Re: [wc] Re: Judge Damrell's Ruling Online
- On 5 December 2010 15:39, alfa1234omega <alfa1234omega@...> wrote:
>Not that it's relevant at all here, but holy shit. In some ways there
> It may have been so 20 years ago, but it is not now.
are less options today then.
>Yes, IF waldorf schools admitted that the morning 'verse' is in fact a
> In Sweden, the current legislation (valid until June 30, 2011) contains several exceptions for Waldorf. The comming legislation, valid from July 1, 2011, does not contain specific exceptions for Waldorf. However, it does contain directives concerning religious education in general.
prayer then they can't include it as a part of compulsory lessons. But
they won't admit that, ever.
> religious or not, if they don't get enough pupils, they will have to close soon or later. The natural intake (anthros and wannabee-anthros and those who don't like tests a.s.o.) is not sufficient for running a school. They need other pupils as well, regular pupils. Now, there is competition (ex: "want some arts? sure! the free school ... has arts profile"). Nova days, the parents doesn't need to swallow the gnomes if they wish music lessons within the curriculum, for example.They don't, but the problem still remains that waldorf schools present
themselves as something they're not -- thus the potential for parents
swallowing the wrong thing remains too. Less so now than it used to be
> The voucher system means that schools have to compete for the pupils AND conform to the legislation. So, what happends with the waldorf college of teachers, very competent in knitting and fairy-story-telling, but incompetent in the core subjects? They will have to survive on their natural intake. In the countryside, in a small town, there may be a waldorf school as the only free school; those waldorf schools may get an other intake (non-anthro) as well.On the other hand, in small towns, there are too few anthroposophists
and too few people in general, which means they're still in trouble...
>... or choose waldorf; I'm playing the devil's advocate here, I
> What do the parents do if they wish music lessons for their child
realize... but I mean, you *had* music in waldorf. I think you did.
WAY WAY WAY too much of it. That's because I hated music. I don't know
the quality of it, of course, because I despised it. If someone shows
me a flute or a violin or a lyre once again, I will puke on it. And
because the school had decided that it was ok to force children to
have music lessons in their spare time, I was forced to play piano.
Though I didn't play it, because I hated it. So we just paid lots of
money to force me to do something I didn't want to do and didn't do.
But I would say that eurythmy and dumb music was what you got in
waldorf. The art wasn't art in waldorf, it was mindless imitation, but
I can't tell if the music was music. To me it was, but that may be
because I hated it and couldn't tell the difference between real music
and fake music even if my life depended on it...
My parents really wished for music lessons for their child. The fact
that some parents' wishes don't come true probably have less to do
with the intentions of the school in question than with the talents
(lack thereof) or interest (lack thereof) in the children
But to me it has always seemed like music was something waldorf shoved
down the throats of children, which means that to me waldorf always
seemed like quite a good idea for people who want music (and almost
nothing else but it). My waldorf school still has the same bitch for a
music teacher they had when I went there. The lady from hell is even
on youtube these days. By people who don't hate music she may be
considered a very skilled teacher, for all I know. (I wrote about her
and waldorf music:
http://zooey.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/waldorf-tales-iii/. My piano
teacher was supposed to be one of the best in the whole city. Needless
to say, people who like music hate teaching children who don't like
music, making the entire situation even more miserable.)
I was always told that if I didn't learn music as a child, I would
regret it for the rest of my life. It's probably the kind of silly
thing parents and teachers tell kids to persuade them to do what they
have no natural inclination towards doing. In fact, I've never ever
regretted it. It's non-issue, really. (Sometimes people should at
least *try* to listen to what their child wants. The child may not be
wrong about it, even though parents would like to imagine differently.
People do like musically talented children, I've noticed...)
> Staff qualified in knitting... or at least pretendeding to be qualified... I'll admit they could
knit wool gnomes. And their own paradigm.
> What is the waldorf good at?And I'm sure they will get them because everyone loves waldorf and
> Shouting "we want exceptions!!!!!"
knows intuitively that waldorf children are whole human beings. (I'm
very pessimistic, really.)
- On 5 December 2010 23:37, Dan Dugan <dan@...> wrote:
>It happens occasionally that free schools attempt to charge extra, and
> > It's quite common that people in Sweden, who oppose the free schools, call free schools "private". They (the company) may be privately owned, but they are not private from the point of view of the pupil's family: no fee, no fee what so ever. A school must be authorised as private, like the intsch.se, in order to have fees. VERY few schools in Sweden are. If a regular free school would take fees, their authorization to run the school would be withdrawn in no time. (Everyone starting a free school knows that).
> U.S. charter schools aren't supposed to charge extra fees, but they often do quite openly as school boards seem to be willing to look the other way. It would take a lawsuit...
are reported and subsequently criticized by the national school
inspection. It's reasonable to think that there are cases which don't
attract the attention of authorites because nobody files a report. I'm
not sure what would happen if a school was quilty of repeated
transgressions -- I assume there's some kind of legal consequence.