I received a question that I feel warrants clarification so I am answering it here in case there is any confusion.

In a nutshell, Waldorf education prepares children to fit into the industrialist machine. Just as public education was designed to do. I don’t know much about Montessori, but have been hearing alot about it lately from many of my fellow homeschooling friends. I am wondering if the Montessori methods are so similar to the Waldorf methods that they are therefore intended for the same end? After reading “Underground History of American Education” I have lately been questioning many of the methods used for homeschooling.

I think you may have gotten incorrect information regarding Waldorf education. I checked my copy of Underground History of American Education (which really ought to be required reading!) and there is no mention of either Steiner nor Waldorf schools. Actually, Montessori is not mentioned either. This is probably because, like Charlotte Mason, these educational reformers all sought to realize the potential of the child. Each had his or her own theories as to how that best could be done.

Steiner felt an arts based curriculum in which the cultural heritage of many countries was stressed was the ticket. Imagination was prized. To that end the teacher’s role was to plant seeds through archetypal, image-rich stories and to alternate active learning (music, PE) with quieter work (reading, math). In fact the oral tradition is critical to the method many would say. The children then assimilate these stories and make them their own through notebooks of their creation. Art created by the student is favored and much attention is given to honing those skills since they are primary means of expression. Students follow a sequence based on Steiner’s studies in child development.

Montessori conversely focused on rational thought, not surprising given that she was a scientist herself. She aimed for an experienced-based curriculum whereby children would make their own discoveries through the use of self teaching materials. The role of the teacher was to prepare the materials and the environment to be conducive to learning both academics and peacefulness (self control). She, too, carefully studied child development and hoped to remove the barriers that were present in her day. Emphasis is on freedom within limits. Students can choose within an assortment of acceptable options but may not infringe upon the freedom of others. Arts are integral but Montessori felt that incremental instruction was most successful. She focused on providing the best possible tools for learning and allowing ample time to explore them.

Mason focused on literature. She was heavily influenced by the behaviorists of her day and contrary to the above educators felt that manipulating the academic day by keeping lessons shorter than would satiate the child would keep him interested in more. Whereas Montessori and Steiner schools prefer the student have long blocks of uninterrupted study on single topic (the main lesson block or the 3 hr study period) she presented a plethora of subjects each day/each year, all of which should be very brief. Self control and self actualization were achieved by behaviorist techniques of associating a desired behavior with a positive outcome. Bad behavior was discouraged by avoidance until (she felt) the desire disappeared. (development of habit) The teacher’s role was to both provide carefully planned, print-based, short presentations and to continue to alternate active and quiet subjects. The arts focused more on appreciation of classical works. Observation is stressed whether in the natural world, the arts, or literature.

Waldorf teachers would assess comprehension by reviewing the main lesson books and oral presentations. Montessori directresses place heavy emphasis on observation of the child so they can sense readiness for more challenging work. The emphasis shifts from materials to research and experiments as the grades progress. Both of the above allowed for satiation. Mason relied on narration – detailed (oral or written) retelling of the material, usually immediately after a single presentation to ensure complete attention during lessons. These were followed up with end-of-term (3 per year) evaluations. All three methods eschew extensive use of texts, preferring whole, single topic books.

Some find Waldorf’s spiritual connections so inextricable from the academic that they are not comfortable using prepared Waldorf curriculum at all. The schools are more or less tied to theories of anthroposophy, a term describing a marriage of philosophy and religion coined by Steiner and drawing heavily on Theosophist teachings from the late 19th century. I know this personally because this was my school of thought (no pun intended) for many, many years until returning to the Church when my children first reached school age. While we initially spurned all Waldorf materials, I now realize I didn’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater since many of these methods are not unique to Steiner but are simply effective, child friendly approaches that many other educational researchers have also discovered.

As quoted here:

The central guiding principle of Waldorf education is that the every child is a unique being with eternal spiritual and moral qualities.

and here:

The best overall statement on what is unique about Waldorf education is to be found in the stated goals of the schooling: “to produce individuals who are able, in and of themselves, to impart meaning to their lives”.

The purpose of Montessori education here:

The Montessori approach to education is centered in the uniqueness and potentials of the evolving child. The purpose is to develop the whole child into a well rounded human being. Children enter this world with a natural desire to learn and to perfect themselves. Montessori education fulfills this instinctive need by providing a “Prepared Environment” where children are allowed the excitement of learning by choice rather than by force. Children acquire an “inner discipline” that will guide them to self-development and self-learning.

Charlotte Mason believed:

Education was an atmosphere, a discipline, and a life; it was about finding out who we were and how we fit into the world of human beings and into the universe God created.

This is obviously a grossly condensed summary of the three methods. I feel certain none of them would fall under Gatto’s disapproval. Some are more appealing to some families. Waldorf in its purist form is more esoteric and culturally/arts based. Montessori is more experience based, and Mason more literature based. You might – and again this is a very simplified generalization – think of them as a more visual method (imagination based), a more kinesthetic method (hands on) , and a more auditory (words based) method.

In the home setting we are free from over-thinking to the extent that is neccesary when selecting a site based school. While it is useful to understand the origins of methods it is also less critical because all the techniques are going to be filtered through the lens of the individual family’s belief system. We are not turning our children over to a program. We are using aspects of programs which work best for us.

We employ many Waldorf techniques such as main lesson blocks and student made notebooks. We use Montessori self teaching methods. We make used of a vast home library which would do Mason proud, coupled by one of the best public library systems in the country. (thank you God!!) We study the classics but we also stress self-expression. We listen to great works but we also learn to play instruments well. It is rarely an either/or choice at home, nor really at many of these schools. They all grew out of a distaste for pigeon-holing children into a cog of the educational machine.

I hope that helps Stephanie!