Waldorf Schools

by Brian Dunning
December 24, 2024

Private schools of all types abound. Many are religious, a few are secular, some are intended to be intensely academic, some allow free play and the students can do whatever they like. Then there are some like Montessori schools that follow a certain method. And then there are the Waldorf schools, which have a reputation for being not only the most expensive, but also hippyish. They grow crops, they dance and paint, they learn practical skills like building, they shun vaccines, they follow astrology. It's how you'd imagine Silicon Valley elites would alleviate their white liberal guilt by putting their children in touch with holistics and nature and spiritualism and the evils of capitalism and screen time. Turns out that reputation is pretty well deserved; most of the stereotypical things you might hear about Waldorf schools are pretty accurate. Much of what's not so public is far weirder than you could imagine.

Waldorf schools follow the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), an Austrian mystic, occultist, and self-described clairvoyant. You may know him as the father of what he called biodynamic farming, the casting of an elaborate magic spell over a farm to strengthen what he called its "life force". He wrote many books on esotericism, detailing his beliefs of invisible worlds where ethereal human spirits ascended through cosmic levels of being, moving from one life into the next. His thoughts on race were also warmly embraced by the Nazi party — but as we'll get to in a moment, it's neither fair nor accurate to associate today's Waldorf schools with that part of Steiner's personal background.

Steiner is perhaps best known for the philosophy that he developed and named anthroposophy, from the Greek words for human wisdom, anthrópini sofía. He had been General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society until he broke away to found anthroposophy. It's impossible to encompass in a paragraph, but anthroposophy blends Steiner's spiritual and esoteric beliefs with what was, in his mind, the scientific method — think of all his testing and experimentation of various formulations of the magic potion that underlies biodynamic farming. He advocated constantly for science, and it's a core of the Waldorf method; but his interpretation of "science" differed substantially from what you and I would think of. Anthroposophy teaches the spiritual nature of being; how humans are holistic and include a body, a soul, and also a spirit; how our consciousness evolves as we reincarnate again and again; how we can perform exercises and meditations to improve our ability to interact with the unseen spiritual dimensions; and it encourages the integration of Steiner's scientific inquiry, artistic expression, and creative approaches to life's challenges. In short, anthroposophy is a giant load of unadulterated New Age woo.

The Waldorf schools were formed in 1919 after Steiner gave a lecture at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Germany. In it, he called for the creation of schools that would teach his brand of esotericism. It must have been compelling, because the owner of the factory, along with a number of the workers, decided to create such a school for the children of factory workers and named it Waldorf, after the company. They asked Steiner to consult and define the school's teaching practices, and the Waldorf schools were born. In some countries they're called Steiner schools, but in most, including the United States, they're called Waldorf schools. Today there are approximately 2,500 Waldorf schools and kindergartens in about 80 countries. (The International Council for Steiner Waldorf Education publishes a list, but it's 422 pages long and I didn't feel like counting.)

Despite the frequent comparison to Montessori schools, there's one important difference (well, there are a lot of big differences, so this is just one). Anyone can open a school and call it a Montessori school, regardless of how closely they may or may not follow Maria Montessori's methods, as the name is public domain. However, Waldorf schools are all real Waldorf schools. Every country has its own authority board and the name is trademarked. Those boards also accredit teaching centers, and most schools require their teachers to be certified in Steiner's methods. They are pretty strictly controlled to adhere to Steiner's anthroposophy.

There are a couple of common criticisms of Waldorf's application of Steiner's anthroposophy that I don't think are justified. First is the charge that it's racist and teaches racist ideas. It's true that part of the teachings are that white people are at a higher spiritual level than the other races; this idea is woven inextricably throughout Steiner's writings on anthroposophy. Steiner's own background was from a movement historians call the Modern German Occult Revival, in which ideas like Ariosophy (meaning "Aryan wisdom") were rampant; and there's no doubt racist ideology is a big part of anthroposophy as he defined it. Steiner himself is known for quite a lot of pretty alarming statements about Jews and people of color. However, that was a hundred years ago, and any mention of racist ideas in today's Waldorf schools is a rare exception and not the rule. Most Waldorf schools emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion; and vigorously reject racism and all forms of oppression. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the case in every school.

The other charge I find unjustified is that anthroposophy is a religion and Waldorf schools are cults. Anthroposophy does not require adherence to any dogmas, it has no deities, it openly advises integrating it with other religious faiths, it has no liturgical traditions. It's a set of philosophies. Yes, it's weird, it talks about spiritual beings and cosmic hierarchies and reincarnations and all manner of occult beliefs, but that doesn't make it a religion — maybe at most a form of paganism. At Waldorf schools there are no prayers, no religious leaders, and no worship of anything. There's nothing more sinister going on there than mystical teachings… which are often subtextual.

One example of the subtextual teachings is abstract wet-on-wet watercolor painting, always using paints derived from plant materials. Many former Waldorf students fondly remember all the time they spent painting, and to parents it seems like good healthy art instruction. Why is it done? Steiner believed that colors represent different spiritual states, and the action of blending them would ascend the students spiritually.

Another example is a sort of slow-motion dance form Steiner named eurythmy (no relation to Annie Lennox). While this might be described to parents as physical exercise or meditative stretching, the true reason is that Steiner believed the specific movements would put the students in touch with what he called the "supersensible" world where they would make contact with both their past lives and their future lives.

It's this subtext behind the apparently-innocent activities that I find the most alarming about Waldorf schools. Teachers know Steiner's meanings behind what they teach; the younger students and most of the parents never have any inkling; and they only get out into the world because some of the older students eventually learn enough and decide to reject anthroposophy.

However, we could criticize and mudsling at Steiner and his anthroposophy all day long. But in the end, the Waldorfs are schools and this has to be about the education. The question everyone always asks is how well do Waldorf students perform academically compared to traditional students? It turns out that this is a bit of a contentious topic. Nearly every online article written on the subject leans toward improved outcomes for Waldorf students, and cites academic articles that come to this same conclusion. However, a deeper survey of the academic literature reveals that such articles are probably cherry picking their sources, as that conclusion does not represent the majority of the published research.

Waldorf science education is often described as IBSE, inquiry-based science education. Waldorf students spend much of their childhood engaging in practical activities like growing crops and baking bread and making fabric, all activities where you have to plan and then learn what works and what doesn't — just as Steiner advocated. The result is often a strong interest and enthusiasm for what is essentially the scientific method. How helpful is this to academic science performance? Here is what I found.

Every article I looked at, whether a published journal article or a popular media article, agrees that younger Waldorf students — elementary school age — perform worse academically. This is because there is much less formal education for the younger students. Their time is mostly spent on imaginative play and artistic activities. Waldorf schools delay even the most basic reading instruction until about the age of seven. Anthroposophy dictates that children's spirits are not ready to learn until they have their adult teeth.

However, by the end of high school, it's commonly reported that Waldorf students outperform traditional students, particularly in science. Although popularly asserted, it's mostly false, but only just barely so, according to the consensus among academic journals. Waldorf students outperform traditional students only in one area: their interest in and enjoyment of science, where they score much higher. After all, they've spent their entire childhood in IBSE. However, despite this great advantage, their academic science performance is basically equal to that of traditional students. The reason is probably because their positive skills are offset by the enormous amount of pseudoscience in Waldorf education, things like:

• The four basic elements are earth, air, fire, and water.
• Astrological influences govern the growth of plants.
• Reincarnation and clairvoyance are not only real, but important parts of the education.
• Vaccination is not officially discouraged, but Waldorf students and staff are largely an unvaccinated population, relying instead on homeopathy and spiritual healing for medical care.
• Most existing scientific theories are omitted, and students are encouraged to believe only what they themselves experience.

There are various claims that Waldorf students are accepted into college at a higher rate than traditional students, or that they are accepted into upper-echelon universities like Oxford or Harvard more often. As far as I can tell there is no hard data on this, only anecdotes, and usually from Waldorf proponents. However, there is a very good explanation for why this could be the case regardless of academic achievement. In most countries, Waldorf schools are private, and often among the most expensive. And, it's the case everywhere that students with higher socioeconomic status graduate from college more often than the general population at large.

Researching this episode was, at times, a depressing experience. There are lots of online articles written by people who attended a Waldorf school, have since rejected the teachings, and put up ugly tell-all articles about how much the pseudoscience and irrelevant teachings hampered their life development. There are whole websites devoted to trashing the Waldorf methods. Comparisons to Scientology are rampant. Many of these make a compelling case.

And conversely, there are plenty of posts written by people who thoroughly loved their Waldorf upbringing, today live happy and successful lives, and wouldn't trade the experience for anything; often speaking with great fondness for the practical life skills they learned.

Obviously it's not for everyone; but just as obviously, there are many people today for whom this is right up their alley. I think it would be less popular if more parents took the trouble to learn about anthroposophy before enrolling their children, but who knows, plenty of people are totally into the New Age, back-to-nature thing. Perhaps many of us, in this ultra-high-speed, high-stress world we live in, pine for the simplicity of growing our own meals, and pondering the motives of that great flaming chariot that soars across the sky.

By Brian Dunning
Follow @BrianDunning