensure that, teachers should
provide them with a certain degree of structure so that they can make wise
decisions and have truly educative experiences.
A different perspective of freedom
is can be well illustrated by
Krishnamurti’s work. Freedom for him is related to the idea of absence of
conditionings and fears. From his perspective—actually from the perspective of
most eastern philosophical traditions, as well noted by Yoshiharu Nakagawa
(2000)—we necessarily need too get rid from the hindrances of the mind (e.g.
pre-established and fixed theories, patters of thought, and fears) if we are to
have a clear view of reality and if we are to be truly free.
Freedom from this perspective comes from self-knowledge and
self-awareness. It is not necessarily related to absence of external constraints
or to the ability of do what one wants to do. Krishnamurti and other advocates
of this perspective believe that we as educators should not impose our agendas,
values, goals, and knowledge on students not to further condition them with our
own preconceptions and worldview. Krishnamurti
was pretty much against the use of authority in education.
According to him, while authority might generate a sense of safety, it
might also prevent students from having to face their conditionings,
limitations, fears, and pains. From his perspective, teachers should only
attempt to guide students to the extent that they are sure not to want to have
any desire of control and do not want to direct the child towards
particular goals. Based on this view, he doesn’t prescribe educational
practices.
Now
I have presented a brief overview of different understandings of freedom and
structure in education, I would like to talk a little bit about the three
schools I have been studying.
The
SAU is a small elementary school located in Arundel, Maine, USA. It was started
in 1970 by a group of parents who
wanted a truly alternative educational setting where their children could be
themselves and pursue their interests . The school has no administrators and is
run by parents, teachers, students, and friends of the school who make almost
all decisions by consensus. In the academic year I conducted my research, the
SAU had only nine students, ages six to thirteen and three teachers, one full
time and two part-time. The name of the school—School Around Us—stands for
the idea that the world around the school is also a school.
The school values not only the learning experiences that can happen
within the school building, but also the learning possibilities which are
inherent in the world around us. The whole curriculum is based on students’
emerging interests, numerous field trips, and on what they saw as “emerging
learning opportunities.”
A
good example of how the school community took emerging situations as learning
opportunities was how it welcomed my presence in the school as an occasion to
learn about research and about itself. Another good example is how they looked
at the fact that one of the teachers was pregnant and had a baby in the middle
of the year not as a problem, but as an educational opportunity. They liked the
idea that the students would follow the teacher’s pregnancy and the fact that
she brought her baby with her every day to school as she taught. They believed
that among other things, children would learn about natural human processes and
would learn about and how to take care of young children.
The
school day at the School Around Us started with a morning meeting where all
teachers and students shared the news and talked about issues of their concern.
They then had two blocks of classes. One group of students would take math and
another would take language arts. They had a half an hour break between the
classes and a one hour break for outside play and lunch. In the afternoons
teachers and students usually worked on different thematic projects. Once a week
they had an all school meeting and community service.
The
SAU teachers had different views on the issue of freedom and structure: Kendal,
the language arts teachers, along the same lines as A.S. Neill, Daniel
Greenberg, and others, had a profound trust in children’s inner wisdom and
believed that children could educate themselves. From her perspective, the
education of children should be about their goals for themselves and not about
adult’s goals. Since she believed that children would learn when they were
ready to learn, when they needed to learn, and when they decided they wanted to
learn, she gave them a large degree of freedom.
Unlike
Kendall, Greg and Amy—along the same lines as Dewey (1963)—saw their role as
mature adults and educators as to guide students’ experiences in ways that are
conducive to growth and development. While they gave students choices about how
to go about their learning, they also tried to provide them with a certain
extent of structure in an attempt to make sure they would be exposed to
experiences they thought students should necessarily have. I will now talk a
little bit about the contrasting views of two of the teachers , Kendal and Greg,
since these views had quite problematic consequences and can teach us a little
bit about the importance of consistency of beliefs in an educational setting.
I will start by giving an example of the contrast between
their practices. One day I followed
the older group of students first in Kendall’s class and then in Greg’s.
Kendall started her class by reading a piece of a book for the children. After
about ten minutes, however, everyone went running outside to look for a skunk
whose smell they detected from the classroom. After this episode the children
asked her to do their daily writing in the woods. Kendall agreed and we went to
Chrystal Falls, a spot in the woods by a little stream where the students wrote
for about five minutes, and decided they were done with work during Kendall’s
class. They spent most of the time
talking with each other and with Kendall, cooking bagels and hot dogs in a
campfire, or “building dams” in the stream. Following Kendall’s class, the
students went to Greg’s class. Greg asked them to read a four-page article
from the Wall Street Journal, which took them about 20 minutes to read, and
required them to participate in a discussion about it for about 40 minutes.
The
students obviously noticed and reacted to the differences between the
teacher’s teaching styles and requirements. After being allowed to do make
most of the decisions about what to do during Kendall’s classes, they
naturally resisted the fact that Greg tried to direct their experiences, and the
amount of work and the level of difficulty of the work he required of them.
Besides, after having spent time with Kendall, who took time to have fun with
them and to have conversations about different issues, the students naturally
resented the fact that Greg was so focused on academic work. They rebelled
against almost everything Greg asked of them and had numerous all school
meetings complaining about him. There was so much tension and anger towards Greg
that close to the end of the year he could barely get his group together. Even
though, in the eyes of an outsider, Greg was liberal and friendly with students,
for the students who lived the contrast between his pedagogy and Kendall’s, he
seemed authoritarian and out of touch with them.
But
while the students rebelled against Greg and resisted engaging in academic work,
they were concerned that they were not working hard enough in Kendall’s class.
Many of the students expressed this concern during my interviews. See for
instance the following extract of a conversation I had with Abram (11 years old)
when I asked him the question: “Would
you change anything, and what would you change, if you could change the
school?”
Abram- We
could have more writing time. I don’t feel as if we are writing a lot. [Kendal
was responsible for language arts].
Dora
- And wouldn’t you complain about
having more work?
Abram
- Probably, but I think it would be
good for us.
Dora-
Why do you think it would be good?
Abram
- Because I know we are not all that good in writing…And I think we need to do
spelling because I know I am really, really bad in spelling.
(Audio-taped interview, 5/5/98)
Dora-…
But at the same time you would like more structure, you complain when the
teachers ask you to work. Why is that?
Abram-
Ummm (silence). I guess because I don’t really want to do it, but I know I
need to [my underlining]. (Audio-taped interview, 6/4/98)
Answering
the same question about whether students wanted to change anything in the school
and what they would like the change Shanta (10 years old) made the following
comment which elucidates the students’ views on the extent of freedom and
structure they had at the school:
Shanta:
I like that we get to choose a lot of things [in Kendall’s classes], but I
would like a little more structure, because I feel like when I go into
Kendall’s class, I have nothing to do, she is like oh yes, choose something to
do…. Greg doesn’t really understand the freedom of the school because he has
been in public school the whole time…
Dora
- At the same time, you said you wanted a little more structure from Kendall’s
class, you think Greg imposes too much structure?
Shanta
- I want it to even up. Kendall is really nice and gives us a lot of
freedom…and Greg is totally the opposite.
While
many of the SAU students said they wanted the teachers to be more structured in
terms of schedule and requirements, whenever the teachers tried to have them in
class on time and have them work harder, they complained about it and resisted
doing what the teachers asked. Even though these students, in theory, were aware
of the paradox between their “wants” (to play) and their “needs” (to
work harder), and wanted the teachers to help them meet their needs, in
practice, they would almost always prefer to go for their “wants.” As a
consequence they started developing
a low self esteem in whatever related to their academic knowledge and skills.
The
way the SAU teachers balanced freedom and structure in the school affected not
only the academic development but also the well-being of some children. There
were two students in the school who, while they did not need much structure and
guidance to do their academic work, clearly needed more structure in other
areas. One of the students, Jeremy (11 years old), was constantly asking the
teachers questions such as “Is so-and-so supposed to be going outside?”
“When should I start working on this project?” He felt anxious and
frustrated when the teachers did not clearly tell him what he and the other
students were supposed to do. Another student, Aliyah (10 years old) felt
constantly harassed by one of the older boys who kept teasing her. She told me
she wished the teachers were more strict in terms of behavioral rules in order
to avoid this kind of problem.
One
of the major problems I found in the school was that as students participated in
very many decisions about what they would do, they would sometimes seem
overwhelmed with the so many choices they had in front of them. Sometimes they
would spend so
Another
major problem I observed was that while the SAU students connected with numerous
and always emerging learning opportunities from the real world according to what
they were interested in, they got
disconnected from the deeper learning possibilities of each of their
connections. In other words, as they moved from one activity to the next, they
did not get in depth in any of them. They
apparently needed some more structure to help them focus, and some scaffolding
to help them move beyond where they were in terms of their learning and
development.
The
last major problem I wanted to mention here was that not only the inconsistency
of the educational philosophy and practice of the teachers
that confused students, but also the lack of definition of the school as
a whole to what degree of freedom and structure they wanted to adopt. As I
interviewed members of the school community I found that no one had a clear view
on this issue and people were not very aware of the kinds of inconsistencies I
am talking about not. As a consequence, no one new exactly what was ahead of
them: parents could not make an accurate decision whether the school could meet
their child’s needs, and teachers did not know
exactly what they were in for before they started teaching at the school.
The
BW school started in 1992 in Burlington, Vermont, USA,
as a little home-based preschool taught by only one teacher. In 1995 it
became an institutional non-profit organization and moved to Williston, Vermont,
where it is still located.
During
the time of my research the school had three
multi-age rooms: the pre-school, with 15 children aged 3 to 5; the primary room,
with 18 children aged 5 to 7; and the elementary classroom with 9 children aged
8 to 11. The school now has expanded and has one more classroom for older
children up to 6th grade.
The
BW curriculum is “emergent.”
In other words, it is not pre-established. It springs from subjects both
teachers and students are interested in. The teacher has only general goals in
mind and the curriculum takes shape in the context of interactions between
teachers, students and materials. Based on what happens in the classroom, the
teachers make hypotheses about what kinds of activities might interest the
students and prepare the classroom so that further learning experiences can
occur.
Let
me give an example of what the BW school means by “emergent curriculum.”
When I was observing the school, the primary classroom (children 5 to 7 years
old) was working on a project about the ancient Egypt. This project started when
one of the teachers read a book that referred to the ancient Egypt. As some of
the students clearly got interested in the topic, the teachers read and put out
more books and materials that stimulated further exploration.
Using these books and materials, students, according to their interests, modelled
Ancient Egypt artefacts and amulets out of clay, and made pyramids using
blocks, cardboard, paper, sugar cubes and clay. They also constructed a real
person’s size mummy. The teachers and a parent also organized a slide show
about the ancient Egypt and the whole class visited a museum to learn more about
the topic. Along with all these activities, students also read and wrote essays
on topics related to the ancient-Egypt.
Children’s
emerging interests and needs are at the very core of the BW curriculum. The
teachers try to make sure to create plenty of opportunities for children to
express themselves and speak about things that are important to them. Based on
children’s voices and on their observations of individual students, the
teachers dedicate their time and energy during the school day to address things
that children are interested in, in ways that will potentially promote their
learning and development in different areas. The BW teachers want students to
feel that their interests are valued, and that their voices, their will, and
their actions can make a difference in the world
While
the BW teachers equally value all aspect of children’s development—social,
emotional, intellectual, aesthetic, physical—and give children a lot of
choices to what they can do in the classroom, they created a structure in order
to make sure children cover the different academic skills they are supposed to
according to children’s age. They are flexible in terms of not having every
child be at specific developmental levels by the end of each year. But they do
try to make sure children are not stagnant and are moving beyond where they are
in terms of their own individual possibilities.
The
day at the BW school started smoothly. Children arrived from 8 to 8:30 with
their parents who would walk into the classroom and sometimes would spend some
time playing with children or talking with the teacher. From 8 to around 9:30
the whole school had something they called “explore time.” During this time
children could freely choose activities they would like to engage in
individually or with peers. Some examples of activities they did during explore
were knitting, embroidery, electric circuit building, weaving, painting,
drawing, clay, writing, puppet-making, puppet shows, recorder and drum playing,
and playing games such as chess and checkers.
This was an excellent time for children to socialize, explore issues of
their interests, work out problems with their peers, and ask for private
attention from the teacher. All classrooms at BW had “explore time”
simultaneously, children could visit each other’s room, explore different
equipment and materials, and play with one another. This
fostered a strong sense of community in the school.
In
the elementary classroom, after explore time there was morning circle where
teachers and students shared the news and discussed issues of their interests.
After that they had a block of half-an-hour for rotational activities: either
Spanish, Geography, sciences or music. Following the rotational activities they
had snack and then a block of time of about 1:15 for writing or reading
workshop. After this they had one
hour of outside play, followed by lunch, chapter-book reading and time for
working on thematic projects. Once a week they had a special music class and an
all-school-meeting.
During
about 1/3 of the school day, during explore and outside time, the Bellwether
students could basically choose whatever they wanted to do as long as they were
safe and not interfering with the freedom and well-being of other students. Only
if children were wandering a lot or making poor choices would the teachers try
to guide them as needed. During the rest of the day the teachers would try to
guide students through different kinds of activities, giving them as much choice
as possible. For example, during reading and writing workshops, they would
usually let students choose the books they wanted to read and the themes they
wanted to write on. They would then work with individual or small groups of
students depending on their needs and level of development.
The
Bellwether teachers try to help students set their own goals and keep them
excited about and engaged in what they are doing. They try to give students
enough guidance to challenge them to keep moving forward in their learning by
(1) exposing them to different kinds of experiences, (2) suggesting new
directions they might possibly want to go and perspectives they might want to
explore, and (3) by helping them understand complex information and relate
different bodies of knowledge.
One important characteristic of the Bellwether school I
should mention here is that the teachers seemed to be in love with children and
with their work. When the teachers talked with me about their work they said
only positive things about it. The students also seemed to absolutely love the
school. While I haven’t talked with all students in the school, I did
interview all students from the elementary classroom, and all of them, with no
exception, stated that they loved both their teacher and the school and that
they looked forward to coming to school every day. These students also said that
they were quite happy with the kind of structure they had at the school. When I
asked them whether there was anything in the school they would like to change,
and what they would like to change in the school, they made only a few comments
about the physical structure of the school (they said for instance that they
would like the school to build a giant hot tub and underground mazes). Aside for
that, they said they did not want to change anything in the school.
How
many of you know a little bit about Waldorf education?
How many of you have already read Rudolf Steiner’s work?
Waldorf
education is a unique kind of education created by Rudolf Steiner in Germany,
1919. Steiner was an eclectic man
who published over 50 books in philosophy, sciences , arts, and education .
He founded a movement called anthroposophy, which he defined as
“the wisdom of the human being” (Trostly, ,… in Steiner), and
recommended as path to spiritual knowledge and development,
and for personal and cultural transformation.
Steiner
promoted ideas about the interconnectedness between everyone and everything in
the universe and fostered values such as anti-materialism and anti-consumerism.
He also, based on his clairvoyance and mystic experiences fostered a theory of
child development and education based on the ideas of life before and after
death and reincarnation.
For
Steiner, “our highest endeavor must be to develop free human beings, who are
able, of themselves, to bring purpose and direction to their lives.” (Steiner
quoted by Trostly, p. 9). Freedom, according to him involves a view of the world
based on intuition, thinking and feeling that springs from the individual human
spirit. In other words, it involves a view of the world that is not based on the
“appearances and illusions of the sense-world.” It also involves
consciousness of one’s thoughts and of the causes of one’s actions.
Besides, it involves knowledge, skills, and will so that one can achieve
one’s goals (Steiner,
The philosophy of freedom). Will for him is the power one needs to draw
on to put into effect one’s intentions. Without it, one cannot possibly be
free.
Steiner
believes that freedom can only be achieved through tended and guided experiences
throughout childhood. Therefore he recommends that we as adults carefully
structure children’s experiences according to their developmental stages and
needs. According to him there are
three major stages of development and education:
The
first stage is from zero to seven. According him, during this stage children
learn mostly through example and imitation and do not need much direction. The
role of the teacher should be mainly to provide students with a beautiful and
organized environment as well as be a good role model for children to emulate.
The curriculum should be focused on the development of the child’s will. It
should be based on free play, story telling, nature walks, and practical
activities such as cooking and cleaning
The
second stage of development is from ages seven to fourteen. Unlike younger
children, according to Steiner, children at this stage tend to have a hard time
making choices, and “have a deep
longing for direction and authority.” They are
“uneasy when laxity prevails,” and want a “teacher who can ‘keep
them in order’” (Harwood p.
84-87). They need a teacher as a
constant authority figure in their life someone who they can love and trust, who
can give them direction in their learning and behavior, and who can guide them
step by step in their experiences ( the Waldorf teacher ideally stays
with the same group of students from first to eight grade).
During this stage of development the Waldorf curriculum focuses on
fostering the imagination and feeling life of the child through the arts, music,
and story telling which are pretty much present throughout almost everything
they do during the daily life of the school.
During the third stage of development, from 14 to 21,
according to Steiner, students no longer want or need a teacher as an authority
figure. At this point they wish to assert their viewpoints and will not respect
the teacher only because the latter is older. They will respect the teacher
based on the quality of the relationship they can have with him or her and based
on the teacher’s knowledge and
experience.
From
the Waldorf perspective, children should not be called to make judgements and
decisions before they can “perceive things as they really are,” and until
they can “feel” things with
their whole being before attempting to come to conclusions. Steiner explains:
Also from the Waldorf perspective, children should not be
called to make judgements and decisions before they have enough knowledge,
experience, and skills to have an intelligent stand. This, according to Steiner,
does not happen before puberty.
“Nothing
is more harmful to children than to awaken independent judgment too early. Human
beings are not in a position to judge until they have collected material for
judgment and comparison in their inner life. If they form their own conclusions
before doing so, their conclusions will lack foundation. Educational mistakes of
this kind are the cause of all narrow one-sidedness in life, and all barren
creeds based on a few scraps of knowledge, ready on this basis to condemn ideas
experienced and proven by humankind often throughout long ages.” ( Steiner ,
in book by Trostly, 41-42 – name of the essay: The education of the child in
the light of spiritual science – da p. 11 a 43)
Unlike in the SAU and the BW school, elementary school
Waldorf students—especially those in the early grades—have virtually no
choices about what they are going to be learning or doing during the school day.
While the degree of structure Waldorf teachers offer vary a little bit from
teacher to teacher and from school to school, as a general rule, Waldorf
teachers are very much directive in the early grades and gradually give students
a little more choices in the older grades. It is only in high school that
students have a significant degree
of voice in their school experiences.
Waldorf teachers believe that “children are only
children” and that it is counter-productive to have them make choices about
their own education in the early elementary grades. This takes away from
children’s right of being just children, and from possibilities they could
have later in their lives. The sixth grade teacher explains:
“I
think it is counterproductive. You
would be robbing the child from their experience of feeling safe and protected
and comfortable in no responsibility—that the adults have the
responsibility for your choice, that the adult know what is right and what is
wrong for them—and then they can let go of that and be children and be
imaginative and free in their imagination. They need to have structure and
authority and direction. Choices rob them of their ability to later on, to
really know what they want, because now they don’t know what they want. If
right from the beginning they are given choices, the choices they make shape
them …” (Anita Christina)
Waldorf educators believe they should guide children—even
if against student’s will—to make sure the latter will be exposed to certain
experiences that perhaps they would not spontaneously go through by themselves
for fear of failure or lack of opportunities, interest or initiative. They want
to make sure children are exploring their potentials and moving beyond where
they are in spite of their resistance, fears, and limitations so that
“doors” will be open for them
later in life.
The Waldorf curriculum exposes children to an incredibly
rich variety of experiences from first to eight grade. For example, in the
school where I did my research, besides the academic program, starting in first
grade children learn to play the recorder, have two foreign language classes,
have handwork classes (along the years all children learn to knit,
crochet, embroider, and sow), and
besides games classes, they
also have Eurhythmy classes (“Eurhythmy is an art form which translates music
and speech into movement.” (
32 questions, p.13) . In
third grade students start with singing classes. In forth grade they
start with a string instrument, and
in fifth grade they can study either a string or wind instrument. In fifth grade
they are also introduced to chorus classes and to woodwork classes (they learn
how to make wooden bowls, spoons, games, bird-houses, etc). In six grade they
begin to practice in the school orchestra. Each group of children from first to
eight grade continues to experience these different kinds of classes in
increasing levels of difficulties from year to year.
Also from year to year each class produces a play which is presented to
the school community once a year.
In
all Waldorf schools the day starts with a main lesson, which is a period that
teachers focus on the teaching of the most academic part of the day. During the
main lesson the teacher focuses on the teaching of one subject for a block of
period of three to six weeks so that teachers and students can approach
and focus on a same subject with a certain degree of depth for an extended
period of time. The subjects that require constant practice such as math,
English, and foreign language are taught in a regular and continuous basis in
smaller periods of time throughout the school day. The Waldorf curriculum
follows a very specific structure, which they believe attends the developmental
needs of children in their different stages and foster their whole being.
Underlying the curriculum of first graders there are fairy tales; second grade;
fables and legends of the saints; third grade, old Testament stories; fourth
grade, Norse myths; fifth grade, Indian, Persian, Egyptian-Chaldean and Greek
history and mythology; sixth grade, Roman and Medieval history; seventh grade,
renaissance and the age of discovery; and eight grade, modern history.
One essential characteristic of the Waldorf curriculum is
that it tries to protect childhood as much as possible delaying the teaching of
academic skills and knowledge. For instance, they do not teach writing until
first grade, and reading until second grade. From my perspective, this is in
fact a problematic aspect of the Waldorf curriculum. I have observed, for
instance, episodes in the second grade classroom in which while the teacher was
still asking the children to locate specific words in the blackboard (initial
stages of reading) some of the students were pulling books of about 150 pages
from under their desks to read whenever they had a chance.
While I agree with Waldorf educators that early introduction to academic
learning might hinder children’s healthy and balanced development, I also
think we need to take into consideration that in our days children are exposed
to the literate world since they are born. Many children learn to read
spontaneously and on their own very early in their lives. While it is true that
the Waldorf teaching approach to reading might bring letters to life to
children, and while children who already know how to read can potentially
benefit from this approach, some students do resent the fact they have to
re-learn how to read and seem bored in the classroom during reading sections, as
I observed. Perhaps it would be much more beneficial to these students to
instead of having to re-learn how to read, they could use their time practicing
and further developing the skills they already have.
Another important aspect
of the Waldorf curriculum is that the arts are a part of everything they do at
the school from how they decorate their classrooms to the kinds of activities
they do during the day in almost every lesson. For example, students write and
illustrate their own books (in Waldorf education they do not use textbooks).
Because the teachers guide them in writing and drawing techniques, and because
they give children plenty of time to do their work carefully, their handmade
books are very beautiful and look like little pieces of art.
Another essential aspect of the Waldorf curriculum important
to mention here is its spiritual dimension. While Waldorf schools do not
subscribe to specific religious tradition, it fosters a strong sense of
reverence and connectedness with everyone and everything around us.
For example, the school day always start with a morning verse thanking
the spirit that animates us from within and for the gifts it gives us. Teachers
and students also always say a verse and/or
a song before snack and lunch thanking the earth for the food. Often times they
also light a candle before meals. Besides, the teachers consciously try to
foster mindfulness through example and by offering students non-hurried time so
that they can complete their tasks as carefully as possible. They also often
sing songs or say verses at the beginning of specific activities, which helps
bring students presence to the moment. Most of the words of the songs and verses
they say and sing at the Waldorf promote a sense of interdependence with the
natural world and a sense of reverence and gratitude for all we have.
Waldorf
teachers guide students step by step in almost every single thing they do at
school in the early grades. The extent to which they guide students even in
their art projects are a good example of this.
During drawing and painting sections, for instance, the teachers tell
students even where they should keep their drawing and painting materials on
their desks, what and how they should draw and paint, what colors they should
use, and how they should hold their crayons and brushes, and in what directions
they should move them on the paper.
Many
people criticize the Waldorf structure, specially its approach to arts since it
doesn’t seem to give children much space to express themselves and since
children’s art work seem pretty much the same to the eyes of an outsider.
Waldorf teachers reply to this criticism explaining that they believe
that the artistic work they do with their students are pedagogical exercises
aiming at teaching them techniques and skills so that students develop the kinds
of tools they need in order to be truly free and creative later in their lives.
They also claim that the directed art work
they do with students is therapeutic: there is an implicit reality in colors
that work in our inner-being. Besides, they also claim that the art work they do
foster in children a view of the interconnectedness and the fluidity that exists
between everything in the universe.
The Waldorf curriculum is structured
to such an extent that it leaves virtually no room to address current
issues children might be eventually interested in, especially in the early grades.
For instance, most Waldorf teachers would usually not address the shooting that
happened yesterday in a neighboring school or discuss the news about the war
that started somewhere else in the world because children are talking about
these things and say they are interested in them. They first try to feel whether
children are genuinely interested in these things and are ready for the kind of
conversations that might emerge around the topic in the classroom. The teacher
also needs to feel whether the issue at stake is a “living issue” for the
whole class—and not only for a few individual students—and whether
“juicy” lessons can be learned from the discussion before they decide to
have it.
Waldorf
educators believe that media, popular culture, and adults in general tend to
impose on children issues that do not really “live in them” and force them
to deal with “adult issues” too
often. They actually ask parents
not to let children watch TV or deal with other electronic media such as the
internet until fourth grade, or at least, during weekdays so that these mediums
do not interfere with the school work. They
as educators try to be very careful to discern what is real for the students and
what is imposed by adults or by popular culture.
Usually,
only as teachers feel children are old enough and have a solid basis on which to
develop good opinions and stands, do the teachers gradually make space in the
classroom to address certain polemic issues students are apparently interested
in. During an interview with the fourth grade teacher he mentioned for instance,
that he would not normally lead a discussion about racial issues with his fourth
grade students unless this was a really boiling issue for the children. But he
would probably make room for this kind of discussion with his eight graders,
since by then his students would have already studied the history of slavery and
imperialism, and therefore would have both a good background to engage in rich
conversation about the topic, and a good basis to develop independent viewpoints
and opinions.
As
students grow older and develop knowledge, skills, and self-discipline Waldorf
teachers gradually give them more opportunities to make decisions about their
own learning. As the second grade teacher explained,
“The ultimate goal is to give the authority into their own hand… so
that they can become their own authority. If they learn to obey an adult and to
follow the discipline that is given to them by an adult…it is going to become
self-discipline. And it happens around the age of 14 as they are going to the
high school year.…The ultimate goal is for them to take it on themselves. If
you go this path from first to eight grade with the class there is a
changing relationship to authority “ (Karen march 8, 6)
But
while they give students more freedom, the freedom they allow is still quite
controlled. For example, while 6th, 7th and 8th
grades can choose research topics to focus their work, they still have to choose
their topics from a list provided by the teacher and should do their work
according to the guidelines also designed by the teacher. Only in high school
are the students able to give more direction to their own learning.
From
the Waldorf perspective freedom is a long-term goal cultivated through structure
and control. While this might seem paradoxical, their curriculum does appear to
provide a degree of structure in the following ways:
·
By
letting children be children and by promoting in them a rich imaginative life.
Imagination, as we know, is the very basis for creative thinking: we need to be
imaginative to visualize different possibilities and to come to discoveries and
insights.
·
By
protecting and helping children become critical of mainstream values such as
materialism and consumerism so that they do not become entrapped by them as most
people seem to in our days.
·
By
focusing on spirituality and on children’s inner life rather than external
achievements
·
By
fostering the development of the whole child—intellectual, physical,
emotional, aesthetic, spiritual, and social—and by offering them a rich
curriculum that explores their different potentials and open them up to
different possibilities.
·
By making
them go through different experiences and by helping them develop self-
discipline to complete their tasks and achieve certain goals. As an alumni
commented during an interview, “ The
teachers make you do things that sometimes you do not want to do. You might not
appreciate it while you are in the middle of the process, but as you go through
this process you develop a lot of self-discipline. You might not appreciate the
process as you are going through it but in the end you find it
“incredibly freeing” because
you did all you did.”
·
By not
allowing children to make judgement calls and decisions in the early grades. As
paradoxically as this might seem, as Steiner suggests and as an alumnus
commented to me during an interview, this gives students the opportunity to
learn to “feel and listen with their whole being” before coming to judgement
calls. This fosters in them a degree of freedom since they can have a more
grounded understanding of reality and therefore make wiser choices.
CONCLUSIONS
There are some important contrasts between the SAU, BW and
the Waldorf elementary school learning environments related to the issue of
freedom and structure:
·
While the SAU and the BW curriculum are emergent,
unpredictable, and everything that children are interested in can easily become
part of the curriculum, at the Waldorf school the curriculum is planned by the
teacher and there is little room to address children’s emerging interests.
·
While at the SAU the learning environment is the world
within and outside the school and students make most decisions about their
learning (this was specially true in Kendall’s class), at the BW school the
learning environment is previously prepared by the teachers and children make
choices within a well established structure. As the BW teachers provide
children with choices, they also set clear boundaries and guide the students in
order to make sure they are physically and emotionally safe and are working on
their different aspects of development (including reading, writing and math). At
the Waldorf school, very differently from the two other schools,
students—specially those on the early grades—have very little choices and
teachers control most of all they do in school.
·
While the SAU and the BW school explores what is immediately
important for children and address the real world in which they live, the
Waldorf curriculum tries to protect children from this world.
As the SAU and BW teachers want to make sure they address what children
say is important for them, the Waldorf teachers believe that often these things
are imposed on children by adults or by the media and don’t really truly live
in children’s heart. They want children to feel that at least in school they
can be children and not to have to worry about what they consider “adult
issues” or about the kinds of things they have to face in their daily lives.
They also avoid discussing certain issues in school in order to avoid
propagating sensationalistic news and materialistic and consumerist ideas. And
finally, they want to make sure to have enough time to expose children to their
very diversified curriculum that includes the practice of different musical
instruments, arts, foreign languages, handwork, woodwork, singing, and
Eurhythmy. This would not be possible if they did not have a very structured and
protective schedule of activities.
·
While at the SAU and at the BW students are supposed to
participate in decision making processes, at the Waldorf asking children in the
early grades to make judgement calls is considered inappropriate. A good example
of this difference is that while both SAU and BW teachers welcomed my idea to
write a letter to students informing them of my research and asking for their
formal permission to observe and interview them, the Waldorf teachers asked me
not to do so since they believe
children are not ready to make this kind of decision.
·
While at the SAU and BW the teaching is focused on the
individual child and students learn at their own developmental level and pace,
at Waldorf school the teaching is focused on the group and all children are
taught the same things at the same time.
·
While at the SAU and at BW the students are expected to be
little explores, risk-takers, and researchers, at the Waldorf school students
rely very much on what the teacher provides them with.
·
While at the SAU and BW school teachers’ and students’
have a close relationship, at Waldorf the teacher and students stay more at a
distance. The teacher is an authority figure. This is well illustrated by the
fact that as in the Waldorf school the teacher stands in front of the class and
students sit in rows arranged by the teacher, in the BW students and teachers
sit on the same level—usually on the floor—and
the teachers often have one or two children on their lap.
In face of the differences between the schools one could ask
which is the best school? I don’t think there is a right answer to this
question. Well, perhaps one answer would be that the SAU, at least during the
time I was doing my research would not be a good option given the school’s
lack of definition on the issue of freedom and structure and the inconsistencies
between the teachers. But, it is interesting to note that in spite of the
problems this school was facing during the time I did my research, the school
was an excellent option to at least one of its students who had been expelled
from a public school and had many learning difficulties. As this student and
mother explained, the school had been a healing place for him since there he was
regaining his self-esteem and finding his voice.
I personally think that both the Bellwether School and the
Waldorf School I studied are excellent schools. Each of these schools has its
strengths and how we go about the answer to the question “which one would
be the best option for our child” should take into consideration at
least three variables: (1) What kinds of values
do we hold and what kinds of expectations do we have for the child?
(2) Who is the child and what kind of structure does he/she
need in order to optimize his/her learning and development?; and (3) Who
is the teacher and how will he/she relate to the child?
Let me first talk about the first variable: What
kinds of values do we hold and what kind of expectations de we have for the
child? Both schools are excellent schools for those who would like to foster the
development of the whole child and do not place more importance on the
intellectual aspect than on other aspects of development. But Waldorf education
seems to be the ideal kind of education for families who would like to foster in
their children values such as anti-materialism and anti-consumerism, and for
those who believe that grounded spiritual practices should be at the center of
one’s daily life. It is also a good option for those who besides having these
values also want their children to experience a rich curriculum not only in the
regular academic subjects, but in
foreign languages, arts, dramatic arts, music, handwork, woodwork,
and Eurhythmy. From my perspective Waldorf education would not be a good
option for families who would like their children, from an early age, to be
informed about current issues and versed in technological skills. Usually
Waldorf schools do not expose children to computers before high school, and
shelter them from the real world and from current issues until they feel
children are fully prepared to deal with them.
Now let me talk about the second variable, who the child is
and how she learns best. Some children need a lot of structure, and need to be
guided almost step by step in order to learn. Waldorf schools seem to be a best
option for these kind of learners. Other children are self-directed and
independent learners. The Bellwether School
might be a better for them. This can be well exemplified by the
experience of three siblings who attended both kinds of schools. These three
children started at Bellwether, moved to Waldorf, and now two are at Bellwether
and one is at Waldorf. The parents of these children found that the Waldorf
School worked best for their oldest child because he needed more guidance than
the Bellwether School could provide him. He tended to wander a lot during
explore time at the Bellwether School and seemed unable to focus for very long
without the teacher’s direction. Waldorf education has been a good choice for
him, since the structure it provides guides him step by step towards the
achievement of specific goals. Paradoxically, the Waldorf structure seems to
allow him more freedom than the Bellwether structure. His mother explains:
“Now
we [parents and teachers] don’t have to nudge him as much because the
expectation is there for him. There is an expectation of the class that he is
part of .He knows what the expectation is, he knows what the goal is, he knows
what he needs till he gets there…It is a struggle for him. But because the
expectation is there, he doesn’t just float or a sort of wander. I think what
I mean by ‘he can be himself’ is
that he knows where the spaces are that allow him to wander and be aimless and
play, but he also knows the places where he needs to sit and focus. So that
there is less room where he has to be asked over and over again ‘let’s work
on this project,’ ‘ let’s see, you didn’t complete this….
But
while the Waldorf school works well for this child, it doesn’t work for his
younger siblings, who are self-directed and independent learners. According to
their mother, the Waldorf structure is just too much for them. She explains:
“My
two younger children have a very
clear set of ideas of where they want to go with something and need the freedom
to explore those ideas. That if they want to write or do work around King Arthur
for instance, being told the exact words that they need to write down on a page
didn’t work for them because they need to be able to say, what is it for me
that king Arthur represents? They
did go a long way at BW when they were here…They could take a project and work
with it and with guidance… find different areas to fulfill that project.”
(243)
Now
let me talk about the third variable: Who the teacher is and what kind of
relationship he/she is able to establish with the child. Many authors such as
Krishnamurti, Steiner, Parker Palmer, Jack Miller, Ron Miller, Kessler, among
others have been calling our importance of this variable.
While doing my research I interviewed mother of a Bellwether child who
had a sibling at Waldorf. While this mother deeply appreciated the Waldorf
philosophy, she had to move her child to Bellwether because the teacher her
child happened to have at Waldorf didn’t have a good relationship with the
students. This mother explained:
This
is a Waldorf kid! She loves music, she loves arts, she is physical, she loves
stories, she is really into imaginative world…But Teo went to first grade with
this teacher who really scared her…he hit her with a pointer one day, and
punished students in different ways… No matter how much we worked on it…he
was really glued on where he was and didn’t get how to work with it…So it
really got to a crisis point and that’s when we said we need to pull her out
of this environment. She lost a lot of self-esteem last year, she was not a good
learner, she would never do anything good enough…It was an incredible process
to see this little girl lose her sense of her self with the other teacher and
now to see her with someone who she feels comfortable with. How much love to
learn! …And how capable she is to take things up!
It wasn’t really Waldorf that wasn’t working for her, it was really
her relationship with her teacher, which really didn’t work…I wish I had a
video. It would be so great, a video of her last year in that learning
environment, and her this year in this learning environment [the Bellwether
school]”
According to this mother, and I very much agree with her,
who the teacher is and the kind of relationship the teacher is able to
develop with the child is extremely important, sometimes even more important
than the educational philosophy of the school. As we could see from the instance
above, the teacher just couldn’t live up to the Waldorf philosophy because of
where he was in terms of his own development.
Before
finishing, I would like to go back to the authors I mentioned in the beginning
and relate their work to my own view on freedom and structure in education. From
Krishnamurti, Steiner, and others—specially the eastern philosophical
tradition—I take the notion of “inner-freedom”: The idea of freedom
as self-knowledge, self-awareness, and the absence of conditionings. From
Steiner I also take his emphasis on strength of will to do what needs to be done
as key for a thorough understanding of freedom. I believe that it is very
unfortunate that these views of inner-freedom are not emphasized in the Western
world. From Dewey I take the idea of freedom as related not only to choice and
objective conditions, but also to intelligence and knowledge, since the latter
determine our ability to thoroughly observe, to foresee the consequences of our
choices and actions, to make plans and judgements, to be effective in what we
do, and to change the course of our plans and actions as needed. From Neill and
Holt I take questions which I keep asking myself: They raise important questions
that we ought to think about such as “what
right do we have to tell children what and how they should learn?”
(check where this is coming from) And
“How can we say that what he [she] wants
to know is less important than what we want him [her] to know? (Holt 1982, p.
292). But while I keep asking myself these questions and I do think that free
schools and schools like the School Around Us work for certain children, I
personally believe that as a general rule, most children do need a degree of
structure and guidance in their educational experiences so that they can
be truly free—both inwardly and outwardly—for the following reasons:
·
No matter
how much we hope children can think, act, and make choices for themselves, they
will always be influenced by other sources of “guidance.” Their peers,
television, videos, internet sites, and the media in general will inevitably
lead them in directions that aren’t always beneficial.
·
Many
children do not have a good idea of what they are capable of and if not given a
hand, may never transcend their views on some of their potentials and current
reality. This is specially true for children who have a low self-esteem.
·
Whereas
for some children the school experience might be the only instance where they
can explore their humanity and unique selves (Roger, personal communication,
2000), for many others schools might be the only place where they can have the
opportunity to develop specific skills and have access to certain bodies of
knowledge. This is especially true for children who live in poverty and/or live
in homes that do not offer them enough positive learning opportunities.
·
A degree
of structure is important so that we can make sure children will engage in a
variety of rich learning experiences. As
Dewey contends, what children like to do and choose to do is influenced by their
previous experiences and by what they have already learned. The richer the
learning experiences a child has been exposed to and the more she knows, the
more likely she will be to want to involve herself in new and more complex
learning experiences.
·
A degree
of structure is important because it can aid us in developing focus,
self-discipline, and strength of will, which are necessary tools for the
achievement of long-term goals. For
example, we need good reading and writing skills (which take a long time to
develop) in order to pursue our interests in the modern word (outward freedom).
We need self-knowledge and self-awareness for inner-freedom.
As we know these skills usually require regular and systematic practices
(e.g. purposeful reflection, contemplation, and meditation).
We need self-knowledge and self-awareness in order to free ourselves from
social, cultural, and internal conditioning.
·
We need
to make sure all aspects of the child—intellectual, physical, spiritual,
emotional, and social—are honored and addressed. Otherwise we might
unconsciously focus on those which are most appealing to us, leaving other
important aspects aside. (This was
actually the case of the School Around Us: The school community spent so much
time dealing with the physical, spiritual, social, and emotional dimensions that
the intellectual got quite neglected. Ironically, the negligence of the
intellectual aspect negatively affected students’ emotional health: their
self-esteem).
·
Last but
not least, children need structure and guidance to help them learn to limit
their personal demands so that they can sustain healthy relationships with other
people and with the natural environment, and so that they can learn to live with
limits if we are to ensure ecological sustainability (e.g., Orr 1994; Smith
1992; Bowers 1993) and cultural sustainability (R. Miller 1995).