Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Rudolf Steiner in the Waldorf School
GA 298

9 May 1922, Stuttgart

Address and discussion at a parents’ evening

Ladies and gentlemen! What I would like to do on this occasion is not actually to give a lecture, but rather to encourage as widespread an understanding as possible between those who are involved in the leadership and work of the Waldorf School and the parent body. The reason for this is that I really believe that this understanding, this working together of the parents with the teachers and others involved in the leadership of the school is something extraordinarily necessary and significant. Allow me to begin by describing an experience I had not long ago, an experience that will illustrate the importance of the issue I have just pointed out. Several weeks ago it was my task to take part in the festival in Stratford-on-Avon in England, a festival organized to celebrate the birthday of Shakespeare.1Rudolf Steiner was invited to address the conference of the “Organization for New Ideals in Education” in Stratford-on-Avon, England, April 1922. He spoke on “Drama and its Relationship to Education” and “Shakespeare and the New Ideals.” Included in Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 1, Anthroposophic Press, Hudson, NY, 1995 [Erziehungs- und Unferrichtsmethoden auf anthroposophischer Grundlage, GA 304, Dornach, 1979.] This Shakespeare festival was one that took place wholly under the influence of education issues. It was organized by people who are deeply interested in the education of children and adults. It can also be said that during this entire festival the world of Shakespearean art merely provided a background, since the actual issues that were being dealt with were contemporary issues in education. On this occasion one of the small effects, or perhaps even one of the large effects, of the pedagogical course that I held at Christmas at our Goetheanum in Dornach became evident.2Soul Economy and Waldorf Education, Anthroposophic Press, Hudson, NY, 1986 [Die gesunde Entwickelung des Menschenwesens],16 lectures given in Dornach, 1921-22, GA 303, Dornach, 1978. Some of the people involved in this Shakespeare festival had taken part in this course.

Now, not far from London there is a boarding school which is not very large yet, but which is headed by a person who was present at the Dornach course and who took from there the impulse to introduce what we can now call Waldorf pedagogy, the Waldorf system of education, into this boarding school and perhaps also to apply it in expanding the school.3Known at that time as the Priory School, this is now the New School in Kings Langley. We were invited to see this educational establishment, and in the course of the visit various questions were raised regarding how the school is being run at present and what could be done to transplant the spirit of the system of education that is fostered here in the Waldorf School to their situation.

One question in particular came up for discussion. The people in charge said that they were doing well with the children; each year they accept as many children as the small size of the establishment permits. The most difficult thing for them, however, was working together with the parents, and the reason for the difficulty—and this is certainly an international concern—was that nowadays the older generation everywhere has certain very specific views on how education is supposed to proceed. There are many reasons why parents send their children to one boarding school rather than another. But when there actually is a slight deviation from what they are accustomed to, it is very easy for disagreements to arise between the school and the parents. And this is something that really cannot be tolerated in an independent system of education.

The boarding school in question was experiencing especially great difficulties in this regard. What I am attempting to do now is neither to criticize nor to make recommendations, but simply to state the facts. In this school, in spite of the fact that it is a residential facility, there are no domestic employees at all. All the work of maintaining the school is done by the children and teachers. Cleaning the hallways, washing the dishes, planting the vegetables, taking care of the chickens so that they provide eggs—the list could go on and on. The children are involved in all kinds of work, and you certainly get the impression that things are run very differently there than in most other boarding schools. The children also have to cook and do everything else, and this goes on from first thing in the morning until late in the evening. It is also evident that the teachers and residential staff put a lot of energy into doing these things with the children. As I said, my intention is neither to criticize nor to advocate what they are doing; I only want to present it to you. Now it can happen that when the children go home on vacation and tell their parents about everything they have to do, the parents realize that they had not imagined it like that, and they cannot understand it. That is why it is so difficult to sustain harmony with the parents in this case. I describe this case only in order to point out how necessary we feel it to be, if we take a system of education seriously, to work together in complete harmony with the children’s parents.

Now of course our situation in the Waldorf School is different. We have no residential facility, we simply have a school where we naturally have to keep the principles of child-rearing in mind while providing academic instruction. Nevertheless, you can rest assured that working together with the parent body is a fundamental element in what we in the Waldorf School regard as our task. In running the school, an infinite number of questions constantly arise with regard to the weal and woe of the children, their progress, their physical and mental health—questions that can be solved only in partnership with the parents. This is why it will actually become more and more necessary for these parents’ evenings to evolve—and all the circumstances will have to be taken into account—and to become a more frequent event in the running of our school.

Our Waldorf School is meant to be a truly independent school, not only in name but in its very essence, and simply because it is meant to be an independent school of this sort, we are dependent on help from the parent body to an extraordinary extent. It is my conviction that if we have the desire to work together with the parents, this will call forth nothing but the deepest satisfaction on the part of all the parents.

The Waldorf School is an independent school. You see, ladies and gentlemen, what it actually means to be an independent school must be stated over and over again, and it cannot be stated strongly enough for the simple reason that in broader circles today it is scarcely possible to realize the extent of our need for independent schools of this sort. The prejudice of thousands of years is working against us, and this is how it works.

We do not need to look back very far in humanity’s evolution to find a school system, especially a primary school system, that was independent to a very great extent. But at that time independence caused a lot of illiteracy because few people sought out formal education. Then, in the course of humanity’s evolution in civilized areas, the desire began to grow in people to promote a certain educational basis for our interactions in society. At this point I cannot go into how this desire arose, but it came about at a time when people had renounced their allegiance to the old gods and now expected to receive all the blessings of humanity’s evolution and everything needed to advance it from a new god, the god of the State. Central Europe in particular was an area where people were especially intent on seeing the god of the State as a universal remedy, especially in the education of children.

In those times, the principle that was applied as a matter of course was that parliaments and large advisory bodies and so on were gatherings in which geniality could flourish, even if the individuals involved in these representative gatherings were not impressive in their degree of enlightenment. The opinion prevailed that by gathering together, people would become smart and would then be able to determine the right thing to do in all circumstances.

However, some individuals with a very good and profound understanding of these matters, such as the poet Rosegger,4Peter Rosegger, 1843-1918, Austrian teller of folk tales. for example, were of a different opinion. Rosegger coined the expression—forgive me for mentioning it—"“One person is a human being; several are people; many are beasts.” Although this puts it a bit radically, it does contradict the opinion that has developed in the last few centuries, namely that all things state-related will enable us to determine what is right with regard to educating children. And so our school system simply continued to develop in the belief that there was no alternative to having everything spelled out for the school system by the political community.

Now, an independent school is one that makes it possible for the teachers to introduce into the educational system what they consider essential on the immediate basis of their knowledge of the human being and of the world and of their love for children. A non-independent school is one in which the teacher has to ask, “What is prescribed for the first grade? What is prescribed for the second grade? How must the lesson be organized according to law?”

A free school is one in which the teachers’ actions are underlain by a very specific knowledge of how children grow up, of which forces of body and soul are present in them and of which ones must be developed. It is a school in which the teachers can organize what they have to do each day and in each lesson on the basis of this knowledge and of their love for children. People do not have a very strong feeling for how fundamentally different a non-independent school is from an independent school. The real educational abilities of the teachers can develop only in an independent school.

That people actually do not have any real feeling for these things at present is the reason why it is so difficult to continue to make progress with an independent school system. We must not succumb to any illusions in this regard. Just a few hours before leaving to come here, I received a letter informing me that after a long time had been spent working to open a school similar to the Waldorf School in another German city, the request for permission had been turned down. This is a clear sign that the further evolution of our times will not favor an independent school system. This is something I want to ask the parents of our dear schoolchildren to take to heart especially: We must lavish care and attention on this Waldorf School we have fought for, this school in which the independent strength of the faculty will really make the children grow up to be allaround capable and healthy human beings. We must be aware that, given the contemporary prejudices we confront, it will not be easy to get something like a second Waldorf School. At the same time, it should be pointed out that this Waldorf School, which has not yet been in existence for three years, is something that is presently being talked about all over the civilized world. You see that it is nonetheless of significance—think about what I said about the school near London—that a group of people have gotten together to bring a Waldorf School into existence there.

We can also look at this issue from the much broader perspective of the need to do something to restore the position of the essential German character in the world. You can be sure, however, that the significance of this German essence will be recognized only when its spiritual content, above all else, is given its due in the world. This is what people will ask for if they meet the world in the right way. They will become aware of needing it.

For this to happen, we really need to penetrate fully into the depths of this German essence and to become creative on the basis of it. This is evident from something such as the vehement, sometimes tumultuous educational movement that could be experienced at the Shakespeare festival, which showed that there is a need all over the world for new impulses to be made available to the educational system. The impossibility of continuing with the old forms is a concern for all of civilized humanity.

The fact of the matter is, the things that are being fostered in the Waldorf School give us something to say about educational issues that are being brought up all over the world. But we also have almost all of the world’s prejudices against us, and we are increasingly faced with the prospect of having our independence taken away, at least with regard to the lower primary school classes. It is extraordinarily difficult to combat these prejudices, and the Waldorf School can do so only by making its children grow up to be what they can beonly as a result of the independent strength of the faculty.

For this, however, we need an intimate and harmonious collaboration with the parent body. At an earlier parents’ meeting I was able to attend, I pointed out that simply because we are striving for an independent school system, we are dependent on being met with understanding, profound understanding, on the part of the parents. If we have this understanding, we will be able to work properly, and perhaps we will also be able after all to show the true value of what is intended with the Waldorf School.

At that time I emphasized that we must strive to really derive our educational content from an understanding of the being of the child and the child’s bodily nature. Since to observe the child is to observe the human being, it is possible to observe children in this way only if we are striving for an understanding of the human being as a whole, as anthroposophy does. We must say again and again that it is not our intention to introduce anthroposophy into the school. The parents will have no grounds for complaining that we are trying to introduce anthroposophy as a world-view. But although we are avoiding introducing anthroposophy into the school as a world-view, we are striving to apply the pedagogical skill that can come only from anthroposophical training as to how we handle the lessons and treat the children. We have placed the Catholic children at the disposal of the Catholic priest and the Protestant children at the disposal of the Protestant pastor. We have independent religious instruction only for those whose parents are looking for that, and it too is completely voluntary; it is set up only for those children who would otherwise probably not take part in any religious instruction at all. So you see this is not something we stress heavily. Whatever we have to say with respect to our world-view is strictly for adults.

But I would like to say that what anthroposophy can make of people, right down to the skill in their fingertips, applies especially to teachers and educators. In dealing with children and with instructional content, what we should strive for is to have the children find their way quite naturally into everything that is presented to them in school, as a matter of course. We should assess carefully in each instance what is right at a particular stage of childhood.

You know that we do not introduce learning to read and write in the same way that is often used today. When the children begin to learn to write, we develop the shapes of the letters, which are otherwise something foreign to them, out of something the children turn to with inner contentment as a result of some form of artistic activity, of their artistic sense of form. The reason why our children learn to write and read somewhat later is that if we take the nature of the child into account, reading must come after writing.

Those who are accustomed to the old ways of looking at things will object to this, saying that the children here learn to read and write much later than in other schools. But why do children in other schools learn to read and write earlier? Because people do not know what age is good for learning to read and write. We should first ask ourselves whether it is altogether justified to require children to read and write with any degree of fluency by the age of eight.

If we expand on these ways of looking at things, more comprehensive views develop, as we can experience in a strange way: Anyone who knows a lot about Goethe knows that if we had approached him with what is demanded academically of twelve-year-olds today, he would not have been able to do it at that age. He would not have been able to do it even at age sixteen, and yet he still grew up to be the Goethe we know of.

Austria had an important poet, Robert Hamerling.5Robert Hamerling, 1830-1889. As a young man, he did not set out to become a poet—that was something his genius did for him. He wanted to be a high school teacher, and he took the teacher certification exam. It is written in his certificate that he demonstrated an extremely good knowledge of Latin and Greek, but that he was not capable of handling the German language well and was thus only fit to teach the lowest class. But he went on to become the most important modern poet of Austria. And he wrote in the German language, not in Slovakian.

Our educational impulses must take their standard from actual life. The essential thing about our method of education is that we keep the child’s whole life in mind; we know that if we present the child with something at age seven or eight, this must be done in such a way that it will grow with the child, so that it will still stay with the person in question at age thirty or forty, and even for the rest of his or her life. You see, the fact of the matter is that the children who can read and write perfectly at age eight are stunted with regard to certain inner emotional impulses that lead to health. They really are stunted. It is a great good fortune for a child to not yet be able to read and write as well at age eight as is expected today. It is a blessing for that child’s bodily and emotional health.

What we need to foster must be derived from the needs of human nature. We must have a subtle understanding of this, and not merely know the right answer. It is easy to stand in front of a class of children and to figure out that this one said something right, but that one said something wrong, and then to correct the wrong thing and make it right. However, there is no real educational activity being practiced in that. There is nothing essential to the human development of a child in having the child do compositions and assignments and then correcting them so the child is convinced that he or she has made mistakes. What is essential is to develop a fine sense for the mistakes the children make. Children make mistakes in hundreds of different ways. Each child makes different mistakes, and if we have a fine sense of how different the children are with regard to the mistakes they make, then we will discover what to do to help them make progress.

Isn't it true that our perspectives on life are all different? A doctor does not have the same perspectives on an illness that a patient has. We cannot ask a patient to fall in love with a particular illness, and yet we can say that a doctor is a good doctor if he or she loves the illness. In our case, it is a question of falling in love, in a certain respect, with the interesting mistakes the children make. We get to know human nature through these mistakes. Excuse me for expressing myself radically, but these radical statements are really necessary. For a teacher, keeping track of mistakes is more interesting than keeping track of what the children do right. Teachers learn a lot from the children’s mistakes.

But what do we need in addition to all this? We also need a strong and active inner love for human beings, for children. This is indispensable for teachers. At this point innumerable questions arise. We are concerned about a particular child’s health of body and soul. We see this child for a few hours a day; for the rest of the time we must have confidence, complete confidence, in the child’s parents. This is why the teachers and educators of our Waldorf School always appeal to this confidence, and why they are so eager to work in harmony with the parents for the well-being of the children. As a rule, this is not something that is aspired to in a non-independent school to anywhere near the same extent; there people stick to observing the rules. That is why the very idea of independence in education often meets with very little understanding today.

In some countries, if you talk about independent schools, people will tell you that while things may be like that in Germany, they do not need to found independent schools because their teachers are already free. Teachers themselves will tell you that. It is astonishing that they respond like that, because we can tell that the people who are answering no longer have any idea that they could feel unfree. They do what they are ordered to do. It does not occur to them that it could happen differently, so they do not even feel that things could be different.

Just think of how different your situation is from other people’s with regard to understanding the Waldorf system of education. Other people have to make an effort to understand when we tell them we want to do things in a certain way because we believe it is the only right way. I believe that as parents of Waldorf School children you can see directly, in the beings that are dear to you, what is being done in the Waldorf School and how the relationship of the entire school to the child is conceived. It would be nice if there would come a time when it would be enough for parents simply to be content with what is being accomplished in an independent system of education. Today, however, all of you, who can see results in your own flesh and blood of how this Waldorf School is trying to work, must become strong and active defenders and promoters of the Waldorf system of education.

We have many other difficulties in addition to this. You see, if we really could live up to our ideals, we would be able to say that according to our insight, we should do this particular thing when the children are six, seven and eight, and this other thing when they are nine, ten, eleven and twelve, and so on. The results would be the best if we were able to do that, but we cannot; in some respects we must accept a compromise, because we cannot deny these children, these human beings who are growing up, the possibility to take their place in life.

So we have decided to educate the children from the time when they first enter primary school up to age nine in a way that is free of outer constraints, but while we are doing what human nature requires, at the same time we will support the children in a way that will enable them to transfer to another school [at the end of that time]. The same applies to age twelve and to age fourteen or fifteen. And if we have the good fortune to be able to continue adding grades, we must also make it possible for the young ladies and gentlemen who complete these grades to enter universities and technical colleges. We must make sure that the children will be able to enter these institutions of higher learning. I think it will be a long time before we are given the possibility of granting graduate or undergraduate degrees. We would accomplish much more if we were able to do that, but for the time being all we can do is to enable first the children and then the young men and women to learn what is required in public life in a way that does not inflict great damage upon them.

We find ourselves in very serious difficulties in this regard. You see, if you assess the situation according to human nature, according to what is good for human beings, then you would say that it is simply terrible for young men and women to be in modern college-preparatory and vocational high schools at the age of fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen. It estranges them from all of life. We must do what is necessary, whatever we can do, to make sure at least that the body also achieves a degree of skill that makes it fit for life. I often mention that you meet grown men nowadays who are incapable of sewing on a button for themselves if one gets torn off. I say this only by way of example. There are other similar things that people also cannot do, and above all they do not understand anything about the world. Individuals need to stand there in the world with their eyes open so that their hands are free to do whatever is needed. You see, this is why at a certain age we need to introduce the elementary aspects of things like spinning and weaving. Now, however, when students graduate from ordinary schools, they are not tested in weaving and spinning or in other arts that are useful in life, and so we must do these things in addition to all kinds of things that are required for the exam. This means that we must arrange our lessons as economically as possible. There is a special art to this in teaching.

Perhaps I may be permitted to introduce an example that happened to me personally. It was a long time ago. A family had entrusted their children to me for tutoring, and among them was an eleven-year-old boy who had been given up on as far as education was concerned. He was eleven years old, and for my information they showed me a sketchbook in which he had demonstrated his drawing ability. This sketchbook had a gigantic hole in the middle of the first page. He had done nothing but erase; that was all he could do. He had also once taken the test for entry into the first grade, and could do nothing at all. With regard to his other behavior, he often did not eat at the table but went into the kitchen and ate the potato peels, and there were difficulties in many other respects as well. It was a question of accomplishing as much as possible in the shortest possible time. I often had to work for three hours to get the materials together for what I would present to the boy in fifteen minutes. After two years he had progressed to the point where he could enter the Gymnasium. He was a hydrocephalic, with a huge head that steadily became smaller.

I mention this case because it shows what I mean by economy of instruction. Economy of instruction means never spending more time on something with the children than is necessary according to the requirements of physical and mental health. Nowadays it is especially important to practice this economy of instruction because life demands so much. Our Latin and Greek teachers, for example, are in a difficult situation because we have much less time to spend on these things, and yet they still have to be fostered in a way that meets the legitimate demands of cultural life. In all subjects, we must seek the art of never overburdening the children. And I must say that in all these things, we need to be met with understanding on the part of the parents; we need to work together in harmony with the parent body.

Really, the genuine successes that are of the greatest significance for life do not lie in accomplishing something amazing on behalf of one or the other gifted student. Genuine successes lie in strength for life. Thus it is always deeply satisfying to me when it happens that someone says that a certain child should be moved from one class to another so that this or that can be accomplished. The teacher fights for each and every child from time to time. These are real successes that take place within the loving interaction between the faculty and the children. Something can come of this, and things on which such great value is placed, such as whether the children are a little ahead or a little behind, fade into the background in comparison.

We are already being confronted with the fact—again, I would like to put it radically—that we cannot possibly be praised by those who hold the usual opinions about today’s school system, who are coming from these opinions. There is always something wrong in believing that something would be accomplished if people who think like this were to praise us. If that was how things were, if we were praised by today’s school authorities or by people who believe that these authorities are doing the right thing, then we would not have needed to start the Waldorf School at all.

Thus it is a matter of course for us to depend on the parents being in harmony with us and giving their time and attention to a method of education that derives from what is purely human. This is what we need today, and in a social sense, too.

Social issues are not resolved in the way we often imagine today. They are resolved by putting the right people into public life, and this will happen only if people are able to grow up really healthy in body and soul. We can do very little to influence what is specific to an individual, what an individual is capable of learning on the basis of his or her particular abilities, because in order to be of service at all in educating a person to become the best he or she can be—if we had to teach a Goethe, for example—we as teachers would have to be at least the equal of the person we are teaching. We can do nothing about what an individual becomes through his or her own nature; there are other factors determining that. What we can do is to remove obstacles so that individuals find the strength within themselves to live up to their potentials. This is what we can do if we become real educators and if we are supported by our contemporaries.

First and foremost, we can be supported by the parent body. We have found an understanding body of parents. Certainly, what I have to say tonight is filled with a feeling of gratitude. That so many of you have appeared tonight gives me great satisfaction. I hope we will be able to talk about details in the discussion period to follow; our teachers are prepared to answer any questions you may ask. Before that, however, I would still like to point out certain characteristic traits.

Recently the Waldorf faculty and I held a college-level course in Holland.6Six lectures in The Hague, April 7-12, 1922. See Die Bedeutung der Anthroposophie im Geistesleben der Gegenwart, Dornach 1957. The afternoon session in which pedagogical issues were discussed was led by Fraulein von Heydebrandt of the Waldorf School.7Caroline von Heydebrandt, 1886-1938. This was one of the most interesting afternoons because we saw that today’s educational questions are of concern all over the world. Of course we know that we have no right to harp on how wonderful it is that we have come so far; we are not trying to emphasize our accomplishments.

The way things are today, many people recognize the impulse behind our school. What is still lacking, however, is for them to stand energetically behind us so that this cause can win additional support and become more widespread. Of course we realize that the first concern of parents is to have the best for their children. But with things as they are today, the parents should also help us. Going through with this is difficult for us. We need help in every respect; we need the support of an ever growing circle so that we can overcome the prejudice against our method of education. I say the following with a certain reserve; I certainly want to remain convinced that those who are sitting here have done everything they can financially. I am speaking under this assumption so that none of you will think that I want to step on your toes. Nonetheless, the fact remains that if we want to go forward, we need money.

Yes, we need money! Now people are saying, “Where is the idealism in that? What are you anthroposophists doing, telling us you need money and pretending to be idealists?”

Ladies and gentlemen! Idealism does not stand on firm ground if it makes grandiose statements but says, “I am an idealist, and since I am an idealist, I despise my wallet. I do not want to get my fingers dirty; I am much too great an idealist for that!”

It will scarcely be possible to make ideals into reality if people are such great idealists that they are unwilling to get their fingers dirty when it comes to making financial sacrifices. We must also learn to strike the right note in public in suggesting to people that they give us some support in this matter, which is still a great and terrible cause of concern for us.

After all, the Waldorf School is big for a single school; it has enough students. It is almost not possible to maintain an overview any more. This is a concern that has to be taken very seriously. We certainly do not want the school to grow larger in its present circumstances; we are going to give in to the need for physical expansion. But then the number of students will increase, as will the number of teachers. And since teachers cannot live on air, this requires the means to support them.

I am assuming, ladies and gentlemen, that each of you has already done whatever you can. It is now a question of spreading the idea further in order to find the idealists out there. There must be a decision on the part of the parent body to help the Waldorf School with regard to its material basis, or I am afraid that in the near future, if we want to continue to take care of things properly, our worries will become so great that they prevent us from sleeping, and I am not sure that the teachers in the school will be the kind you want to have there if they are no longer able to sleep at night!

Some people may have the feeling that I have been too radical in my choice of some of the things I have pointed out today, but I hope to have been understood on some of these points. I especially hope that I have not been understood merely on details. I would like to be understood on the farreaching issue of our need to be in cordial harmony with the parent body if we are to function effectively in the Waldorf School. T particularly wanted to point out the need for this because it actually already exists to such a great extent, and we will be best able to find possibilities for progress in this area if the groundwork has already been laid.

Out of the details of our aspirations, which can be addressed in the discussion to follow, out of all the details that come up in these parents’ meetings, let us take with us the impulse for cordial harmony among teachers and educators and the parent body. You parents certainly have a profound vested interest in this harmony because you have entrusted the most precious thing you have to the faculty.

Out of this awareness, out of our awareness of the faculty’s responsibility toward what is most precious to the parents who are associated with us, out of this collaboration may the spirit which has showed itself in the Waldorf School to such a satisfying degree continue to flourish. The more this unity thrives, the more this spirit will also grow and thrive. And the more this is the case, the more we will also achieve that other thing, that best of all possible human goals: to educate the young people entrusted to the Waldorf School for their life in human society. These people will need to stand up to the storms of life. If they are capable of finding the right ways of working together with other people, then it will be possible to resolve the individual human and social issues.

From the discussion

A question Is asked about the Abitur:

Dr. Steiner: I myself have only this to say: On the whole, the principle I have already presented applies. Through economy of instruction, we must get to the point where what we can achieve for the children at the most important stages in life will enable them to fit into what is demanded today. We cannot set these standards or decide whether or not we think they are right; we must submit to them. We are not being asked the question of whether or not what the Abiturrequires is justified. This will have to be accomplished through economy, and as of now we are not yet in a position to do this, but I fully believe that it will be possible to achieve this goal, even though it does not yet look like it in the case of the people in question. Our principle, however, is to make the children able to take the exam at the appropriate age. But there are also external difficulties to be overcome; the school must be approached without bias. Naturally, I know that it would be possible for someone to flunk boys or girls even though we had brought them to the point of being able to take the exam. I gave you the example of how it would be easy for me to flunk the commissioners themselves. We are striving to have our students be able to take the exam, regardless of what we think of it. We want our teaching to be in line with real life and not with some eccentric idea. As much as possible, we must try to introduce our students to life in the right way.

Something along these lines is still possible in Central Europe, while in Russia that is no longer the case. We must be glad for what we have. If we introduce it to the children now, more will be possible in the next generation.

I am emphasizing explicitly that we are not crazy characters who say that our children are only allowed to do this thing or that. We will go along with what is asked for in the exams, even if we are not always in agreement with it. Meanwhile, we are still taking everything into account that we deem necessary for the sake of humanity’s salvation.

Question: Would it not be possible to have school only in the mornings?

Dr. Steiner: There is always more than one viewpoint to consider in questions like this, isn't there? It has been said that instruction should take place between seven o'clock and one o'clock. Now let me point out some of the principles involved. In the question-and-answer sessions during my course of lectures at Christmas, the question of fatigue was raised, and I mentioned that the intent of our educational method was to refrain from fragmenting and dissipating the children’s attention by having an hour of religion followed by an hour of zoology and so on. The point is to teach in such a way that the children’s attentiveness can be concentrated. That is why a particular subject is taught for a longer part of the school day and over several weeks on end. This view is derived from specific knowledge of the nature of the child.

It was asked if the children do not get tired. I must draw your attention to the fact that in principle in our way of teaching we do not count on head work at all when dealing with children between seven and twelve years of age. That would be wrong. Instead, we count on the involvement of the rhythmic system and of the emotions connected to the rhythmical system of breathing and circulation. If you think about it, you will realize that people get tired, not through their rhythmic system, but through their head and limb systems. If the heart and lungs were to get tired, they would not be able to be active throughout an entire lifetime. The other systems are the ones that get tired. By counting on the rhythmic system during these years, we do not make the children as tired as they would get otherwise.

Thus, when experimental psychology investigates fatigue and states as a result of its experiments that children are so tired after three quarters of an hour that they need a change, this only proves that the teaching was done in the wrong way, tiring the children unjustifiably. Otherwise, the time limit arrived at would be different. The point is to conduct the lesson in such an artistic way that this kind of fatigue does not set in. We can achieve this only slowly and gradually, because new educational practices along these lines can be developed only gradually.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, it is possible to prevent the children from tiring to a very great extent by teaching in the right way. This is not the case with the teachers, however, because they have to work with their heads. And if we want to do the pedagogically correct thing and keep the instruction in the hands of one person, I would like to know what the teacher would look like who is supposed to teach from seven o'clock in the morning straight through until one in the afternoon. This is the main thing we have to consider. These teachers would be exhausted by ten o’clock if they had been teaching since seven, and it is not a matter of indifference whether or not we would continue to wear them out. That is not desirable, regardless of how much I might wish that the children from out of town would not have to make a two hour trip for one lesson in school. But that is the exception; it is exaggerated. Secondly, there are some things that must simply be accepted for the sake of achieving anything at all. Of course we cannot arrange the lessons for all the children in the way that would be desirable for the ones who live so far out of town. Of course that cannot happen. In such things, therefore, we have to deal with the actual circumstances.

In any case, we have arranged things so that the lessons that address the children in spirit and soul are given in the morning, to the extent that this is feasible. The afternoon is for eurythmy and artistic lessons. Instruction has been integrated into the times of day in a way that corresponds to the children’s age and nature. It would be a mistake to hold school from seven o’clock in the early morning until one in the afternoon, and this mistake would arouse a great deal of discontentment. It would require a complicated and completely different system [of scheduling]. Then, too, I would like to see what would happen if we had the children in the Waldorf School from seven to one and they were left to their own devices for the rest of the day. I would like to see what kind of notes and complaints would come from home because the children were coming back from their afternoons with all kinds of bad behavior. We would have to deal with both sleepiness and bad manners on the part of the children. Add that to the sleepiness of the teachers, and those notes would be full of bad things.

There are several points of view to be considered. I appeal to you to consider as a matter of course that since we could not avoid having school in session in the afternoon, the reasons we took into account took precedence.

A father asks that the students taking the Abitur be tested by a committee of Waldorf teachers.

Dr. Steiner: This is actually not an issue of education, and our work is with educational impulses. The point for us is doing what I mentioned—taking into account what is in accordance with the nature of the human being and making sure that the children are not forcibly excluded from actual life. Given the way things are, there may be certain possibilities for us in the first years. But I ask you to consider that we are exposed to certain risks in assessing whether or not a child will be able to pass the exam.

What do you think would happen if we were to guarantee that no boy or girl who graduates from this school would flunk the exam? In some cases, the parents have anticipated that the child would have difficulties with the exam and sent him or her to us for that very reason.

As teachers attempting what I have indicated, we will continue to make progress toward the possibility of the children passing the exam. Those who do not wish us well, however, would be able to prove systematically that this is not the case.

It is not up to us to make sure that an officially certified commissioner is present at the exam. If the parents want the exam to be administered by Waldorf teachers, then the parents would have to take the initiative to bring this about. It is not something that is inherent in Waldorf education. This is an issue of opportunity that would also have to be resolved as the opportunity presents itself, and perhaps by the parents. It is not that we want to be excluded from issuing valid diplomas, it is only that we will have to look at the matter from the educational point of view. I would like someone to prove to me that it makes sense from an educational point of view to subject the students to a school-leaving exam when you have been together with them for years. I would like someone to prove that it makes sense. We know what we have to say about each of our students when they have reached school-leaving age. If this needs to be officially documented for other reasons, then that can happen, but it is not actually an educational issue. Those who have experience in this field know that we can tell what a student is fit for better without exams than with them. We have no reason to work toward the goal of being allowed to administer the exams because this does not follow naturally from what underlies our educational methods.

A question is asked about discipline and the attitude of respect toward the teachers.

Dr. Steiner: If you ask whether respect exists wherever Waldorf pedagogy is notbeing applied... It is extremely important to have devotion or respect or love for the teachers come about in a natural way. Otherwise it is worth nothing. Enforced respect, respect that is laid down in the school’s regulations, so to speak, is of no value in the development of an individual. It is our experience that when children are brought up in a way that allows their own being to set the standards, they are most likely to respect their teachers. This is no grounds for complaint. Of course it cannot be denied that some individual instances do not exactly give evidence of respect. It all depends on how much the respect that grows out of love is worth, and how much more the other kind is worth if it is only demonstrated to the teachers’ face and not so much when they turn their backs. You must not imagine this as a situation in which each child does what he or she wants. It is a case of the children developing ever greater confidence in the faculty.

The progress in this particular respect is quite extraordinary. Anyone who is in a position to make the comparison will find that our progress with regard to discipline has been extraordinarily great in the past two years. The fact of the matter is that when we first got the children here, we had to think about how we would maintain discipline and so on. Now we have arrived at quite a different standpoint, actually. We have accomplished the most by having the relationship between teacher and child be a natural one. There is a great difference between how discipline is maintained at present and the situation a year and a half ago.

These things cannot be judged from a point of view that is brought in from outside; you must consider the Waldorf School itself. Respect cannot be beaten into someone—by which I do not mean to say that anything else can be. Respect must be won in a different way. In this regard, your apprehensions are understandable, but it is also necessary to break the habit of apprehension and look more closely at the results that are becoming evident in the Waldorf School.

If our school is still in existence after another couple of years, we will talk again about whether we have reached the point where our graduates can take the exams. Let us discuss it then. We are convinced that in principle this should be possible. By then we will also be convinced that there was no reason to fear that our method of education would bring about what is so very evident in the schools where compulsion is strongest, where I have seen in both the lowest and highest grades that things are in a bad way when it comes to respect. I do not think that we can take it as gospel that respect only thrives where there is compulsion in education, and that meanwhile our children are thumbing their noses behind their teachers” backs. If you deal with a child in the right way with a friendly warning, that is better than a box on the ear.

Ansprache Am Elternabend

Meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden! Es ist nicht eigentlich ein Vortrag, den ich bei dieser Gelegenheit halten möchte, sondern ich möchte Veranlassung geben zu einer möglichst weitgehenden Verständigung der an der Führung und an dem Wirken der Waldorfschule Beteiligten und der Elternschaft unserer Schule. Das ist aus dem Grunde, weil ich tatsächlich diese Verständigung, dieses Zusammenwirken der Lehrer und anderer Persönlichkeiten, die an der Führung der Waldorfschule beteiligt sind, und der Eltern für etwas außerordentlich Notwendiges und Bedeutungsvolles halte.

Gestatten Sie mir, daß ich dabei von einem Erlebnis ausgehe, das ich erst jüngst hatte, um an diesem Erlebnis zu veranschaulichen, wie wichtig die Frage ist, auf die ich hingedeutet habe. Ich habe ja in den letzten Wochen die Aufgabe gehabt, mitzuwirken bei der zum Geburtstag von Shakespeare veranstalteten Feier in Stratford on Avon in England. Und diese Shakespeare-Festlichkeit war eigentlich eine solche, die ganz unter dem Eindruck und Einfluß stand von Erziehungsfragen. Sie war veranstaltet von Persönlichkeiten, die an Kinder- und Volkserziehung tief interessiert sind. Man kann auch sagen, bei dieser ganzen Festlichkeit stand gewissermaßen die Welt der Shakespeareschen Kunst nur im Hintergrund, denn dasjenige, was verhandelt worden ist, waren Erziehungsfragen der Gegenwart. Bei dieser Gelegenheit zeigte sich auch eine der kleinen, oder vielleicht einmal sogar großen Auswirkungen jenes pädagogischen Kurses, den ich zu Weihnachten an unserem Goetheanum in Dornach gehalten habe, und an dem gerade Persönlichkeiten teilnahmen, die mitzuwirken hatten an dieser Shakespeare-Festlichkeit.

Nun gibt es da in der Nähe von London ein Erziehungsinternat. Es hat noch keine besondere Größe, aber dieses Erziehungsinternat wird geleitet von einer Persönlichkeit, die bei dem Dornacher Kurs anwesend war und von dort her die Anregung mitgenommen hat, in dieses Erziehungsinternat, vielleicht sogar bei einer Vergrößerung desselben, dasjenige, was wir jetzt nennen dürfen die Waldorfpädagogik, das Waldorf-Erziehungswesen einzuführen. Wir wurden eingeladen, diese Erziehungsanstalt anzusehen. Dabei kamen die verschiedenen Fragen zur Sprache, die die gegenwärtige Leitung betreffen, und dasjenige, was getan werden könnte, um den Geist des hier in der Waldorfschule gepflegten Erziehungswesens dorthin zu übertragen.

Es kam eine Frage ganz besonders zur Besprechung, und das war diese, daß die leitenden Persönlichkeiten sagten: Ja, mit den Kindern würden wir eigentlich recht gut fertig; wir bekommen jedes Jahr die kleine Anzahl von Kindern herein, welche uns auch zu halten möglich ist bei der Größe unserer Anstalt. Aber das Schwierigste ist das Zusammenwirken mit den Eltern. Schwierig aus dem Grunde, weil nun einmal in der älteren Generation überall - das ist durchaus eine internationale Angelegenheit — heute ganz bestimmte Ansichten vorhanden sind, so und so muß die Erziehung verlaufen. Es gibt manche Veranlassung dazu, daß die Eltern ihre Kinder in diese oder jene Anstalt geben. Wenn es sich wirklich darum handelt, daß ein wenig abgewichen werden soll von dem, in was man sich eingelebt hat, dann entsteht sehr leicht die Uneinigkeit der Schule mit den Eltern. Und das ist etwas, was gerade in einem freien Schulwesen wirklich nicht zu ertragen ist. Nun liegen dort in dem Schulinternat, von dem ich spreche, ganz besondere Schwierigkeiten nach dieser Richtung vor. Ich will jetzt weder Kritik anlegen, noch will ich etwas empfehlen. Ich will einfach von den Tatsachen sprechen. In diesem Schulinternat gibt es, trotzdem es ein Internat ist, gar keine Bediensteten. Die Schule wird ganz allein von den Kindern und Lehrern versorgt, so daß also von diesen Schülern und Lehrern die Diele gewaschen werden muß, die Teller abgewaschen werden müssen, das Gemüse gepflanzt werden muß, die Hühner versorgt werden müssen, damit sie Eier liefern - ich könnte eine lange Liste aufzählen. Daneben werden alle möglichen Arbeiten von den Kindern gezeigt, so daß man schon den Eindruck hat, da geht es doch anders zu als in manchen anderen Erziehungsinternaten. Die Kinder müssen auch kochen, also alles machen, vom frühen Morgen bis zum späten Abend. Und daß die Lehrer und Erzieher dabei in einer kräftigen Weise mitwirken, das sieht man der Sache schon an. Nun, ich will das weder empfehlen noch irgendwelche Kritik anlegen. Ich will das nur hinstellen. Dann kommt es vor, wenn die Kinder in den Ferien nach Hause kommen und sagen, was sie tun müssen, daß die Eltern die Ansicht haben, das hätten sie sich nicht vorgestellt, das könnten sie nicht begreifen. Deshalb ist es in diesem Falle recht schwierig, die Eintracht mit den Eltern zu erhalten. - Ich führe den Fall nur an, um auf die Empfindung hinzudeuten, die man hat, wenn es sich um das Ernstnehmen des Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesens handelt, auf die Empfindung, daß es notwendig ist, in vollem Einklang mit der Elternschaft der Kinder zu wirken und zu arbeiten.

Nun, wir sind selbstverständlich in der Waldorfschule in einer anderen Lage. Wir haben kein Internat, wir haben eine Schule und haben den Unterricht zu erteilen und während des Unterrichtserteilens selbstverständlich das erzieherische Prinzip ins Auge zu fassen. Aber dennoch, dessen können Sie versichert sein: als ein Grundelement für alles, was wir in der Waldorfschule als unsere Aufgabe betrachten, müssen wir ansehen das Zusammenarbeiten mit der Elternschaft. Es ergeben sich fortwährend im Laufe der Schulführung unzählige Fragen mit Bezug auf das Wohl und Wehe, auf den guten Fortgang und auf die Gesundheit, die leibliche und seelische Gesundheit, es ergeben sich fortwährend unzählige Fragen, die nur im Verein mit den Eltern zu lösen sind. Deshalb müßte es eigentlich - und es wird ja den Verhältnissen Rechnung getragen werden müssen — immer nötiger und nötiger werden, diese Elternabende auszubauen und zu einer öfteren Erscheinung in unserer Schulführung zu machen.

Unsere Waldorfschule soll ja nicht nur ihrem Titel nach, sondern ihrem ganzen Wesen nach eine freie Schule sein, und gerade weil sie eine solche freie Schule sein soll, sind wir auf die Hilfe der Elternschaft in einem ganz außerordentlich hohen Grade angewiesen. Es ist meine Überzeugung, daß es eigentlich bei allen Eltern nur eben die tiefste Befriedigung wird hervorrufen können, wenn in uns das Verlangen nach dem Zusammenwirken mit der Elternschaft besteht.

Eine freie Schule ist die Waldorfschule. Sehen Sie, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, was eigentlich eine freie Schule bedeuten soll, das ist ja etwas, was immer wieder und wieder gesagt werden muß, und was gar nicht stark genug gesagt werden kann, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil kaum heute es in weiteren Kreisen möglich ist, das völlige Bedürfnis nach einer solchen freien Schule zu haben. Wir haben das Vorurteil von Jahrhunderten gegen uns, namentlich in der folgenden Weise:

Man braucht nicht weit zurückzuschauen in der Entwickelung der Menschheit, da war bis zu einem recht hohen Grade das Schulwesen, namentlich das Volksschulwesen, sehr frei. Aber die damalige Freiheit dieses Schulwesens hatte dazu geführt, daß es sehr viele Analphabeten gab, daß eine Schulerziehung nur von einzelnen Menschen gesucht worden ist. Nun kam im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung in den zivilisierten Gebieten immer mehr das Verlangen herauf, eine gewisse Bildungsgrundlage für das soziale Leben zu fordern. Ich kann jetzt nicht ausführen, wodurch es gekommen ist, daß das Verlangen auftauchte, eine gewisse Bildungsgrundlage zu fordern für das soziale Leben; aber dieses Verlangen kam in einer Zeit herauf, in der die Menschen ihrer Hinneigung zu den alten Göttern abgeschworen hatten und nun von einem Gotte allen Segen und alles Gute für die Entwickelung der Menschheit erwarteten, von dem Gotte Staat. Und insbesondere in Mitteleuropa war ja die Gegend, in der man ganz besonders stark darauf erpicht war, in diesem Gotte Staat nun nicht nur alles mögliche andere Heilsame zu sehen, sondern auch das Heilsame für die Kindererziehung.

Man ging einmal von dem wie selbstverständlich angesehenen Grundsatze aus: Parlament, große Ratsversammlung und so weiter, das sind Veranstaltungen, wo die Genialität blüht. Auch dann, wenn die einzelnen, die beteiligt sind an dieser Parlamentsversammlung, einem nicht so als außerordentlich erleuchtet vorkamen. Man hatte die Meinung, wenn die Leute beisammen sind, dann werden sie gescheit. Und dann werden sie über alle Angelegenheiten das Richtige bestimmen können.

Einzelne Menschen zwar, die auch eine recht gute, tiefe Kenntnis hatten, wie zum Beispiel der Dichter Rosegger, die hatten - verzeihen Sie, daß ich solch ein Wort erwähne - eine andere Meinung. Rosegger hat den Spruch geprägt: «Oaner is a Mensch; mehrere san Leit; vüle, dös san Viecher.»

Das ist ein bißchen radikal ausgedrückt, aber jedenfalls widerspricht es der Meinung, die sich gerade in den letzten Jahrhunderten herausgebildet hat, daß man in all dem, was staatsähnlich ist, das finden könne, was das Richtige in bezug auf Kindererziehung feststellen könnte. Und so ist schon unser Schulwesen einfach im Glauben nach und nach herangewachsen, daß es gar nicht anders sein könne, als daß von der staatlichen Gemeinschaft aus alles für das Schulwesen eben auch bestimmt würde.

Nun, eine freie Schule ist diejenige, welche den Lehrenden und Erziehenden alles dasjenige ermöglicht, was sie aus ihrer Menschenerkenntnis heraus, aus ihrer Welterkenntnis heraus, aus ihrer Kinderliebe heraus unmittelbar für das Wesentliche halten, was hineingetragen werden soll ins Erziehungswesen. — Eine unfreie Schule ist diejenige, wo der Lehrer fragen muß: Was ist vorgeschrieben für die erste Klasse, was ist vorgeschrieben für die zweite Klasse, wie muß die Stunde eingeordnet werden nach dem Gesetz?

Eine freie Schule ist eine solche, wo die Lehrer eine ganz bestimmte, ihrem Wirken zugrunde liegende Erkenntnis haben von dem, wie ein Kind heranwächst, welche körperlichen und seelischen Kräfte in ihm liegen, welche körperlichen und seelischen Kräfte in dem Kinde entwikkelt werden müssen; wo der Lehrer das, was er jeden Tag und jede Stunde machen muß, aus dieser Menschenerkenntnis und aus seiner Kinderliebe heraus einrichten kann. Man hat nicht ein sehr starkes Gefühl davon, wie grundverschieden die unfreie Schule von der freien Schule ist. Denn die wirklich erzieherischen und unterrichtenden Kräfte des Lehrers können sich nur entwickeln in der freien Schule.

Weil man gegenwärtig von diesen Dingen eigentlich gar nicht eine wirkliche Empfindung hat, deshalb ist es so schwer, mit dem freien und befreiten Schulwesen wieder weiter zu dringen. Man darf sich gar nicht irgendwelchen Illusionen hingeben. Wenige Stunden, bevor ich hierher gereist bin, bekam ich einen Brief, der mir mitteilt, nachdem lange Zeit gearbeitet worden ist, um in einer anderen Stadt Deutschlands eine ähnliche Schule wie diese Waldorfschule zu errichten, daß diese abgewiesen worden ist. Wir haben darin ein deutliches Zeichen, daß die weitere Entwickelung der Zeit nicht dahin geht, das freie Schulwesen zu fördern. Daher müssen wir - und das ist dasjenige, was ich den Eltern unserer lieben Schulkinder ganz besonders ans Herz legen möchte -, darum müssen wir diese Waldorfschule, die wir jetzt haben, die wir uns errungen haben, in der wirklich aus der freien Kraft der Lehrerschaft heraus die Kinder zu allseitig tüchtigen und gesunden Menschen gemacht werden sollen, wir müssen diese Waldorfschule hegen und pflegen. Wir müssen uns bewußt werden, daß es nicht leicht sein wird, gegenüber den Vorurteilen der Gegenwart irgend etwas zweites Ähnliches zu haben wie diese Waldorfschule. Und dabei dürfen wir schon darauf hinweisen, daß diese Waldorfschule, nachdem sie noch nicht drei Jahre besteht, etwas ist, was gegenwärtig, wir dürfen es sagen, in der ganzen zivilisierten Welt besprochen wird. Denn sehen Sie, es ist immerhin von einer gewissen Bedeutung - denken Sie an dasjenige, was ich über diese Schule in der Nähe von London gesagt habe -, daß sich einige Leute gefunden haben, um dort eine Waldorfschule ins Leben zu rufen.

Wir können diese Frage auch von einem viel weiteren Gesichtspunkte betrachten. Dieser Gesichtspunkt ist der, daß wir ja nun immerhin in der Notwendigkeit sind, etwas zu tun dazu, daß das deutsche Wesen in der Welt wiederum seine Stellung bekommt. Deutsches Wesen wird aber, das können Sie versichert sein, seine Bedeutung nur dann bekommen, wenn der geistige Inhalt dieses deutschen Wesens vor allen Dingen zu seiner Geltung in der Welt gebracht wird. Und nach dem wird man, wenn er in der richtigen Weise vor die Welt hingestellt wird, nach dem wird man Verlangen tragen. Man wird sich bewußt werden, daß man ihn braucht.

Dazu ist notwendig, daß wir wirklich in die vollen Tiefen dieses deutschen Wesens hineindringen und aus ihnen heraus schaffen. Und das zeigt sich gerade an einer so vehementen, manchmal tumultuarischen Erziehungsbewegung wie derjenigen, die bei dem Shakespeare-Fest erlebt werden konnte. Da zeigt sich, daß in der ganzen Welt das Bedürfnis vorhanden ist: dem Erziehungswesen müssen neue Impulse eröffnet werden. Das ist eine Angelegenheit der zivilisierten Menschheit, daß es mit den alten Formen nicht mehr weiter geht.

Es ist so: mit den Dingen, die in der Waldorfschule gepflegt werden, hat man etwas zu sagen auf die Fragen, die in der ganzen Welt in bezug auf das Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesen aufgeworfen werden. Nur hat man eben auch fast alle Vorurteile der ganzen Welt gegen sich, und immer mehr geht es auf das hinaus, daß wenigstens die untersten Klassen des Volksschulwesens der Freiheit entzogen werden sollen. Es ist außerordentlich schwierig, gegen diese Voruteile anzukämpfen. Die Waldorfschule kann nur dadurch ankämpfen, daß sie wirklich aus der freien Kraft der Lehrerschaft aus den Kindern dasjenige macht, was eben nur aus einer solchen freien Kraft heraus gemacht werden kann.

Dazu aber bedürfen wir des innigen, des einträchtigen Zusammenwirkens mit der Elternschaft. Und bei einer der Elternversammlungen, bei der ich schon anwesend sein konnte, habe ich schon darauf hingewiesen, daß wir deshalb, weil wir ein freies Schulwesen anstreben, darauf angewiesen sind, Verständnis, tiefes Verständnis bei der Elternschaft zu finden. Wenn wir dieses Verständnis finden, dann werden wir richtig arbeiten können. Und dann werden wir andererseits vielleicht doch dasjenige, was mit der Waldorfschule gemeint ist, zur Geltung bringen können.

Ich habe dazumal betont, wie es unser Bestreben sein muß, wirklich aus der Erkenntnis der kindlichen Wesenheit und kindlichen Körperheit alles dasjenige herauszuholen, was zum Gegenstand des Unterrichts und der Erziehung gemacht werden soll. Eine solche Kinderbeobachtung, weil sie ja eine Menschenbeobachtung ist, eine solche Kinderbeobachtung ist nur möglich, wenn man eine Erkenntnis des ganzen Menschen anstrebt, wie sie angestrebt wird durch die Anthroposophie. Immer wieder müssen wir sagen: Es ist uns gar nicht darum zu tun, etwa Anthroposophie in die Schule hineinzutragen. Darüber werden sich die Eltern nicht zu beklagen haben, daß wir Anthroposophie als Weltanschauung in die Schule hineintragen wollen. Aber gerade so, wie wir es vermeiden, Weltanschauung, Anthroposophie in die Schule hineinzutragen, möchten wir es anstreben, diejenige pädagogische Geschicklichkeit, die nur kommen kann aus anthroposophischer Durchbildung, in der Handhabung des Unterrichts, in der Behandlung des Kindes geltend zu machen. - Wir haben die katholischen Kinder dem katholischen Pfarrer zur Verfügung gestellt, die evangelischen Kinder dem evangelischen Pfarrer, und wir haben den freien Religionsunterricht nur für diejenigen, deren Eltern ihn eben suchen. Auch das ist vollständig freigestellt; er ist eingerichtet nur für die Kinder, die wahrscheinlich in der Mehrzahl sonst überhaupt an keinem Religionsunterricht teilnehmen würden. Also darauf legen wir nicht das Hauptgewicht. Dasjenige, was wir in bezug auf die Weltanschauung zu sagen haben, das ist für Erwachsene.

Aber dasjenige, was, ich möchte sagen, bis in die Geschicklichkeit der Fingerspitzen hinein Anthroposophie aus einem Menschen machen kann, das macht sie insbesondere gerade aus einem Lehrer, aus einem Erzieher. Und die Behandlung der Kinder, die Behandlung des Lehr- und Erziehungsinhaltes, das ist es, was so erstrebt werden soll, daß die Kinder überall sich wie selbstverständlich hineinfinden in das, was in der Schule vor diese Kinder hingebracht wird. Überall soll sorgfältig erwogen werden: was ist das Richtige für ein bestimmtes kindliches Alter?

Sie wissen ja, wir beginnen nicht so mit dem Lesen- und Schreibenlernen, wie das heute vielfach geschieht. Wir entwickeln, indem wir mit dem Schreibenlernen beginnen, die Buchstabenformen, die sonst dem Kinde fremd sind, aus dem heraus, zu dem das Kind mit innerem Behagen sich hinwendet aus einer Art künstlerischer Tätigkeit, künstlerischem Formensinn. Unsere Kinder kommen dadurch etwas später dazu, Schreiben und Lesen zu lernen, weil ja, wenn man die Natur des Kindes berücksichtigt, das Lesen nach dem Schreiben kommen muß.

Nun wenden sich die, die in die alten Anschauungen eingewöhnt sind, dagegen und sagen: da lernen die Kinder viel später Lesen und Schreiben als in anderen Schulen. - Warum lernt das Kind in der anderen Schule früher Lesen und Schreiben? Weil man nicht weiß, welches Lebensalter gut ist dazu, um Lesen und Schreiben zu können. Erst legen wir uns die Frage vor, ob es überhaupt berechtigt ist, zu verlangen, daß das Kind schon im achten Jahr mit einer gewissen Fertigkeit lesen können, schreiben können soll.

Wenn man diese Anschauungen weiter ausdehnt, dann entwickeln sich solche weitergehenden Ansichten, wie wir sie in einer merkwürdigen Weise erfahren können. Wer Goethe genau kennt, der kann auch wissen: Wenn man mit dem, was für einen zwölfjährigen Jungen heute schulmäßige Anforderungen sind, an Goethe herangeht und sich fragt, hat Goethe das wirklich so gekonnt? — wird man sehen, er hat es nicht einmal mit sechzehn Jahren gekonnt und ist doch der Goethe geworden. Österreich hatte einen bedeutenden Dichter, Robert Hamerling. Er hat natürlich in seiner Jugend sich nicht vorgenommen, ein Dichter zu werden, das machte sein Genie, aber er wollte Mittelschullehrer werden. Er hatte eine Lehramtsprüfung abgelegt. In seinem Zeugnis steht, daß er im Lateinischen und Griechischen ganz außerordentlich gute Kenntnisse aufgewiesen habe, daß er aber nicht fähig sei, die deutsche Sprache zu handhaben, sondern daß er nur für die unterste Klasse zum Unterricht tauge. Aber er wurde der bedeutendste neuere Dichter Österreichs. Er hat in der deutschen Sprache und nicht in der slowakischen Sprache geschrieben.

An dem Leben müssen eben die pädagogischen Impulse gemessen werden. Und das ist das Wesentliche unserer Pädagogik, daß wir das ganze Leben des Kindes im Auge haben und daß wir wissen: wenn wir dem Kinde etwas im siebenten, achten Lebensjahr beibringen, so muß es so beigebracht werden, daß es mit dem Kinde heranwächst, daß das Kind das noch im dreißigsten, vierzigsten Jahre hat, daß man das ganze Leben etwas hat davon. Sehen Sie, da ist es so, daß gerade diejenigen Kinder, die mit acht Jahren perfekt lesen und schreiben können, daß die mit Bezug auf gewisse innere seelische Gesundheitsimpulse verkümmern. Ja, richtig verkümmern. Es ist ein großes Glück, wenn man mit acht Jahren noch nicht so lesen und schreiben kann, wie es heute verlangt wird. Es ist ein großes Glück für die leibliche und seelische Gesundheit.

Was gepflegt werden muß, es muß hervorgeholt werden aus den Bedürfnissen der menschlichen Natur. Man muß dafür ein feines Verständnis haben, nicht nur für dasjenige, was richtig ist. Es ist leicht, sich vor eine Klasse hinzustellen und in einer Weise herauszubekommen: Der sagt etwas Richtiges, der etwas Falsches! - und dann zu korrigieren das Falsche ins Richtige; aber eine eigentlich erzieherische Tätigkeit wird dabei nicht ausgeübt. Es ist ganz unwesentlich für die menschliche Entwickelung des Kindes, wenn man das Kind Aufsätze und Schularbeiten machen läßt und sie korrigiert, und das Kind sich überzeugt, daß es Fehler gemacht hat. Das Wesentliche ist, daß man einen feinen Sinn hat für die Fehler, welche die Kinder machen. Fehler machen die Kinder auf hunderterlei Weise. Jedes Kind macht anders seine Fehler, und wenn man einen feinen Sinn hat dafür, wie verschieden sich die Kinder verhalten mit Bezug auf die Fehler, dann kriegt man heraus, was man zu tun hat, um die Kinder weiter zu bringen.

Nicht wahr, mit Bezug auf das Leben sind die Gesichtspunkte, die man hat, verschieden. Der Arzt hat nicht dieselben Gesichtspunkte bezüglich der Krankheit wie der Patient. Vom Patienten kann man nicht verlangen, daß er in ganz bestimmte Krankheiten verliebt ist. Vom Arzt kann man sagen, daß er dann ein richtiger Arzt ist, wenn er die Krankheit liebt. So handelt es sich darum, daß man eine gewisse Verliebtheit hat in die interessanten Fehler, welche die Kinder machen, Dadurch lernt man erst die menschliche Natur kennen. Verzeihen Sie, wenn ich mich radikal ausdrücke. Man muß sich radikal ausdrücken. Für den Lehrer ist es interessanter, die Fehler zu verfolgen, als dasjenige, was die Kinder richtig machen. Von den Fehlern lernt der Lehrer außerordentlich viel.

Aber was braucht man zu alldem? Zu alldem braucht man jene innere tatkräftige Menschen- und Kinderliebe, die für den Lehrer ganz unerläßlich ist. Und da treten dann die unzähligen Fragen auf. Man ist besorgt um die leibliche und seelische Gesundheit dieses und jenes Kindes. Man hat das Kind ein paar Stunden des Tages; man muß für die übrige Zeit das Vertrauen, das volle Vertrauen der Eltern des Kindes haben. Und deshalb ist es, warum die Lehrer und Erzieher unserer Waldorfschule immer an dieses Vertrauen appellieren, und warum sie so gerne alles im Einklang mit den Eltern für das Wohl und Wehe der Kinder zustande bringen möchten. Das ist eben bei einer unfreien Schule in der Regel gar nicht in dem Maße angestrebt. Denn da hält man sich daran, die Vorschrift zu beobachten, und daher findet man sogar für den Begriff des Freien im Schulwesen manchmal recht wenig Verständnis.

Es gibt Länder, wenn man da vom freien Schulwesen redet, so antwortet man einem: Ja, das mag in Deutschland so sein, daß man da nötig hat, freie Schulen zu gründen. Bei uns ist es nicht so; da ist der Lehrer frei. Das antworten einem Lehrer selbst. Man ist nur erstaunt darüber, daß so etwas geantwortet wird. Man ist erstaunt darüber aus dem Grunde, weil man sieht: Diejenigen, die das antworten, haben keine Ahnung mehr davon, daß sie sich unfrei fühlen könnten. Sie tun das, was ihnen befohlen wird. Da es ihnen nicht einfällt, daß etwas anderes geschehen könnte, so fühlen sie gar nicht, daß die Dinge auch anders sein könnten.

Bedenken Sie einmal, in welch anderer Lage Sie sind, gerade gegenüber der Auffassung des Waldorfschulwesens, als andere Leute. Andere Menschen müssen sich anstrengen, wenn wir ihnen sagen, so und so wollen wir es machen, weil wir das für das einzig Richtige halten; sie müssen sich anstrengen, das erst einzusehen. Ich glaube, gerade die Eltern der Waldorfschulkinder können unmittelbar an ihren eigenen lieben Wesen sehen, was da in der Waldorfschule getan wird, wie das Verhältnis der ganzen Schule zum Kinde aufgefaßt wird. Man möchte, daß einmal eine Zeit kommt, wo die Eltern gegenüber dem freien Schulwesen sich damit begnügen können, einfach befriedigt zu sein mit dem, was innerhalb des freien Schulwesens geleistet wird. Heute müßte jeder, der an seinem eigenen Fleisch und Blut sieht, wie diese Waldorfschule arbeiten will, zu einem tatkräftigen Verteidiger und Verbreiter des Waldorfschulwesens werden.

Wir haben ja außerdem mancherlei Schwierigkeiten. Sehen Sie, würden wir unsere Ideale erfüllen wollen, so würden wir sagen: Nach unserer Einsicht verhält es sich so: im sechsten, siebenten, achten Jahre soll man dies tun, im neunten, zehnten, elften, zwölften dies und so weiter. Da würde auch das Allerbeste herauskommen, wenn wir das tun könnten. Wir können es nicht tun, wir müssen in gewisser Beziehung eine Art Kompromiß schließen; denn wir können ja den Kindern, der aufwachsenden Menschheit nicht die Möglichkeit nehmen, im Leben darin zu stehen.

So haben wir uns vorgenommen, daß wir die Kinder, von dem Alter, wo sie in die Volksschule hineinkommen, bis zum neunten Lebensjahr frei erziehen, aber zu gleicher Zeit, trotzdem wir dasjenige hineinnehmen, was die menschliche Natur erfordert, die Kinder auch so fördern, daß sie in eine andere Schule übertreten können. Ebenso im zwölften und im vierzehnten, fünfzehnten Jahre. Und wenn wir das Glück haben, die weiteren Klassen draufzusetzen, müssen wir sogar dafür sorgen, daß dann diejenigen jungen Herren und Damen, die dann diese Klassen absolvieren werden, in die Lage gebracht werden können, an die Universitäten und technischen Hochschulen überzugehen. Wir müssen dafür sorgen, daß die Kinder an diese Anstalten übergehen können. Ich glaube, noch lange Zeit wird man uns nicht die Möglichkeit geben können, etwa zum Beispiel Doktoren zu fabrizieren, gültige Zeugnisse an unseren Hochschulen zu machen. Dann würden wir viel mehr erreichen. Wir können zunächst nichts anderes tun, als erst die Kinder und dann die jungen Herren und Damen so weit zu bringen, daß sie sich, ohne daß ihnen der größte Schaden passiert, auch das aneignen können, was man im öffentlichen Leben braucht.

Wir sind da in ganz erhebliche Schwierigkeiten hineinversetzt. Sehen Sie, wer nach der menschlichen Natur urteilt, nach dem, was dem Menschen gut ist, damit er im späteren Leben ein brauchbarer Mensch wird, der sagt sich: das ist einfach schrecklich, wenn so im vierzehnten, fünfzehnten, sechzehnten, siebzehnten Jahre die jungen Herren und Damen an den heutigen Gymnasien und Realschulen sind. Sie werden allem Leben entfremdet. Wir müssen das Notwendigste tun, was getan werden kann, daß wenigstens auch die Körperlichkeit bis zu einer einigermaßen lebensfähigen Geschicklichkeit kommt. Ich erwähne es öfter, daß man heute erwachsene Männer findet, die nicht in der Lage sind, wenn ihnen ein Knopf abgerissen ist, ihn selbst anzunähen. Das sage ich nur beispielsweise. Andere Dinge ähnlicher Art kann man ja auch nicht. Vor allen Dingen versteht man ja nichts von der Welt. Der Mensch muß mit offenen Augen in der Welt stehen, damit er auch freie Hände haben kann, die überall angreifen. Sehen Sie, deshalb müßte in einem bestimmten Lebensalter so etwas in einer elementaren Weise eingeführt werden wie Spinnen und Weben. Ja, nun müssen wir aber wenn nun an den gewöhnlichen Anstalten die Schüler die Matura machen, werden sie nicht im Weben und Spinnen oder in anderen nützlichen Lebenskünsten geprüft -, wir müssen außerdem allerlei von dem treiben, was man verlangt nach der Richtung des Examens hin. Dazu ist notwendig, daß wir unseren Unterricht in der ökonomischsten Weise einrichten. Das ist eine besondere Kunst im Erziehen und Unterrichten.

Ich darf ein Beispiel, das mir selbst passiert ist, anführen. Es ist jetzt lange her - es wurde mir mit anderen Geschwistern einer Familie zusammen ein elfjähriges Kind zum Erziehen und Unterrichten zugeführt, das aufgegeben war für alles Unterrichten und Erziehen. EIf Jahre war der Junge alt, und um mich zu informieren, hat man mir ein Zeichenheft gezeigt, worin der Junge seine Zeichenkunst entfaltet hat. Dieses Heft hatte in der Mitte auf der ersten Seite ein riesiges Loch. Er hatte nur radiert. Es war das alles, was er konnte. Er hatte auch einmal eine Prüfung für eine erste Volksschulklasse gemacht, er konnte gar nichts. In bezug auf die andere Haltung war er so, daß er oftmals nicht bei Tische aß, sondern in die Küche ging und die Kartoffelschalen aß. Nach den verschiedensten Richtungen war es schwierig. Ich will es nicht genau beschreiben. - Es handelte sich darum, in der möglichst kurzen Zeit möglichst viel zu erreichen. Ich selbst mußte manchmal drei Stunden arbeiten, um den Lehrstoff so zusammenzuarbeiten, daß ich dann dasjenige, was dem Jungen beizubringen war, in einer Viertelstunde beibringen konnte. Nach dem zweiten Jahr war der Junge wo weit, daß er ins Gymnasium gehen konnte. Er hatte einen riesigen Wasserkopf, der immer kleiner wurde.

Ich will diesen Fall anführen, weil er zeigt, was ich meine mit Ökonomie des Unterrichts. Ökonomie des Unterrichts heißt, eben niemals mehr Zeit für etwas zu verwenden bei den Kindern, als nach den leiblichen und seelischen Gesundheitsbedingungen notwendig ist. Solche Ökonomie des Unterrichts muß heute besonders geübt werden, weil das Leben so viel verlangt. Die Lehrkräfte zum Beispiel für das Lateinische und Griechische haben einen schwierigen Standpunkt, weil wir viel weniger Zeit haben, diese Dinge zu pflegen, und weil sie dennoch so gepflegt werden müssen, wie es den berechtigten Ansprüchen des Geisteslebens entspricht. Die Kunst müssen wir auf allen Gebieten suchen, nirgends das Kind zu überlasten. In all diesen Dingen, ich muß es sagen, brauchen wir das verständnisvolle Entgegenkommen der Elternschaft, brauchen wir ein einträchtiges Zusammenwirken mit der Elternschaft.

Wirklich, die eigentlichen Erfolge, die für das Leben die große Bedeutung haben, liegen nicht darinnen, daß für den einen oder anderen begabten Schüler etwas Staunenswertes erreicht wird. Die eigentlichen Erfolge liegen in der Lebenskraft. Und da ist es für mich immer tief befriedigend, wenn so etwas vorkommt, daß man sagt, irgendein Kind soll, weil da dies oder jenes erreicht werden soll, aus der einen Klasse in eine andere versetzt werden. Da kämpft der Lehrer um jedes einzelne Kind zuweilen. Das sind wirkliche Erfolge im liebevollen Zusammenleben der Lehrerschaft mit der Kinderschaft. Aus dem wird etwas; daneben verschwinden diejenigen Dinge, auf die so ein Wert gelegt wird, ob die Kinder ein bißchen weiter oder ein bißchen weniger weit sind.

Wir stehen schon vor der Tatsache, daß wir ja - ich möchte es wiederum radikal ausdrücken - unmöglicherweise gelobt werden können von denen, die aus den Meinungen über das heutige Schulwesen heraus kommen und diese Meinung haben. Es ist immer etwas falsch, wenn man glaubt, daß damit etwas erreicht würde, wenn die Menschen, die so denken, uns loben würden. Wenn die Sache so stünde, daß man von den heutigen Schulbehörden gelobt würde, oder von denen, die glauben, daß die heutigen Schulbehörden das Richtige haben, dann hätten wir die Waldorfschule gar nicht zu errichten gebraucht.

Also es ist nur selbstverständlich, daß wir darauf angewiesen sind, daß unsere Elternschaft im Einklang darauf eingeht, auf eine aus dem rein Menschlichen herausgeholte Erziehung zu sehen. Die brauchen wir heute, auch in sozialer Beziehung.

Auf die Art, wie man heute vielfach denkt, werden die sozialen Fragen nicht gelöst, sondern dadurch, daß die richtigen Menschen ins soziale Leben hineingestellt werden. Die werden nur hineingestellt werden, wenn die Menschen richtig an Leib und Seele gesund aufwachsen können. An demjenigen, was einem Menschen ganz spezifisch ist, was ein Mensch seinen besonderen Fähigkeiten nach lernen kann, können wir furchtbar wenig machen. Denn, nicht wahr, wenn wir irgendwelche Verdienste haben können, den Menschen so zu erziehen, zu unterrichten, daß er das Höchste wird, was er werden kann, so müßte man, wenn wir einen Goethe erziehen müßten, als Lehrer mindestens ein Goethe sein, Zu dem, was ein Mensch durch seine Natur wird, können wir nichts tun; das wird er durch andere Veranlassungen. Was wir können, das ist, die Hindernisse wegräumen, daf3 der Mensch die Kräfte in sich findet zu dem, was in ihm veranlagt ist. Das können wir, wenn wir rechte Pädagogen werden, und wenn wir von der Zeitgenossenschaft unterstützt werden.

In erster Linie können wir unterstützt werden von der Elternschaft. Wir haben eine verständnisvolle Elternschaft gefunden. Und dasjenige, was ich zu sagen habe, ist zugleich durchaus mit einer Dankesempfindung erfüllt. Und von tiefer Befriedigung bin ich erfüllt davon, daß Sie so zahlreich erschienen sind. Ich hoffe, wir werden uns über einzelnes in der folgenden Aussprache unterhalten können; unsere Lehrer werden bereit sein, alle gestellten Fragen zu beantworten. Aber auf gewisse Charaktereigenschaften möchte ich noch hinweisen.

Wir haben auch in der letzten Zeit, die Waldorf-Lehrerschaft mit mir zusammen, einen Hochschulkurs in Holland gehalten. Eine Persönlichkeit der Waldorfschule, Fräulein vor Heydebrund, hat jenen Nachmittag zu leiten gehabt, der über pädagogische Fragen zu handeln hatte. Es war einer der interessantesten Nachmittage, weil man sah: die Erziehungsfragen sind heute solche, die überall die ganze Welt beschäftigen. -— Wir wissen zwar, daß wir kein Recht haben, darauf zu pochen, wie wir es so herrlich weit gebracht haben, daß wir nicht betonen wollen, wie wir es so herrlich weit gebracht haben.

Nun steht die Sache so, daß viele Leute heute das Impulsierende unserer Schule einsehen; was aber noch fehlt, das ist das tatkräftige Zuuns-Stehen, damit die Sache weitere Stütze und weitere Verbreitung gewinnen kann. Es ist durchaus einzusehen, daß Eltern zunächst das Beste für ihre Kinder möchten. Aber so wie heute die Dinge liegen, sollten die Eltern auch uns helfen. Für uns wird es schwer, durchzudringen. Wir brauchen Hilfe in jeder Beziehung, denn wir brauchen einen sich immer mehr und mehr vergrößernden Kreis, damit wir die Vorurteile gegenüber unserer Pädagogik überwinden können. Und vor allen Dingen sage ich das Folgende unter einer bestimmten Voraussetzung und Reserve, daß ich durchaus mich überzeugt halten will, diejenigen, die hier sitzen, haben in pekuniärer Beziehung das getan, was sie tun können. Diese Hypothese sei vorausgesetzt, damit niemand glaubt, ich will ihm zu nahe treten. Aber dabei bleibt doch die andere Tatsache bestehen: Wenn wir weiterkommen wollen, brauchen wir Geld!

Ja, Geld brauchen wir! Nun sagen die Leute: Das ist aber kein Idealismus. Ihr Anthroposophen, was macht ihr uns da von Idealismus vor, da ihr doch sagt, Geld braucht ihr.

Meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden! Sehen Sie, der Idealismus ist halt doch auf schwachen Füßen stehend, der große, ungeheure Worte macht und sagt: Ich bin Idealist, aber weil ich Idealist bin, verachte ich meine Geldbörse; deshalb will ich meine Finger nicht beschmutzen, ich bin ein viel zu großer Idealist!

Insbesondere werden sich kaum Ideale erfüllen, wenn die Leute zu große Idealisten sind, um sich ihre Finger zu stark zu beschmutzen beim pekuniären Opferbringen. Wir müssen doch schon auch den Ton finden gegenüber der Welt, welcher es den Leuten nahelegt, uns nach dieser Richtung einige Unterstützung zukommen zu lassen, was ja jetzt noch immer unsere große, furchtbare Sorge ausmacht.

Denn schließlich, die Waldorfschule ist als einzelne Schule groß; sie hat genügend Schüler. Sie ist fast gar nicht mehr zu übersehen. Das ist eine Sorge, die schr ernst genommen wird. Und gewiß, wir wollen sie nicht mehr gegenüber dem jetzigen Stande vergrößern; wir wollen uns dem Ausbau unterziehen. Aber auch da vergrößert sich die Schülerzahl damit, vergrößert sich die Lehrerzahl. Da nun die Lehrer nicht von der Luft leben können, verlangt das nach Mitteln.

Und da müssen Sie sich schon, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden ich setze voraus, jeder hat das Seinige schon getan; es handelt sich darum, die Idee weiter hinauszutragen, damit auch draußen die Idealisten gefunden werden -, da muß man sich dazu entschließen, gerade auf seiten der Elternschaft, nach der Richtung der materiellen Grundlage, der Waldorfschule zu helfen, sonst fürchte ich, kommt es dazu, daß wir uns nächstens, wenn wir die Dinge weiter gut pflegen wollen, vor Sorgen das Schlafen werden abgewöhnen müssen. Und dann weiß ich auch nicht, ob Sie die nötige Lehrerschaft immer in der Schule haben, wenn sich die Lehrerschaft das Schlafen wird abgewöhnen müssen.

Ich wollte heute manche Dinge mit Worten andeuten, von denen vielleicht manche das Gefühl haben, sie sind zu radikal gewählt. Aber ich hoffe doch, daß ich über manches verstanden worden bin. Am meisten liegt mir daran, daß ich nicht über das einzelne bloß verstanden werde. Ich möchte in dem Durchgreifenden verstanden werden, daß für uns, für unser Wirken in der Waldorfschule ein herzliches Einvernehmen mit der Elternschaft notwendig ist. Auf die Notwendigkeit dieses herzlichen Einvernehmens wollte ich hinweisen, gerade deshalb, weil es in so hohem Maße wirklich vorhanden ist, und weil man am besten die Möglichkeit finden wird, auf diesem Gebiete vorzudringen, wenn schon heute Unterlagen geschaffen sind.

Möchte daher durch alles dasjenige, was wir im einzelnen erstreben wollen - und darüber kann die folgende Diskussion sich aussprechen -, möchte durch alles dieses einzelne hindurch bei solchen Elternversammlungen der Impuls mitgenommen werden zu dem herzlichen Einvernehmen, das besteht zwischen den Erziehern, zwischen der Lehrerschaft und der Elternschaft, die ja ganz gewiß das tiefste Interesse haben wird, daß diese Eintracht besteht, weil die Elternschaft das Teuerste, was sie hat, der Lehrerschaft anvertraut hat.

Aus diesem Bewußtsein heraus und aus dem Bewußtsein der Verantwortlichkeit der Lehrerschaft gegenüber diesem Teuersten der mit ihr verbündeten Elternschaft, aus diesem Zusammenarbeiten möchte derjenige Geist immer weiter erblühen, welcher sich in der Waldorfschule in einem befriedigenden Maße gezeigt hat. Er wird um so mehr wachsen und gedeihen, je mehr diese Einigkeit gedeihen wird. Je mehr das der Fall sein wird, desto mehr wird das andere erzielt werden, das schönste Ziel zu erreichen für das menschliche Wesen: die der Waldorfschule anvertraute Jugend zu erziehen für das menschliche Zusammenleben. Da wird der Mensch zu stehen haben gegenüber den Stürmen des Lebens. Wenn er dasteht im sozialen Leben, um in der richtigen Weise die Wege zu finden zum Zusammenarbeiten mit den anderen Menschen, da werden sich die einzelnen menschlichen und sozialen Fragen lösen können.

Aus der Aussprache am Elternabend

Es wird eine Frage gestellt wegen der Maturitätsprüfung.

Dr. Steiner: Ich selbst habe nur das Folgende zu sagen: Im ganzen gilt dasjenige als Grundsatz, was ich selbst vorgebracht habe. Wir müssen durch Ökonomie es dahin bringen, daß tatsächlich für die wichtigsten Lebensabschnitte erreicht werden kann, was die Schüler befähigt, unmittelbar sich einzugliedern in das, was heute verlangt wird. Da können wir nicht maßgebend sein darüber, ob wir das für das Richtige halten oder nicht. Wir müssen uns dem fügen. Da tritt die Frage nicht an uns heran, ob das berechtigt oder unberechtigt ist, was bei der Maturitätsprüfung verlangt wird. Das muß durch Ökonomie erreicht werden. Bis jetzt sind wir noch nicht in der Lage. Ich glaube durchaus, daß es möglich sein wird, dieses Ziel zu erreichen, wenn es auch heute bei denjenigen, die dabei in Frage kommen, durchaus noch nicht so aussieht. Das ist aber unser Prinzip, daß wir im entsprechenden Lebensalter die Kinder dazu bringen, daß sie die Prüfung ablegen können. Es ist so, daß man auch äußerlich Schwierigkeiten zu überwinden hat. Es ist notwendig, daß man der Schule vorurteilslos entgegenkommt. Ich weiß selbstverständlich, daf3 man einen Schüler oder eine Schülerin, die wir dazu gebracht haben, daß sie eine Prüfung ablegen, trotzdem durchfallen lassen könnte. Ich gab Ihnen das Exempel, daß es mir eine Leichtigkeit wäre, auch die Kommissäre durchfallen zu lassen. Wir erstreben das, daß die Schüler die Prüfung ablegen können, wie wir auch darüber denken. Wir wollen nicht nach einer Schrulle erziehen, wir wollen nach dem Leben unterrichten. Wir müssen nur insofern die Schüler richtig ins Leben hineinbringen wollen, als es noch gerade geht.

In Mitteleuropa ist gegenwärtig noch einiges möglich, in Rußland gar nichts mehr. Wir müssen froh sein über dieses einige. Wenn wir dieses einige in die Kinder hineinbringen, wird es in der nächsten Generation schon mehr sein.

Ich betone ausdrücklich, verrückte Kerle sind wir nicht, die etwa sagen, die Kinder dürfen nur dies oder jenes können. Dasjenige, was verlangt wird bei den Prüfungen - wenn wir damit auch nicht immer einverstanden sind, wenn wir auch im stillen Kämmerlein es für verdreht halten -, so machen wir es doch mit, und dabei beachten wir doch alles, was wir zum Heile der Menschheit für notwendig halten.

Frage: Wäre es nicht möglich, die Schulstunden auf den Vormittag zu legen?

Dr. Steiner: Nicht wahr, für solche Fragen kommt immer nicht bloß der eine oder der andere Gesichtspunkt in Betracht. Man sollte von sieben bis ein Uhr unterrichten, sagt man. Nun sehen Sie, da darf ich auf einige Prinzipien hinweisen. Als ich meinen Weihnachtskurs hielt, da wurde dann in den Stunden, die einer Fragebeantwortung gewidmet waren, auch die Frage aufgeworfen, wie verhält es sich mit der Ermüdung? Ich erwähnte, daß es durchaus im Sinne unserer Pädagogik liegt, nicht in der Weise die Aufmerksamkeit der Kinder zu zerstäuben, daß man in einer Stunde Religion, in der anderen Zoologie und dergleichen hat, sondern daß es darauf ankommt, den Unterricht möglichst so zu geben, daß die Aufmerksamkeit der Kinder konzentriert sein kann. Daher haben wir den Unterricht so, daß ein gewisses Gebiet durch Wochen hindurch getrieben wird, durch eine längere Schulzeit hindurch. Das ist ein Gesichtspunkt, der hervorgeholt wird aus der besonderen Erkenntnis der kindlichen Wesenheit.

Man stellt die Frage, ob die Kinder nicht ermüden. - Da muß man aufmerksam machen, daß der Unterricht bei uns dem Prinzip nach so erteilt wird, daß zwischen dem siebenten und zwölften Jahr überhaupt gar nicht auf die Kopfarbeit der Kinder, weil das falsch wäre, gerechnet wird, sondern auf das rhythmische System, auf das Mitarbeiten des Gemütes, das mit dem rhythmischen Atmungs- und Zirkulationssystem zusammenhängt. Sie müssen bedenken, wenn der Mensch ermüdet, ermüdet er nicht durch sein rhythmisches System, sondern durch sein Kopfsystem und Gliedmaßensystem. Wenn das Herz und die Lunge auch ermüden würden, dann könnten sie nicht das ganze Leben hindurch tätig sein. Die anderen Systeme ermüden. Indem wir in diesen Jahren rechnen auf das rhythmische System, machen wir die Kinder nicht so müde, als sie sonst gemacht werden.

Wenn man daher jetzt Ermüdungsversuche anstellt in der experimentellen Psychologie und sagt, sie sind nach Dreiviertelstunden so müde, daß sie abwechseln müssen, so bezeugt das nur, daß der Unterricht falsch erteilt wird, daß man in unrechtmäßiger Weise das Kind ermüdert. Die Ermüdungszahl würde sonst nicht herauskommen. Es handelt sich darum, den Unterricht so künstlerisch zu machen, daß jene Ermüdung nicht eintritt. Es kann nur langsam und allmählich erreicht werden, weil ja eine Schulpraxis in der Richtung erst nach und nach ausgebildet werden kann.

Ja, sehen Sie, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, das Kind kann man vor dem Ermüden bis zu einem sehr hohen Grade bewahren, wenn man richtig erzieht und unterrichtet. Aber die Lehrer nicht; die müssen mit dem Kopf arbeiten. Und wenn man eben das durchführt - das ist richtig pädagogisch -, daß man möglichst den Unterricht in einer Hand hält, dann möchte ich wissen, wie der Lehrer aussehen würde, der von sieben Uhr morgens bis ein Uhr den Unterricht erteilen soll. Und das ist es also, was in erster Linie berücksichtigt werden muß. Es ist nicht einerlei, ob man mit Lehrern, die um zehn Uhr erschöpft sein würden, nachdem sie von sieben bis zehn Uhr Unterricht zu erteilen haben, ob man diese Lehrer von zehn Uhr an weiter anstrengen würde. Das kann man nicht wünschen, so sehr ich wünschen würde, daß die auswärtigen Kinder nicht zwei Stunden fahren müssen, um eine Schulstunde zu haben. Aber es ist doch nur die Ausnahme. Es ist übertrieben. Und zweitens, man muß manches mitnehmen, wenn irgend etwas erreicht werden soll. Natürlich können wir nicht den Unterricht für alle Kinder so einrichten, wie zu wünschen wäre für die, die so weit auswärts wohnen. Es ist natürlich, daß das nicht geschehen kann. Also auch in solchen Dingen muß man mit den realen Verhältnissen rechnen.

Wir haben ohnedies die Sache so, daß am Vormittag der Unterricht, soweit es tunlich ist, erteilt wird, der sich an Geist und Seele wendet. An den Nachmittagsstunden ist das Eurythmisch-Künstlerische. Es ist der Unterricht bis in die Tagesstunden hinein so gelegt, daß es dem Lebensalter, dem Wesen des Kindes entspricht. Aber es würde das Fehler ergeben, die dann mit großer Unzufriedenheit bemerkt würden, wenn der ganze Unterricht von sieben Uhr frühmorgens bis ein Uhr mittags erteilt würde. Es würde ein kompliziertes System notwendig sein. Das müßte ganz anders sein. Dann möchte ich erst sehen, was entstehen würde, wenn wir jeden Tag von sieben bis ein Uhr die Kinder in der Waldorfschule hätten, und nachher sie sich ganz selbst überlassen würden, da möchte ich erst sehen, was da für Zettel auftauchen würden mit Klagen, weil alle möglichen Ungezogenheiten mitgebracht würden. Man hätte die Schläfrigkeit der Kinder mit den Ungezogenheiten, die sie mitbringen würden aus diesen Nachmittagen, und das würde summiert mit der Schläfrigkeit der Lehrer. Dann würden ganz schlimme Dinge auf den Zetteln stehen.

Es sind gar mancherlei Gesichtspunkte zu beobachten. Es muß appelliert werden daran, daß selbstverständlich so etwas bedacht wird, daß man eben doch, weil man nicht vermeiden kann, den Unterricht auf Nachmittagsstunden zu verlegen, daß man schon die Gründe berücksichtigt hat, die solche Gründe aus dem Felde schlagen.

Ein Vater verlangt, daß die Schüler beim Abiturienten-Examen von einer Kommission der Waldorflehrer geprüft werden.

Dr. Steiner: Die Frage ist keine pädagogische Frage. Wir haben es mit den pädagogischen Impulsen zu tun. Uns kann es sich nur darum handeln, daß wir tun, was ich erwähnt habe, daß wir rechnen damit, was dem menschlichen Wesen gemäß ist, und sehen, daß die Kinder nicht aus dem Leben herausgerissen werden. Die Dinge sind natürlich schon einmal so im Leben, daß man in den ersten Jahren gewisse Möglichkeiten wird haben können. Ich bitte Sie, dabei zu berücksichtigen, daß wir ja in der Bildung dieses Urteiles, ob nun ein Kind die Prüfung wird bestehen können oder nicht, manchen Fährlichkeiten ausgesetzt sind.

Was glauben Sie, was geschähe, wenn es vorkommen sollte, daß bei uns irgendein Knabe oder ein Mädchen die Schule absolviert und zur Prüfung geführt wird, wenn eine Garantie vorhanden wäre, daß sie nicht durchfallen würden? In manchen Fällen hat man Prüfungsschwierigkeiten vorausgesehen und hat einen solchen Schüler zu uns gebracht. Indem wir als Pädagogen das suchen, was ich angedeutet habe, werden wir immer weiter kommen, daß wir die Möglichkeit finden, daß die Kinder die Examina bestehen können. — Übelwollende könnten systematisch beweisen, daß das nicht der Fall ist.

Es ist nicht unsere Sache, dafür zu sorgen, daß ein amtlich abgestempelter Kommissär zur Prüfung da ist. Wenn das [Prüfung durch Waldorflehrer] von der Elternschaft gewünscht wird, so ist das etwas, was von der Elternschaft in die Wege geleitet werden müßte. Im Sinne der Waldorf-Pädagogik liegt es nicht. Es ist eine Opportunitätsfrage, die ja auch im opportunistischen Sinne gelöst werden müßte, die vielleicht auch von seiten der Eltern gelöst werden müßte. - Uns kommt es nicht darauf an, ausgeschlossen zu werden davon, gültige Zeugnisse auszustellen, nur werden wir dann müssen die Sache vom pädagogischen Standpunkt aus ansehen. Daß es einen Sinn hat vom Standpunkt der Pädagogik aus, wenn man jahrelang mit den Schülern zusammen ist, diese dann einer Abgangsprüfung zu unterziehen, daß das einen Sinn haben soll, das möchte ich, daß es jemand mir beweist. Wir wissen, was wir über einen Schüler zu sagen haben, wenn er sein Alter erreicht hat und die Klasse verläßt. Wenn dann noch extra für irgendeine andere Sache das festgestellt werden soll, dann kann es geschehen. Es ist keine eigentlich pädagogische Angelegenheit. Wer Erfahrungen hat auf diesem Gebiet, der weiß, daß man viel besser ohne Prüfungen weiß, was ein Schüler taugt, als durch Prüfung. Wir haben keine Ursache, darauf hinzuarbeiten, daß wir die Prüfungen vornehmen sollen, weil es nicht aus unseren pädagogischen Unterlagen folgt.

Es wird eine Frage gestellt nach Disziplin und nach einer devotionellen Haltung den Lehrern gegenüber.

Dr. Steiner: Wenn Sie fragen, ob überall dort lauter Devotion besteht, wo man die Waldorfschul-Pädagogik nicht anwendet... es kommt durchaus darauf an, daß gerade das, was Devotion, Verehrung des Lehrers, Liebe zum Lehrer ist, daß das sich in einer selbstverständlichen Weise ergibt. Sonst ist es nichts wert. Jede Devotion, die erzwungen wird, die gewissermaßen in gesetzlichen Bestimmungen der Schule begründet ist, hat für die Entwickelung des Menschen keinen Wert. Es ist so, daß man durchaus die Erfahrung macht, wenn die Kinder so erzogen werden, daß ihre eigene Wesenheit das Maßgebende ist, kommen sie am meisten dazu, ihre Lehrer zu verehren. Es ist keine Veranlassung zu Klagen. Natürlich, daß einzelne Dinge vorkommen, die nicht gerade für Devotion sprechen, ist nicht abzuleugnen. Aber es kommt darauf an, wieviel wert gerade die Devotion ist, die aus der Liebe erwächst, und wieviel mehr wert die andere ist, die ja doch nur gegenüber der Vorderseite der Lehrer und Erzieher sich abspielt und weniger, wenn er den Rücken gedreht hat. - Man muß die Dinge nicht so sich vorstellen, als ob die Sache so liegt, daß jedes Kind macht, was es will. Der Fall ist der, daß die Kinder immer mehr Vertrauen gewinnen zur Lehrerschaft.

Gerade in dieser Beziehung sind die Fortschritte ganz außerordentlich. Wer vergleichen kann, der findet einfach die Fortschritte ganz außerordentlich groß, die mit Bezug auf Disziplin seit zwei Jahren gemacht worden sind. Es ist tatsächlich so, wie wir die Kinder hereinbekommen haben, mußten wir nachdenken, wie wir Disziplin und dergleichen halten sollen. Jetzt ist die Sache auf einem ganze anderen Standpunkt eigentlich. Wir haben dadurch, daß das Verhältnis zwischen Lehrer und Kind ein natürliches ist, das allermeiste erreicht. Es ist ein großer Unterschied zwischen der Disziplinhaltung gegenwärtig und der Disziplinhaltung vor eineinhalb Jahren.

Diese Dinge dürfen nicht von dem Gesichtspunkt beurteilt werden, der von außen hineingetragen wird. Man muß die Waldorfschule selbst betrachten. Die Devotion kann eben nicht eingebläut werden, womit ich nicht sagen will, daß manches andere schon eingebläut werden könnte. Die Devotion muß auf eine andere Weise erworben werden. Ängstlichkeiten, die nach solcher Richtung bestehen, kann man begreifen. Allein auch nach dieser Richtung hin ist es notwendig, daß man die Ängstlichkeit sich abgewöhnt und mehr auf das sieht, was in der Waldorfschule als Resultat und Ergebnis hervorrtritt.

Lassen Sie ein paar Jahre hinübergehen und unsere Schule weiterbestehen, dann wollen wir wieder reden, ob wir es erreicht haben, daß die Examina gemacht werden. Wir wollen es dann bereden. Wir sind überzeugt davon, daß sie im wesentlichen werden gemacht werden. Und dann sind wir auch überzeugt, daß ganz gewiß die Befürchtung ungerechtfertigt ist, daß durch unsere Schulmethode das eintritt, was man ja wahrhaftig da, wo der stärkste Schulzwang ist, reichlich genug bemerken kann. Ich habe dort auf der niedersten Schulstufe und auf der höchsten Schulstufe gesehen, daß es mit der Devotion nicht sehr gut bestellt ist. Ich meine, daß man nicht etwa das Dogma aufstellen dürfte, wo Zwangserziehung ist, da gedeiht allein die Devotion, wo unsere Erziehung herrscht, könnte vorkommen, daß die Kinder hinter den Lehrern Eselsohren machen. Wenn man in der rechten Weise dem Kinde beikommt mit der freundlichen Ermahnung, so ist es besser als mit der Ohrfeige.

Address at the parents' evening

Ladies and gentlemen! I do not actually intend to give a lecture on this occasion, but rather to promote the greatest possible understanding between those involved in the management and work of the Waldorf School and the parents of our school. The reason for this is that I consider this understanding, this cooperation between the teachers and other individuals involved in the management of the Waldorf School and the parents, to be extremely necessary and significant.

Allow me to begin with an experience I had recently, in order to illustrate how important the issue I have referred to is. In recent weeks, I have had the task of helping to organize the celebrations for Shakespeare's birthday in Stratford-upon-Avon in England. And this Shakespeare festival was actually one that was completely dominated by the impression and influence of educational issues. It was organized by personalities who are deeply interested in children's and public education. One could also say that, in a sense, the world of Shakespeare's art was only in the background during this entire festival, because what was discussed were contemporary educational issues. On this occasion, one of the small, or perhaps even large, effects of the educational course I held at our Goetheanum in Dornach at Christmas became apparent, and it was attended by personalities who were involved in this Shakespeare festival.

Now there is a boarding school near London. It is not yet particularly large, but this boarding school is run by a person who attended the Dornach course and took away from it the inspiration to introduce what we may now call Waldorf education, the Waldorf educational system, into this boarding school, perhaps even expanding it. We were invited to visit this educational institution. During our visit, various questions arose concerning the current management and what could be done to transfer the spirit of the educational system cultivated here at the Waldorf School to that institution.

One question in particular came up for discussion, and that was when the leading figures said: Yes, we actually get along quite well with the children; every year we take in a small number of children, which we can manage given the size of our institution. But the most difficult thing is working with the parents. It is difficult because the older generation everywhere — and this is definitely an international issue — has very specific views on how education should be carried out. There are many reasons why parents send their children to this or that institution. If it is really a matter of deviating a little from what one is accustomed to, then disagreements between the school and the parents can easily arise. And that is something that is really intolerable, especially in a free school system. Now, there are very special difficulties in this regard at the boarding school I am talking about. I do not want to criticize or recommend anything. I simply want to talk about the facts. Although it is a boarding school, there are no servants at this boarding school. The school is run entirely by the children and teachers, so these pupils and teachers have to wash the floors, wash the dishes, plant the vegetables, look after the chickens so that they lay eggs – I could go on and on. In addition, the children are shown all kinds of work, so that one gets the impression that things are different there than in some other boarding schools. The children also have to cook, i.e., do everything from early morning to late evening. And it is obvious that the teachers and educators play an active role in this. Well, I don't want to recommend this or criticize it in any way. I just want to point it out. Then, when the children come home during the holidays and tell their parents what they have to do, the parents say that they never had a mental image of this happening and cannot understand it. That is why it is quite difficult to maintain harmony with the parents in this case. I am only citing this case to point out the feeling one has when it comes to taking education and teaching seriously, the feeling that it is necessary to work and act in complete harmony with the children's parents.

Now, of course, we are in a different situation at the Waldorf school. We do not have a boarding school, we have a school and we have to teach, and while teaching we naturally have to keep the educational principle in mind. But nevertheless, you can be assured that we must regard cooperation with the parents as a fundamental element of everything we consider to be our task at the Waldorf school. In the course of running the school, countless questions arise concerning the well-being and welfare, the good progress and health, both physical and mental, of the children. Countless questions arise that can only be solved in cooperation with the parents. Therefore, it should actually become increasingly necessary – and the circumstances will have to be taken into account – to expand these parents' evenings and make them a more frequent occurrence in our school management.

Our Waldorf school should be a free school not only in name but in its entire essence, and precisely because it should be such a free school, we are dependent on the help of the parents to an extraordinary degree. It is my conviction that it can only give all parents the deepest satisfaction if we have the desire to work together with the parents.

The Waldorf school is a free school. You see, ladies and gentlemen, what a free school actually means is something that has to be said again and again, and which cannot be said strongly enough, for the simple reason that today it is hardly possible in wider circles to have the complete need for such a free school. We have centuries of prejudice against us, namely in the following way:

One does not need to look far back in the development of humanity to find that the school system, especially the elementary school system, was very free to a considerable degree. But the freedom of the school system at that time had led to a large number of illiterate people, and only a few individuals sought a school education. Then, in the course of human development in civilized areas, there was a growing desire to demand a certain basic education for social life. I cannot now explain how this desire arose, but it came at a time when people had renounced their devotion to the old gods and now expected all blessings and all good things for the development of humanity from one god, the god of the state. And in Central Europe in particular, people were especially keen to see in this god, the state, not only all kinds of other benefits, but also benefits for the education of children.

People once started from the principle that was taken for granted: parliament, large council meetings, and so on, are events where genius flourishes. Even if the individuals involved in this parliamentary assembly did not strike one as particularly enlightened. The opinion was that when people get together, they become wise. And then they will be able to decide the right thing on all matters.

Individuals who had quite good, in-depth knowledge, such as the poet Rosegger, had – forgive me for using such a word – a different opinion. Rosegger coined the saying: “One is a human being; several are people; many are animals.”

That is a somewhat radical way of putting it, but in any case it contradicts the opinion that has developed in recent centuries that everything related to the state can be used to determine what is right in terms of child rearing. And so our school system has simply grown up in the belief that it cannot be otherwise than that everything for the school system is determined by the state community.

Well, a free school is one that enables teachers and educators to do everything that they, based on their knowledge of human nature, their knowledge of the world, and their love of children, consider to be essential for the education system. — An unfree school is one where the teacher has to ask: What is prescribed for the first grade, what is prescribed for the second grade, how must the lesson be structured according to the law?

A free school is one where teachers have a very specific understanding of how a child grows up, what physical and mental powers lie within them, and what physical and mental powers need to be developed in the child; where the teacher can organize what they have to do every day and every hour based on this knowledge of human nature and their love for children. One does not have a very strong sense of how fundamentally different the unfree school is from the free school. For the teacher's true educational and teaching powers can only develop in the free school.

Because people currently have no real sense of these things, it is so difficult to make further progress with the free and liberated school system. We must not allow ourselves to indulge in any illusions. A few hours before I traveled here, I received a letter informing me that, after a long period of work to establish a school similar to this Waldorf school in another city in Germany, the application had been rejected. This is a clear sign that the further development of our times is not moving in the direction of promoting free schooling. Therefore, we must—and this is what I would like to emphasize to the parents of our dear schoolchildren—we must cherish and nurture this Waldorf school that we now have, that we have achieved, where the children are to be developed into well-rounded, capable, and healthy human beings through the free energy of the teaching staff. We must realize that it will not be easy, given the prejudices of the present, to have anything else like this Waldorf school. And we can already point out that this Waldorf school, which has not yet been in existence for three years, is something that is currently being discussed, we can say, throughout the civilized world. For you see, it is of some significance — think of what I said about this school near London — that a few people have come together to establish a Waldorf school there.

We can also look at this question from a much broader perspective. This perspective is that we are now, after all, in need of doing something to ensure that the German spirit regains its position in the world. But you can be sure that the German spirit will only gain its significance if the spiritual content of this German spirit is brought to bear in the world above all else. And then, when it is presented to the world in the right way, people will desire it. They will become aware that they need it.

To achieve this, it is necessary that we truly penetrate the full depths of this German essence and create from them. And this is particularly evident in such a vehement, sometimes tumultuous educational movement as the one that could be experienced at the Shakespeare Festival. It shows that there is a need throughout the world: new impulses must be opened up in education. It is a matter for civilized humanity that the old forms can no longer continue.

The fact is that with the things that are cultivated in Waldorf schools, one has something to say about the questions that are being raised throughout the world with regard to education and teaching. But one also has almost all the prejudices of the whole world against oneself, and it is increasingly becoming apparent that at least the lowest classes of the elementary school system are to be deprived of their freedom. It is extremely difficult to fight against these prejudices. The Waldorf school can only fight back by truly using the free power of the teaching staff to make the children into what can only be made from such free power.

To do this, however, we need the heartfelt, harmonious cooperation of the parents. And at one of the parents' meetings I have already been able to attend, I pointed out that because we are striving for a free school system, we are dependent on finding understanding, deep understanding, among the parents. If we find this understanding, then we will be able to work properly. And then, on the other hand, we will perhaps be able to bring to bear what is meant by the Waldorf school.

At that time, I emphasized how it must be our endeavor to truly draw from the knowledge of the child's being and the child's physicality everything that should be made the subject of teaching and education. Such observation of children, because it is observation of human beings, is only possible if one strives for an understanding of the whole human being, as is sought through anthroposophy. We must say again and again: we are not concerned with bringing anthroposophy into the school. Parents will not have to complain that we want to bring anthroposophy as a worldview into the school. But just as we avoid bringing a worldview, anthroposophy, into the school, we want to strive to apply the pedagogical skills that can only come from anthroposophical training in the handling of lessons and in the treatment of children. We have made Catholic children available to the Catholic priest, Protestant children to the Protestant pastor, and we offer free religious instruction only to those whose parents seek it. This, too, is completely optional; it is only provided for children who would otherwise probably not participate in any religious instruction at all. So we do not place the main emphasis on this. What we have to say in relation to worldview is for adults.

But what, I would say, anthroposophy can make of a person, right down to the dexterity of their fingertips, is what makes them a teacher or an educator in particular. And the treatment of children, the treatment of teaching and educational content, that is what should be strived for, so that children everywhere find their way naturally into what is presented to them in school. Everywhere, careful consideration should be given to what is right for a particular age group.

As you know, we do not begin with learning to read and write, as is often the case today. When we begin to learn to write, we develop the shapes of letters, which are otherwise foreign to the child, from what the child turns to with inner comfort, from a kind of artistic activity, an artistic sense of form. As a result, our children learn to read and write a little later, because, if you take the nature of the child into account, reading must come after writing.

Now those who are accustomed to the old ways of thinking object and say: children learn to read and write much later than in other schools. Why do children learn to read and write earlier in other schools? Because we do not know what age is best for learning to read and write. First, we must ask ourselves whether it is reasonable to expect a child to be able to read and write with a certain degree of proficiency at the age of eight.

If we extend these views further, we arrive at more radical opinions, which we can experience in a strange way. Anyone who knows Goethe well will also know that if you approach Goethe with what are now considered standard school requirements for a twelve-year-old boy and ask yourself, “Did Goethe really know how to do this?” — you will see that he did not even know how to do it at the age of sixteen, and yet he became Goethe. Austria had an important poet, Robert Hamerling. Of course, in his youth he did not set out to become a poet; that was the work of his genius. He wanted to become a middle school teacher. He had passed a teaching exam. His certificate states that he had demonstrated exceptionally good knowledge of Latin and Greek, but that he was not capable of handling the German language and was only suitable for teaching the lowest class. But he became Austria's most important modern poet. He wrote in German, not in Slovak.

Educational impulses must be measured against life itself. And that is the essence of our pedagogy, that we keep the whole life of the child in mind and that we know: when we teach a child something at the age of seven or eight, it must be taught in such a way that it grows with the child, that the child still has it at the age of thirty or forty, that one has something from it for one's whole life. You see, it is precisely those children who can read and write perfectly at the age of eight who wither away in terms of certain inner spiritual health impulses. Yes, they really do wither away. It is a great blessing if, at the age of eight, you cannot yet read and write as is required today. It is a great blessing for physical and spiritual health.

What needs to be nurtured must be drawn out from the needs of human nature. One must have a subtle understanding of this, not just of what is right. It is easy to stand in front of a class and say: That one is saying something right, the other something wrong! – and then to correct the wrong into the right; but this is not actually an educational activity. It is completely irrelevant to the child's human development if you make the child write essays and do schoolwork and correct them, and the child becomes convinced that he has made mistakes. The essential thing is to have a keen sense of the mistakes children make. Children make mistakes in hundreds of ways. Every child makes mistakes differently, and if you have a keen sense of how differently children behave with regard to mistakes, then you can figure out what you need to do to help the children progress.

Isn't it true that people have different perspectives on life? The doctor does not have the same perspective on illness as the patient. You cannot expect the patient to be enamored with certain illnesses. You can say that the doctor is a good doctor if he loves illness. It is a matter of having a certain fondness for the interesting mistakes that children make. This is how you get to know human nature. Forgive me if I express myself radically. One must express oneself radically. It is more interesting for the teacher to follow the mistakes than what the children do right. The teacher learns an extraordinary amount from the mistakes.

But what does one need for all this? For all this, one needs that inner, energetic love of people and children that is absolutely essential for a teacher. And then countless questions arise. One is concerned about the physical and mental health of this or that child. You have the child for a few hours of the day; for the rest of the time, you must have the trust, the complete trust of the child's parents. And that is why the teachers and educators at our Waldorf school always appeal to this trust, and why they are so keen to work in harmony with the parents for the well-being of the children. This is not usually the case in a non-free school. Because there, they stick to following the rules, and therefore there is sometimes very little understanding of the concept of freedom in education.

There are countries where, when you talk about free education, people respond: Yes, that may be the case in Germany, where there is a need to establish free schools. It's not like that here; teachers are free. That is what teachers themselves say. One is simply astonished that such a thing is said. One is astonished because one sees that those who say this have no idea that they could feel unfree. They do what they are told to do. Since it does not occur to them that anything else could happen, they do not feel that things could be any different.

Consider how different your situation is from that of other people when it comes to the Waldorf school system. Other people have to make an effort when we tell them that we want to do things a certain way because we believe it is the only right thing to do; they have to make an effort to understand this first. I believe that the parents of Waldorf school children in particular can see directly in their own beloved children what is being done in the Waldorf school, how the whole school's relationship to the child is understood. One would like to see a time come when parents can be content with the free school system, simply satisfied with what is being achieved within it. Today, anyone who sees how these Waldorf schools work with their own flesh and blood should become an active defender and promoter of the Waldorf school system.

We also have various difficulties. You see, if we wanted to fulfill our ideals, we would say: In our view, this is how it should be: in the sixth, seventh, and eighth years, one should do this; in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth years, one should do that, and so on. If we could do that, the very best results would come of it. We cannot do it; in a certain sense, we have to make a kind of compromise, for we cannot deprive the children, the growing human beings, of the opportunity to stand in life.

So we have decided that we will educate children freely from the age at which they enter elementary school until the age of nine, but at the same time, even though we include what human nature requires, we will also encourage the children so that they can transfer to another school. The same applies to the twelfth, fourteenth, and fifteenth years. And if we are fortunate enough to add further classes, we must even ensure that the young men and women who complete these classes are then able to transfer to universities and technical colleges. We must ensure that the children can transfer to these institutions. I believe that for a long time to come, we will not be given the opportunity to produce doctors, for example, or to award valid degrees at our universities. Then we would achieve much more. For the time being, we can do nothing else but bring the children and then the young men and women to the point where they can acquire what is needed in public life without suffering the greatest harm.

We are faced with considerable difficulties in this regard. You see, anyone who judges according to human nature, according to what is good for people so that they can become useful members of society later in life, will say to themselves: it is simply terrible when young men and women are in their fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth years at today's high schools and secondary schools. They are alienated from all life. We must do what is absolutely necessary, which is to ensure that at least their physical abilities develop to a reasonably viable level of dexterity. I often mention that today there are adult men who are unable to sew on a button themselves when it comes off. I am only saying this as an example. They are also incapable of doing other things of a similar nature. Above all, they understand nothing about the world. People must stand in the world with their eyes open so that they can have free hands to tackle anything. You see, that is why something like spinning and weaving should be introduced in a basic way at a certain age. Yes, but now, when students graduate from ordinary schools, they are not tested in weaving and spinning or other useful life skills – we also have to do all kinds of things that are required for the exam. To do this, we need to organize our teaching in the most economical way possible. This is a special art in education and teaching.

Let me give you an example from my own experience. It was a long time ago—together with other siblings from a family, I was given an eleven-year-old child to educate and teach who had been given up on in terms of education and upbringing. The boy was eleven years old, and to inform me about him, I was shown a sketchbook in which the boy had displayed his artistic skills. This sketchbook had a huge hole in the middle of the first page. He had only erased. That was all he could do. He had also taken a test for first grade once, but he couldn't do anything. In terms of his other behavior, he often didn't eat at the table, but went into the kitchen and ate potato peels. It was difficult in many different ways. I don't want to describe it in detail. The aim was to achieve as much as possible in the shortest possible time. I myself sometimes had to work for three hours to compile the teaching material so that I could then teach the boy what he needed to learn in a quarter of an hour. After the second year, the boy had progressed so far that he could go to high school. He had a huge hydrocephalus, which was getting smaller and smaller.

I want to cite this case because it illustrates what I mean by economy of teaching. Economy of teaching means never spending more time on something with children than is necessary for their physical and mental health. Such economy of teaching must be practiced especially today because life demands so much. Teachers of Latin and Greek, for example, are in a difficult position because we have much less time to cultivate these subjects, and yet they must be cultivated in a way that meets the legitimate demands of intellectual life. We must seek the art of not overburdening the child in any area. In all these things, I must say, we need the understanding cooperation of parents; we need harmonious collaboration with parents.

Truly, the real successes that are of great importance for life do not lie in one or another gifted student achieving something amazing. The real successes lie in vitality. And so it is always deeply satisfying for me when something like this happens, when someone says that a child should be transferred from one class to another because this or that needs to be achieved. The teacher sometimes fights for each individual child. These are real successes in the loving coexistence of the teaching staff and the children. Something will come of it; besides that, the things that are so highly valued disappear, whether the children are a little further ahead or a little less far ahead.

We are already faced with the fact that we – I would like to express it radically again – cannot possibly be praised by those who come from the opinions about today's school system and hold this opinion. It is always wrong to believe that something would be achieved if people who think this way were to praise us. If it were the case that we were praised by today's school authorities, or by those who believe that today's school authorities are right, then we would not have needed to establish the Waldorf school at all.

So it goes without saying that we are dependent on our parents agreeing to an education based on purely human principles. We need this today, also in social relations.

Social issues will not be solved by the way many people think today, but by placing the right people in social life. They will only be placed there if people can grow up healthy in body and soul. We can do very little about what is specific to a person, what a person can learn according to their particular abilities. For, if we can have any merit in educating and teaching people so that they become the best they can be, then if we had to educate a Goethe, we would have to be at least a Goethe ourselves as teachers. We cannot do anything about what a person becomes through their nature; that is determined by other factors. What we can do is remove the obstacles so that people can find the strength within themselves to realize their potential. We can do this if we become good educators and if we are supported by our contemporaries.

First and foremost, we can be supported by parents. We have found understanding parents. And what I have to say is also filled with a feeling of gratitude. I am deeply satisfied that so many of you have come here today. I hope we will be able to discuss individual issues in the following discussion; our teachers will be ready to answer all questions asked. But I would like to point out certain character traits.

Recently, the Waldorf teaching staff and I held a university course in Holland. A prominent figure at the Waldorf School, Miss vor Heydebrund, was in charge of the afternoon session, which dealt with educational issues. It was one of the most interesting afternoons because it showed that educational issues are now a concern throughout the world. — We know that we have no right to insist on how wonderfully far we have come, that we do not want to emphasize how wonderfully far we have come.

The situation today is that many people recognize the stimulating nature of our school, but what is still lacking is active support so that the school can gain further backing and become more widespread. It is perfectly understandable that parents want the best for their children. But as things stand today, parents should also help us. It is difficult for us to make our point. We need help in every respect, because we need an ever-growing circle of supporters in order to overcome the prejudices against our educational approach. And above all, I say the following with one specific proviso and reservation: I am convinced that those sitting here have done everything they can in financial terms. This hypothesis is assumed so that no one thinks I am trying to offend them. But the other fact remains: if we want to make progress, we need money!

Yes, we need money! Now people say: but that's not idealism. You anthroposophists, what are you preaching idealism to us when you say you need money?

My dear friends! You see, idealism is on shaky ground when it makes grand, grandiose statements and says: I am an idealist, but because I am an idealist, I despise my wallet; that is why I do not want to dirty my fingers, I am far too much of an idealist!

In particular, ideals are unlikely to be fulfilled if people are too idealistic to get their hands too dirty with financial sacrifices. We must find the right tone to strike with the world, one that encourages people to give us some support in this direction, which is still our great and terrible concern.

After all, the Waldorf School is large as a single school; it has enough students. It is almost impossible to overlook. This is a concern that is taken very seriously. And certainly, we do not want to expand it beyond its current size; we want to undergo expansion. But this also means that the number of students will increase, as will the number of teachers. Since teachers cannot live on air alone, this requires resources.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, I assume that everyone has already done their part; it is a matter of spreading the idea further, so that idealists can also be found outside – you must decide, especially on the part of the parents, to help the Waldorf school in terms of its material basis, otherwise I fear that we will soon have to give up sleeping out of worry if we want to continue to take good care of things. And then I don't know whether you will always have the necessary teaching staff at the school if the teachers have to give up sleeping.

Today I wanted to hint at some things with words that some may feel are too radical. But I hope that I have been understood on some points. What matters most to me is that I am not merely understood on the individual level. I would like to be understood in the fundamental sense that for us, for our work in the Waldorf school, a cordial agreement with the parents is necessary. I wanted to point out the necessity of this cordial agreement precisely because it really exists to such a high degree and because the best way to make progress in this area is to build on the foundations that have already been laid.

Through all the individual things we want to strive for – and the following discussion can address this – I would like all of this to be taken up at such parent-teacher meetings as an impetus for the cordial agreement that exists between the educators, between the teaching staff and the parents, who will certainly have the deepest interest in this harmony existing, because the parents have entrusted the most precious thing they have to the teaching staff.

Out of this awareness and out of the awareness of the teaching staff's responsibility towards the parents, who are their most precious allies, this spirit, which has shown itself to a satisfactory degree in the Waldorf school, should continue to flourish through this cooperation. It will grow and flourish all the more as this unity flourishes. The more this is the case, the more the other goal will be achieved, the most beautiful goal for the human being: to educate the youth entrusted to the Waldorf school for human coexistence. There, the human being will have to face the storms of life. When they stand in social life, in order to find the right ways to work together with other people, the individual human and social questions will be able to be resolved.

From the discussion at the parents' evening

A question is asked about the school-leaving examination.

Dr. Steiner: I myself have only the following to say: On the whole, the principle I myself have put forward applies. Through economy, we must ensure that what is required for the most important stages of life can actually be achieved, enabling students to integrate directly into what is demanded today. We cannot be decisive in whether we consider this to be right or not. We must accept this. The question of whether the requirements of the high school graduation exam are justified or not does not arise for us. This must be achieved through economics. We are not yet in a position to do so. I firmly believe that it will be possible to achieve this goal, even if it does not seem so today for those who are eligible. However, it is our principle that we should enable children to take the exam at the appropriate age. The fact is that there are also external difficulties to overcome. It is necessary to approach the school without prejudice. I am well aware that a student whom we have encouraged to take an exam could still fail. I gave you the example that it would be easy for me to fail the commissioners as well. We strive to ensure that the students can take the exam, as we also think about it. We do not want to educate according to a whim, we want to teach according to life. We must only want to bring the students into life correctly, as far as it is still possible.

In Central Europe, some things are still possible at present, but in Russia nothing is possible anymore. We must be happy about these few things. If we instill these few things in the children, there will be more in the next generation.

I would like to emphasize that we are not crazy people who say that children should only be allowed to do this or that. We go along with what is required in the exams – even if we do not always agree with it, even if we secretly think it is twisted – and in doing so, we take into account everything we consider necessary for the good of humanity.

Question: Would it not be possible to schedule school hours in the morning?

Dr. Steiner: It is true that such questions always involve more than just one or the other point of view. People say that lessons should be held from seven to one. Now, you see, I must point out a few principles here. When I held my Christmas course, the question of fatigue was also raised during the hours devoted to answering questions. I mentioned that it is entirely in keeping with our educational philosophy not to scatter the children's attention by having religion in one hour and zoology in the next, but rather to teach in such a way that the children's attention can remain focused. That is why we teach in such a way that a certain subject area is covered over a period of weeks, over a longer school period. This is a point of view that is derived from a special understanding of the nature of children.

The question arises as to whether the children do not become tired. It should be noted that our teaching is based on the principle that between the ages of seven and twelve, no demands are made on the children's intellectual capacity, because that would be wrong, but rather on their rhythmic system, on the cooperation of the mind, which is connected with the rhythmic respiratory and circulatory systems. You must bear in mind that when a person tires, they do not tire through their rhythmic system, but through their head system and limb system. If the heart and lungs also tired, they would not be able to function throughout life. The other systems tire. By relying on the rhythmic system during these years, we do not tire the children as much as they would otherwise be tired.

Therefore, when fatigue tests are carried out in experimental psychology and it is said that after 45 minutes they are so tired that they have to take turns, this only proves that the lessons are being taught incorrectly, that the children are being tired out in an improper way. Otherwise, the fatigue figure would not come out. The aim is to make teaching so artistic that this fatigue does not occur. This can only be achieved slowly and gradually, because school practice in this direction can only be developed step by step.

Yes, you see, ladies and gentlemen, children can be protected from fatigue to a very high degree if they are educated and taught correctly. But not teachers; they have to work with their heads. And if you do that – which is the right thing to do from an educational point of view – if you try to keep teaching in one hand as much as possible, then I would like to know what the teacher who has to teach from seven in the morning until one in the afternoon would look like. And that is what must be taken into account first and foremost. It is not the same thing to ask teachers who would be exhausted at ten o'clock after teaching from seven to ten to continue working from ten o'clock onwards. That is not desirable, as much as I would like children from outside the city not to have to travel two hours to attend school. But that is only the exception. It is an exaggeration. And secondly, one has to accept certain things if anything is to be achieved. Of course, we cannot organize lessons for all children in the way that would be desirable for those who live so far away. It is natural that this cannot be done. So even in such matters, one must take the real circumstances into account.

In any case, we have arranged things so that, as far as possible, lessons that address the mind and soul are given in the morning. The afternoon hours are devoted to eurythmy and the arts. The lessons are arranged throughout the day in such a way that they correspond to the age and nature of the child. But it would be a mistake, which would then be met with great dissatisfaction, if all lessons were given from seven o'clock in the morning until one o'clock in the afternoon. A complicated system would be necessary. It would have to be completely different. Then I would like to see what would happen if we had the children in the Waldorf school every day from seven to one o'clock and afterwards they were left entirely to their own devices. I would like to see what kind of notes would appear with complaints because all kinds of misbehavior would be brought along. The children's sleepiness would be compounded by the misbehavior they would bring with them from these afternoons, and that would be added to the sleepiness of the teachers. Then there would be very bad things written on the notes.

It must be emphasized that, of course, such things are taken into consideration, that because it is impossible to avoid moving lessons to the afternoon, the reasons that rule out such reasons have already been taken into account.

A father demands that the students be examined by a commission of Waldorf teachers in the high school graduation exams.

Dr. Steiner: The question is not an educational one. We are dealing with educational impulses. We can only concern ourselves with doing what I have mentioned, with taking into account what is appropriate for the human being and ensuring that children are not torn away from life. Of course, things are such in life that certain opportunities will be available in the early years. I ask you to bear in mind that in forming this judgment as to whether a child will be able to pass the exam or not, we are exposed to certain dangers.

What do you think would happen if it were the case that a boy or girl completed school with us and was taken to the exam, if there were a guarantee that they would not fail? In some cases, examination difficulties have been foreseen and such a student has been brought to us. By seeking what I have indicated as educators, we will continue to find ways for children to pass their exams. — Malicious people could systematically prove that this is not the case.

It is not our job to ensure that an officially certified examiner is present for the exam. If this [examination by Waldorf teachers] is desired by the parents, then it is something that should be initiated by the parents. It is not in line with Waldorf education. It is a question of expediency, which would have to be resolved in an opportunistic sense, and which might also have to be resolved by the parents. It is not important to us to be excluded from issuing valid certificates, but we will then have to look at the matter from an educational point of view. I would like someone to prove to me that it makes sense from an educational point of view, after spending years with the students, to subject them to a final examination. We know what we have to say about a student when they reach the age of leaving school. If this needs to be determined for some other reason, then so be it. It is not really an educational matter. Anyone who has experience in this field knows that it is much easier to assess a student's abilities without exams than with them. We have no reason to work towards conducting exams, because it is not part of our educational philosophy.

A question is asked about discipline and a devotional attitude towards teachers.

Dr. Steiner: If you are asking whether there is complete devotion wherever Waldorf education is not applied... it is very important that devotion, reverence for the teacher, and love for the teacher arise in a natural way. Otherwise, it is worthless. Any devotion that is forced, that is based, so to speak, on legal provisions of the school, has no value for human development. It is the case that one definitely experiences that when children are brought up in such a way that their own nature is the decisive factor, they come to revere their teachers most. There is no cause for complaint. Of course, it cannot be denied that there are individual cases that do not exactly speak for devotion. But what matters is how much value the devotion that arises from love has, and how much more valuable the other kind is, which only takes place in front of the teachers and educators and less so when they have turned their backs. One must not form one's mental image of the things in such a way as if the matter were that every child does whatever it wants. The fact is that children are gaining more and more trust in the teaching staff.

It is true that when we first started teaching the children, we had to think about how to maintain discipline and so on. Now the situation is completely different. We have achieved the most by ensuring that the relationship between teacher and child is a natural one. There is a big difference between the discipline maintained today and the discipline maintained a year and a half ago.

These things should not be judged from an outside perspective. One must look at the Waldorf school itself. Devotion cannot be drummed into children, which is not to say that other things cannot be drummed in. Devotion must be acquired in a different way. Anxieties in this regard are understandable. However, even in this regard, it is necessary to overcome one's fears and focus more on the results and outcomes that emerge in Waldorf schools.

Let a few years pass and our school continue to exist, then we will talk again about whether we have achieved the goal of having exams taken. We will discuss it then. We are convinced that they will essentially be taken. And then we are also convinced that the fear is certainly unjustified that our school method will lead to what can indeed be observed abundantly enough where the strongest school coercion exists. I have seen at the lowest and highest levels of schooling that devotion is not in very good shape. I believe that one should not establish the dogma that devotion flourishes only where compulsory education exists, and that where our education prevails, children might make donkey ears behind their teachers' backs. If you approach the child in the right way with a friendly admonition, it is better than a slap in the face.