Dear me, I certainly managed to irritate a few people yesterday by raising questions about the objectivity of a well known Anthroposophist whose research on Steiner schools has recently been publicised. Anybody would think that some of those commenting actually wanted to believe that it was a good idea to delay the teaching of reading to young children!
Let me clear up a few points, rather than respond to each individual comment yesterday. I was shown a copy of this thesis at the end of last year. There were two reasons that it was thought that it might amuse me. One is that I used to write extensively for Prediction magazine a while ago and Steiner was a particular interest of mine. The other reason was that although it was not mentioned in the Daily Telegraph report, Sugatte has a lot to say about pushy parents who "force their children to start reading before they're ready". As a pushy parent, indeed I am sure that I could have pushed young children for England had it been an Olympic event, I was naturally intrigued by this. I was particularly interested because the real motive behind this work was carefully concealed. Let me explain.
Most of those who send their children to Steiner schools are not all that bothered about the underlying rationale behind the education on offer. Many are vaguely aware of the mythology and most I suppose are happy for their children not to be taught reading at school until they are seven. The reasons for this educational philosophy though, are fascinating. Rudolf Steiner received a series of insights during trances, in which it was revealed to him that when the spirit first enters a baby's body, it takes seven years to settle in as it were. During that time, one must not tax the spirit with academic work. At the age of fourteen, the astral body moves in as well, making things a little cramped for the spirit and soul. This, rather than hormones, is what precipitates puberty.
This is why Sugatte chose the magic age of seven for his research, because of a mystical insight received by the head of the German Theosophical Society a century ago. Some of us prefer to rely upon empirical observation. The accusation was levelled at me yesterday that I am a Christian. This is preposterous. Going to church on Sunday mornings is, like reading the Sunday Telegraph and going for a walk in Epping Forest after lunch, simply what one does on Sundays; it has no religious significance. I have to say that my objection to Anthroposophy is not that the followers believe mad things. After all, as somebody pointed out yesterday, it is pretty mad to believe in virgin births and acquiring the strength of a dead God by eating his body, no less mad than believing in Gnomes and reincarnation! My objection is that to encourage people to educate their children in a certain way based upon revelation during seances and trances is a bad move. If a Christian sect began delaying the teaching of reading until the age of eleven because the Holy Ghost had told their leader that this was best, I would be the first to complain.
I rather suspect, from the comments made yesterday, that many people don't realise the significance of the fact that the author of this controversial piece of work is an Anthroposophist. I am sure that it was properly conducted and that the supervision was rigorous, but that does not make the conclusion true. The best comparison which I can make is with Aristotelian logic. A syllogism may be perfectly valid without being true. I am afraid that not every thesis leading to a PhD draws true conclusions from the data.
Showing posts with label Steiner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steiner. Show all posts
Friday, 8 January 2010
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
No benefit in learning to read early?
I have been reading with interest the newspaper reports about research by Sebastian Sugatte in New Zealand. The gist of the matter is that according to this man, there is no advantage to children in learning to read early, as opposed to waiting a few years and then starting at seven. Music to the ears of autonomous educators!
There are a few things worth noting about this piece of work. Firstly, this is reported as being; "a report published by Otago University" written by "Dr Sebastian Sugatte". Precisely as in the case with Paula Rothermel's research, this report fails to make it clear that this was a thesis written by a student, rather than academic work conducted by the university itself. This does not of course invalidate the findings, but it is worth bearing in mind.
Another point to remember is that this is not exactly an unbiased piece of work. Sebastian Sugatte was for years a leading light in the students' Anthroposophical Society at the university. He has always been a dedicated supporter of Rudolf Steiner's theories about education. In other words, he did not embark on this research in order to test whether children did better if they delayed learning to read until seven. Rather, he believed this firmly and went looking for evidence to support the hypothesis. That this is so can be seen from the wording he uses. He talks of the age at which children are, "forced to start reading"! How's that for objective, academic language? There is a lack of candour on the part of the man, as can be seen in this quotation from the New Zealand Herald. He is speaking of the apparent discovery that children learning later were not disadvantaged, "Dr Suggate said he was surprised by his own findings that this was not the case." For a dedicated anthroposophist to make such a statement with a straight face suggests strongly that there is an element of deliberate deception involved.
One hesitates to be snobbish about these matters, but perhaps controversial findings of this sort might be given more attention if they emanated from work carried out by professors at Harvard or UCL, rather than by a student at Otago. The whole thing is a little dubious, regardless of who carried it out though. I have had dealings with a couple of Steiner schools in this country and a few things strike me at once. Firstly, just because the schools themselves don't encourage children of five and six to read, that does not mean that parents are not teaching them at home. Indeed, I have actually seen this for myself. Some parents prefer the Steiner schools because they are gentle and non pushy, but they supplement what happens at school by giving their children informal little lessons at home. Some children attend part-time, just for social reasons and their parents then teach them at home. The report in the Telegraph talks of children, "left without books until they turn seven", but I would be surprised to hear that that is really the case.
In short, this is interesting, but far more needs to be known about it. I observe that Sebastian Sugatte took into account such factors as income, literacy in the home and so on, but unless the situation in New Zealand is dramatically different from this country, there are huge differences between those families who favour Steiner schools and those who send their kids to the local state primary. Delaying the formal teaching of reading from five to seven is perhaps not one of the greatest of these differences.
There are a few things worth noting about this piece of work. Firstly, this is reported as being; "a report published by Otago University" written by "Dr Sebastian Sugatte". Precisely as in the case with Paula Rothermel's research, this report fails to make it clear that this was a thesis written by a student, rather than academic work conducted by the university itself. This does not of course invalidate the findings, but it is worth bearing in mind.
Another point to remember is that this is not exactly an unbiased piece of work. Sebastian Sugatte was for years a leading light in the students' Anthroposophical Society at the university. He has always been a dedicated supporter of Rudolf Steiner's theories about education. In other words, he did not embark on this research in order to test whether children did better if they delayed learning to read until seven. Rather, he believed this firmly and went looking for evidence to support the hypothesis. That this is so can be seen from the wording he uses. He talks of the age at which children are, "forced to start reading"! How's that for objective, academic language? There is a lack of candour on the part of the man, as can be seen in this quotation from the New Zealand Herald. He is speaking of the apparent discovery that children learning later were not disadvantaged, "Dr Suggate said he was surprised by his own findings that this was not the case." For a dedicated anthroposophist to make such a statement with a straight face suggests strongly that there is an element of deliberate deception involved.
One hesitates to be snobbish about these matters, but perhaps controversial findings of this sort might be given more attention if they emanated from work carried out by professors at Harvard or UCL, rather than by a student at Otago. The whole thing is a little dubious, regardless of who carried it out though. I have had dealings with a couple of Steiner schools in this country and a few things strike me at once. Firstly, just because the schools themselves don't encourage children of five and six to read, that does not mean that parents are not teaching them at home. Indeed, I have actually seen this for myself. Some parents prefer the Steiner schools because they are gentle and non pushy, but they supplement what happens at school by giving their children informal little lessons at home. Some children attend part-time, just for social reasons and their parents then teach them at home. The report in the Telegraph talks of children, "left without books until they turn seven", but I would be surprised to hear that that is really the case.
In short, this is interesting, but far more needs to be known about it. I observe that Sebastian Sugatte took into account such factors as income, literacy in the home and so on, but unless the situation in New Zealand is dramatically different from this country, there are huge differences between those families who favour Steiner schools and those who send their kids to the local state primary. Delaying the formal teaching of reading from five to seven is perhaps not one of the greatest of these differences.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Here come the gnomes!
Maybe it's because they leave reading and writing until pretty late, or perhaps it's the emphasis upon weaving, woodwork and organic food, but something about Steiner schools seems to strike a chord in the hearts of the woollier minded type of home educator. The rejection of traditional science in favour of a weird mixture of astrology, herbal medicine and clairvoyance seems only to add to the appeal. I have known a few home educators who subsequently enrolled their children at Steiner schools and heard of many more via the internet. This is of course in addition to those parents who in defiance of all reason follow some watered down version of Steiner's methods in the comfort of their own homes.
Steiner schools, or Waldorf schools as they are known in the USA, are based upon the ideas of a very intelligent but quite mad Austrian called Rudolf Steiner. His educational techniques were devised not empirically, that is to say by observation and experiment, but were learned clairvoyantly from, among others, the spirits of dead Atlanteans. Call me Mr. Conventional Stick- in- the-Mud, but this has never served to recommend his educational philosophy to me.
It is hard to know where to begin when discussing Steiner and his crazy ideas. I am enormously fond of the belief in gnomes which is an integral part of the Steiner's philosophy. It might make some people a little uneasy, but I love the thought of these little folk who spend much of their time in woods and then migrate underground for the Winter. Very useful too, as some of the metal ores which we extract from the Earth apparently owe their distinctive characteristics to the passage of gnomes through the nearby rocks! I visited a Steiner school in North London during an open day and my six year old daughter was given a piece of polished rock. One of the teachers explained carefully how the thoughts of passing gnomes had altered the composition of the stone.
Talking to the parents of children at this particular school, I was struck by how many of them had either tried or were considering trying home education. I was incidentally, also taken aback by the huge number of children with really strange names like Sky, Andromeda, Amethyst and Summer.
A short piece like this really cannot do justice to the astonishingly wide range of completely bonkers notions championed by Steiner. I certainly feel a strange and inexplicable reluctant to give serious thought to anything said about education by a man who believed that Buddha retired to Mars and that planet Earth is the fossilised remains of a giant vegetable. I am aware that many religions subscribe to the theory of reincarnation, but even here Steiner added his own demented twist to the idea. According to him, if you don't watch your step in this life you could end up being reincarnated as a gnome. If that doesn't serve to keep one on the straight and narrow, then nothing will!
Steiner schools, or Waldorf schools as they are known in the USA, are based upon the ideas of a very intelligent but quite mad Austrian called Rudolf Steiner. His educational techniques were devised not empirically, that is to say by observation and experiment, but were learned clairvoyantly from, among others, the spirits of dead Atlanteans. Call me Mr. Conventional Stick- in- the-Mud, but this has never served to recommend his educational philosophy to me.
It is hard to know where to begin when discussing Steiner and his crazy ideas. I am enormously fond of the belief in gnomes which is an integral part of the Steiner's philosophy. It might make some people a little uneasy, but I love the thought of these little folk who spend much of their time in woods and then migrate underground for the Winter. Very useful too, as some of the metal ores which we extract from the Earth apparently owe their distinctive characteristics to the passage of gnomes through the nearby rocks! I visited a Steiner school in North London during an open day and my six year old daughter was given a piece of polished rock. One of the teachers explained carefully how the thoughts of passing gnomes had altered the composition of the stone.
Talking to the parents of children at this particular school, I was struck by how many of them had either tried or were considering trying home education. I was incidentally, also taken aback by the huge number of children with really strange names like Sky, Andromeda, Amethyst and Summer.
A short piece like this really cannot do justice to the astonishingly wide range of completely bonkers notions championed by Steiner. I certainly feel a strange and inexplicable reluctant to give serious thought to anything said about education by a man who believed that Buddha retired to Mars and that planet Earth is the fossilised remains of a giant vegetable. I am aware that many religions subscribe to the theory of reincarnation, but even here Steiner added his own demented twist to the idea. According to him, if you don't watch your step in this life you could end up being reincarnated as a gnome. If that doesn't serve to keep one on the straight and narrow, then nothing will!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
