I am not a fan of Waldorf education, and particularly not a fan of Waldorf charter schools. (another post from a person expressingA similar view)
One of my online friends is a Swedish woman, Alicia H., who goes by the handle zzzoey on Twitter. Another online friend goes by the twitter handle ThetisMercurio.
Zooey was educated in a Swedish Waldorf school, which was (to put it mildly) not a happy experience for her. She is an active participant in the Yahoo group Waldorf Critics, which is an open list (anyone may see the messages), and also blogs in Swedish and English at http://zooey.wordpress.com/
The Waldorf-Critics list was founded in 2007 and has (among others) the following advisories and rules:
A free-speech public forum operated by PLANS, Inc., as an information resource for anyone interested in Waldorf education who wants to hear views from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. Subscription is open to the public, and postings are not reviewed in advance. Not for the overly sensitive.
The postings and archives are public information but copyright remains with the writers. By submitting a message to the list, you agree to allow the inclusion of that message in the list archives at yahoo.com and waldorfcritics.org, and the quoting of that message in other messages to the list. We assume that by posting on a public list you want your ideas disseminated, and we do not object to the quoting of this list elsewhere.
There was an odd, short saga on the Waldorf-Critics list recently A US woman, JennSW, joined the group on May 16, and proceeded to post identifying details about herself and details about her childrens' mental-health issues. She proceded to lecture and patronize group members, all the while defending the Waldorf school where one of her children had been enrolled for less than a full academic year. There was, as usual, vigorous discussion.
JennSW claimed to have been "online since 1996", but seemed curiously naive about many things: blithely posting intimate family details to an open forum, coming into a well-established forum and complaining about the forum's mission and tone of discussion, condescending to the decades of experience that many of the forum participants have, and so on.
JennSW joined the forum on May 16. By May 20, she had filed a "Cease & Desist" legal action against another forum member. I wonder if that's a land-speed record for taking offense and responding with legal action.
On May 18,Alicia H. posted a response to some of JennSW's points to her blog, http://zooey.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/discussion-boring-mindless-stupid-on-repeat-forever/including quoting some of the personal details JennSW had revealed about her children. The post has been removed following the C&D order, but I have a copy of the post.
On May 20, On May 20, JennSW set Alicia an email entitled, "Sick, Sick individual", which Alicia reposted to the Waldorf Critics link, and she also posted a response on her blog: http://zooey.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/waldorf-bliss-ninny-not-quite-so-blissful-after-all/ with a link to the group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/19241,again quoting matter that Jenn herself had posted about her children. The post has been removed following the C&D order, but I have a copy of the post.
By the afternoon of May 20, JennSW had hired an attorney in the US and had forwarded a "Cease & Desist" letter to Alicia (who lives in Sweden) and to her blog's host, Wordpress.
On May 22 and 23, JennSW appeared at Alicia's blog to defend her actions. Not once, but one two three four five six seven a href="http://zooey.wordpress.com/201eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen times. She has apologized for sending the email, while continuing to defend her actions. Added: she also still doesn't get the deep racism and anti-semitism embedded in Waldorf pedagogy.
JennSW has not offered to lift the Cease & Desist order, which while in force, continues to hamper Alicia's ability to use her blog. The C&D order is in the process of being resolved I find this curious. I continue to find it curious that JennSW's responses to the dissemination that she herself had revealed was (1) a vituperative email to someone she had been in contact with for less than 96 hours (2) legal action.
Recent Comments