Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner
GA 300b
28 October 1922, Stuttgart
Thirty-Ninth Meeting
Dr. Steiner: What is now weighing upon my soul is the class schedule. It cannot remain as it has been. I very much regret it was not possible for me to see and hear more of the school. However, during the relatively long period when I was at the school nearly every day, I got a certain impression. This class schedule cannot remain as it is because it causes too much fragmentation and dispersion of our efforts and is, therefore, not rational. Of course, we can make a change only after we are clear about the direction of the change. For if today’s meeting is to be really fruitful, you must say everything you have to say about the subject. I do not mean you should speak only about the class schedule, as that will be the final result. What we need is for each individual member to completely say what he or she has to say. Let us begin with that.
A teacher wants more weeks for mathematics and physics in the eleventh grade.
Dr. Steiner: We cannot do that without bringing it into harmony with everything else. We first need an overview of modern languages in the various classes, as that definitely cannot remain as it is and everything else is connected with that.
A teacher wants to divide modern language instruction in the 8b class. A colleague would take the beginners and the class teacher the more advanced students.
Dr. Steiner: We cannot divide the classes in just any way we want. We can do that only if we approach the problem radically, so that we form groups according to ability. That is something we need to do, otherwise we will have an endless extension of the class schedule. The class schedule has taken on an impossible form. Only if we base our pedagogical methods entirely upon the development and understanding of human beings, can we achieve what is possible. It is easier to ruin what is good than it is to turn around what is bad. The bad is not so far away as its counterpart. It is certainly true, don’t you agree, that the class schedule is a monstrosity?
A teacher wants to have Greek and Latin class immediately after main lesson in the higher grades and to have it for two periods.
Dr. Steiner: That would be good, particularly if you gave it some color. You could handle the more formal things in one period and in the other, reading. In that case, it would be better to have two hours, one after the other.
It is not possible to maintain Greek and Latin unless we allow the children to decide, beginning at some grade, whether they wish to have French and English or Greek and Latin. That is something we need to do. We need to work toward enabling the children to pass their final examinations. We can’t do that other than by allowing them and their parents to decide whether they want to have Greek and Latin or French and English. Since we begin French and English in the first grade, there is no doubt we can offer some repetition of it for those older children who want Greek and Latin, if they desire that. Nevertheless, we must undertake this division.
A teacher: In what grade would this division occur?
Dr. Steiner: The desire to take Greek and Latin is the same as the desire to take the final examinations. The way things are today, we would have hardly any reason to offer Greek and Latin in the normal way, if we did not have students who want to work toward their final examinations and who also should have the benefits of the Waldorf School method.
A teacher: The students need French because it is included in the examination.
Dr. Steiner: Since we start teaching languages at the very beginning of elementary school, it would be sad if we could not repeat some of the instruction at a higher grade for those students who need to have Greek and Latin. We need to determine what we can eliminate from review. We cannot continue with things the way they are now. The class schedule is a monster and pedagogically incorrect.
A teacher proposes forming a group of beginners and a group of more advanced students for all the seventh and eighth grades. The way they are now grouped for modern language instruction, not much progress can be made.
Dr. Steiner: Elsewhere you find that the less capable children are left behind in the higher grades. You find that even in the elementary schools. Since we do not do that, we need to find another way. You will always have children who are more capable together with other children who are less capable. Those children who are unable to do the work disturb the class because they are bored. We must be somewhat more organized in our work. The first thing we can say is that they begin Greek and Latin in the fifth grade and that goes on to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades. Therefore, in the fifth and sixth grades, we must have all four languages, or at least Latin [and the modern languages]. That is how it must remain. Beginning in the seventh grade, and for all the following grades, those who have decided to take Latin and Greek as their main language and French only as a review will not be able to participate in handwork. They cannot take English then.
In the fifth and sixth grades there will be English and French and Latin or Greek as an elective. In the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades, they will only have a review of French, and those who do not take Latin and Greek will have their regular instruction in French and English.
Many teachers say that two hours is not enough for foreign language in the upper grades.
Dr. Steiner: That is why it would be good to group the classes. Of course, we cannot put those children who have absolutely no French or English together with those who wish to take the final examinations. But, what we are talking about are elementary school children, and they don’t take final examinations. So, where is the problem?
A teacher proposes a way of forming groups.
Dr. Steiner: That will not change anything for those taking Greek and Latin. Beginning in the seventh grade, the French review will take the place of handwork. Under these circumstances it must be possible for those who take Greek and Latin to have those classes immediately after main lesson.
A teacher: Couldn’t we wait until eighth grade to begin that?
Dr. Steiner: If we remain with the same number of class hours, then five years is certainly not too few for Greek and Latin. Since we will be using the handwork time for a review of French, we could offer more French for those students taking Latin and Greek. We could drop English in the seventh grade. However, if we offer an English class through the first six grades, then I would like to know how anyone could claim that the children would not learn enough English. If we teach English from the first through sixth grades, how could that possibly be too little? At most, the children might forget some things, but they will certainly not have learned too little if they have had English for six years. Normally, English is not taught more than six years. It is not more progressive to teach it from the age of twelve to sixteen. Then, it is more difficult than for the smaller children. If we teach it with some fire, if the instruction does not fall asleep, six years will be enough. That is the best time for it. They no longer have Latin, it would be only one year more at an unfavorable time.
A teacher: Could we offer a review of English?
Dr. Steiner: There could be at best a desire, for some occult or non-occult reason. That is something we could determine for the children. Such things could be done. However, we must first bring the class schedule into an acceptable form. We can do that only when we do not overfill it.
A teacher: A review of French would require many more hours for the students.
Dr. Steiner: That is not necessarily so. We would take the French periods from handwork. We would considerably limit the handwork class. We cannot continue to allow handwork to be as extensive as we have, because the class schedule would then become monstrous. We need to significantly decrease the amount of handwork instruction.
A teacher: Should we keep the same number of hours for Greek and Latin?
Dr. Steiner: For now we would remain with four periods per week. Now we should look at things from another perspective. If we want to bring the Latin and Greek classes into order, then we need to look at them differently. We could say that those students who have Latin and Greek in grades seven through eleven also have main lesson, and then Latin and Greek.
The next thing we need to look at is music. What is the situation there?
The music teacher: They have instruction in singing, choir, and orchestra, but not everyone comes to orchestra.
Dr. Steiner: Is that also in the morning? Couldn’t we reorganize the class schedule so that those children who have Latin and Greek would have main lesson from 8:00 until 10:00 or 11:00? Then they would have Latin and Greek four days a week directly afterward, or twice a week for two periods. In that case, we could take some time from other subjects in the morning. What would be the situation then? Could you teach more singing and eurythmy in the morning?
A eurythmy teacher: I would like to have the morning.
Dr. Steiner: You would not need to teach one hour of eurythmy and then an hour of tone eurythmy. It would be better to teach two hours of eurythmy, otherwise we will get lost. We need to be firmer in our plan. We need to get rid of this haphazard, whimsical way of working.
We would then have two hours of eurythmy, four hours of Latin and Greek, and also main lesson. Then we have voice and music. We still have the possibility of choir and orchestra. The music teacher: I have the feeling that the ninth grade needs more instruction in musical theory.
Dr. Steiner: I do not think it would be too much if you were to do that. We still have the problem of choir. That is something you should do separately. It would be possible to do singing in the mornings, and choir and orchestra in the afternoon. Thus, in the morning we would have main lesson, Latin and Greek, eurythmy, and voice. In the afternoon, we would have choir and orchestra. Those who have French and English should learn that while the others are learning Latin and Greek, so that things remain together. Handwork and gymnastics could be in the afternoon for the higher grades. In this way, we can create a class schedule.
If possible, we should teach gymnastics in the afternoon. Gymnastics is not exactly a time for resting. It is not good to group gymnastics with the other subjects. We could have two classes in the gym at the same time. I need to speak with the gymnastics teachers about the method. I have only made brief mention of that. In gymnastics, it is always possible to do the exercises so that two large groups can be formed. Recently, it was quite good to have gymnastics outside. It was clear that the boys cannot really control their bodies, that their arms dangle. The boys’ control of their bodies has clearly suffered from having had no gymnastics for three years. We cannot deny that.
When they have some free time, the children in the upper grades should perhaps find some work for themselves. We still have the question of religious instruction to consider and also shop. These are all things that need to be done in the afternoon. Art can also be done in the afternoon.
A teacher: The children have asked if they are required to learn stenography.
Dr. Steiner: There are a number of reasons why it should be required. Stenography only begins in the tenth grade. We could change things so that they have stenography for one period a week in the afternoons, but it would be required. It would be quite good if the children learned stenography.
The shop teacher: We wanted to teach shop in blocks, but the afternoons would not be enough.
Dr. Steiner: We need to see how things go with a proper plan. This has become urgent, and we must do that first. We will probably need a second teacher for that class, but we will have to have it in the afternoon.
The shop teacher: I do not want to drop the block approach. It has been very effective.
Dr. Steiner: You will find a way to continue instruction in blocks. If we do things so that main lesson comes first, then Latin and Greek second, and eurythmy and voice third, and that we do the other subjects in the afternoon, we can divide our time. We can put stenography where it fits. In connection with the other things, I think we could achieve our ideals so that main lesson is in the first two hours. Then I would certainly follow that with languages from 10:00 until 12:00. That does not fill every day, so we can also consider something else. The Independent Religious Instruction does not cause any difficulties in connection with the class schedule. It is still possible, with the exception of religious instruction, to have main lesson, languages, voice, and eurythmy in the morning for the lower grades.
The easiest thing would be to have handwork class in the afternoon, but it might be possible to exchange voice with eurythmy, so that the children do not have the same teacher every afternoon, although I do not think that would be the best thing to do. How many hours of handwork do we have? We have nineteen classes, so how many hours is that? If we have to divide classes, they should at least be in the same period. Then, it would not affect the class schedule. Because things are divided in a completely arbitrary way, without thought, we have an arbitrary class schedule. If eighth grade is divided, the same teacher should teach both sections. The class schedule has no firm contours.
A eurythmy teacher: We have divided nearly all the classes.
Dr. Steiner: We should hold the divided classes at the same time, otherwise the children will not be occupied. If the language teachers do not see that, we will be here all night long. If we divide a class in a subject, the children still need to have it at the same time. Any changes in the class schedule must be made in a meeting where I am present. Of course, we can relax things where there is a justifiable need, but we certainly cannot form the whole school irrationally. Do we really have to divide things so much? A eurythmy teacher: The classes are too large. It is hardly possible to work when there are more than thirty-two children.
Dr. Steiner: We need to divide them among the various teachers, but to hold the classes at the same time. Just give the other teachers the students they would like to have, and so forth. That can certainly be done, but it does need to be done. We are gaining a bad name because we are moving away from the spirit of the curriculum because of the class schedule.
What are you doing in orthopedic eurythmy? Is that also in the afternoon? I just wanted to know. It would be better to call it “eurythmic orthopedics” [curative eurythmy]. “Orthopedic eurythmy” has a little taste of “fallen angel” to it. Contradictio in adjecto [a contradiction in terms].
Now we have thirty-eight hours of handwork. The divided classes have to be given at the same time. That would be sixty-two hours. Why would it not be possible to stay with our plan? They need to be divided among four afternoons. These sixty-two hours could certainly be done in four afternoons.
A teacher: We can only do sixteen hours per afternoon.
Dr. Steiner: I only wanted to know how many hours we have and that is sixty-two. We could have four hours each of the four afternoons. In the best case, that would be sixteen hours, or forty-eight. We need to save fourteen hours. In order to do that, in the future we will have to teach the first four classes for two hours, one after the other, and for the remaining classes, one hour. We need to limit things somehow. We would then have twenty-two hours for the four lower grades. How many groups are there in the fifth through eleventh-grade classes? That would be twenty-one hours so that we now have forty-three hours. That is absolutely possible.
Those who want more time for practice could do that as an elective. If it is acceptable to the parents, we could add an elective. What happens in these handwork classes is a kind of recreation. They need to do the least there. The fact that there are schools that have four periods of handwork is a situation impossible for us. We’re not holding a school for girls here. If we were to go into such things, then it would be impossible for us to make a class schedule. We need to keep to an orderly schedule, so it is better when we don’t give in to such things. There is also a desire to have three times as many eurythmy periods, but we can only divide things upon an objective basis. No one would say that more would not be learned in two periods than in one. Even though there is an hour too little of handwork class, for arithmetic, we only have a quarter of the time that we need. It is just as justifiable to say that we need four times as much time for arithmetic as it is to say that we have one period too little for handwork. We could not give the children what they need to be human beings if we used that argument for everything. It is not used in connection with arithmetic. You could gain some time in the handwork class if you were to present it more efficiently and the children learn that they do not need a complete period to do everything. They could also use an extra half-hour in arithmetic. Our instruction needs to be efficient, as I said at the beginning.
Now I think that we have covered all the subjects.
A teacher: One of the religion groups needs to be put into the afternoon, since otherwise we would need one more teacher for religion.
Dr. Steiner: The number of teachers that the faculty can provide for teaching religion has been reached, partially because of time. We do not have anyone in Stuttgart.
A younger teacher: I would like to give that class.
Dr. Steiner: You would need to be here longer. You cannot do that. Perhaps it would be possible later if you still feel called to do it. For now, you have not been in Stuttgart and in the school long enough. It would not be possible.
(Speaking to Miss Röschl) If you did not already have seventeen hours, I would ask you to do it, but I am afraid to do so because of your hours.
(Speaking to another teacher) I was so dissatisfied with your instruction that I cannot take on the responsibility for it. You’ll have to excuse me, but after the disappointment you gave me, I just spoke bluntly, but after I observed your instruction, I really cannot take over the responsibility. Teaching religion is a very responsible position.
A teacher: I would like to give a class in religion.
Dr. Steiner: Perhaps in five years, if you work diligently until then. You need to live into such things. You cannot go into them without taking on the full responsibility. Imagine what it would mean if religious life were to flame up in you. Religious life needs to be kindled, and that can occur in many ways. How about you, Mr. Wolffhügel?
A teacher: I don’t think that is possible.
Dr. Steiner: I think you would be able to find your way to it. I need to be objective about this, and I think I could take on the responsibility if you and Mr. Baumann were to do it.
A teacher: I would need to prepare for both classes.
Dr. Steiner: Much preparation is necessary, as well as enthusiasm. I think that Mr. Wolffhügel is anxious in regard to the services. The religion class is something that needs to fit you, but the way you understand teaching, I think it would. My only question is whether you would be overburdened.
It would be best if it were somebody from school, but it can be somebody from outside. It is sad that it cannot be one of us. It is also strange that no one feels called to do this. I certainly value Dr. E. very highly for scientific things, but I would never give him a class in religion. No, I would not do that, but he is quite aware of how highly I value him.
It is difficult for Dr. R. (a theologian outside the school) who cannot even handle his own children. One who actually needs to be handled with the best level of pedagogy is beaten. If the boy remains in the school there for a half year, he will be ruined for life. The teacher beats him. His mother went to the teacher and wanted to speak with him. She began by saying to the teacher, “I do not want to speak to you as a teacher, but as a mother to another human being.” He replied with, “I will not allow you to speak to me as a human being.” She then went to the school director and told him about that. He told her, “Well, if you want to speak to a teacher in our school as a human being, then you cannot expect to be treated in any other way since that is a personal affront.”
That reminds me of something that happened once with a Russian woman at the German-Belgian border. She was returning from London to St. Petersburg. She got through Holland and at the German border she wanted to act like a Russian. The border control officer came to her and said that she would have to take her luggage down and she asked, “It’s so heavy, could you perhaps help me?” He replied with, “Help? Who do you think I am? Do you think I am a human being? I am a royal Prussian official and not a human being. If you were to go down to the market place, I would certainly offer to help you and carry your luggage, but here I am a royal Prussian official and I cannot help you get it down.”
Mr. Boy would be quite good, but he has not been here long enough to give religion instruction. You need to have been in anthroposophy longer in order to give the Independent Religious Instruction.
Who is speaking here in Stuttgart? H. would have the spirit and everything, but he does not have the temperament to be a teacher. He is also unknown among the anthroposophists. The groups are very large and we need to group them differently until we find someone. Today, it would only be beating our heads against the wall. What we see here are the symptoms of our overall difficulties. Now that we have all these institutions, the Waldorf School and the Association for Independent Cultural Life, we are in a situation where we actually need experts. We need experts in various areas. What is important in teaching is that the right person be at the right place. Under certain circumstances, seen purely externally, the teaching might not even look very good, but the personality as such is extremely important in this kind of teaching. There might be someone among the physicians. I could immediately accept that young man, N. There are also some among the theologians that I could easily trust to do this. I would never give G. a teaching position. Someone who writes such bad articles is certainly not destined to be a good Waldorf teacher.
A teacher: He has some good qualities.
Dr. Steiner: I met him recently. He is a nice young man, but he can’t do anything. There is no subject in which he could become a teacher. He knows really nothing about any subject, and that is the problem. He could never take over teaching a class, nor can he do something in any of the higher grades.
A teacher: He thinks that he will be coming to the Waldorf School as a teacher.
Dr. Steiner: No one would claim that he would become a Waldorf teacher if, when he is asked about what he can do, he replies German literary history.
A teacher: He misunderstood.
Dr. Steiner: His plan to go to Freies Geistesleben arose only after I had turned him down. I only told him that there is nothing available until Easter. I did not say that something would be available for him afterward. It would not be possible to say less. We will have to find another way.
A teacher: If I am to now change the class schedule, a change in the distribution of the teachers will not be necessary except for the consequences in regard to the parallel groups, will it?
Dr. Steiner: A change in the faculty will not be necessary if we do not decide to group things in languages differently than we already have. All the language classes could be at the same time, but they would be distributed on different days. We will have to have all the language classes at the same time, but not every class will have language from 10:00 until 11:00 every day.
There are two possibilities: either we will have language class for the whole school on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday from 10:00 until 12:00. We will have, for instance in the second grade, six hours of languages, thus, there are three days with two hours of language each day. They would be from 10:00 until 12:00 and would be held in the regular classroom. Right now, Mrs. E. has five other language periods in other classes on Monday through Saturday. It would still be possible to have just as many classes of language, but with other groups of students. We could do the main lesson as such from the first through eleventh grades, but now we would be able to group the students differently. Then, we would only have the same number of language classes, but they would be divided differently. It would not be possible to carry out such a radical change pedantically, and you would still have two or three weaker students.
A teacher: We would have to have an overview of which students that would be. We need to make a list divided into three levels.
Dr. Steiner: For the time we can leave it as it is. That is something we cannot do now. That can only be done at a time when I can be here for a few days. For now, you need to continue so that the language instruction remains with the same teachers.
The remaining voice lessons can be done in the afternoon. You can still give stenography from 12:00 until 1:00. The main thing is that we generally remain with what we have discussed, that the main instruction be given between 8:00 and 12:00. That is all there is now concerning the class schedule.
Are there any questions that have come up in regard to the things that were decided? That is the reason why we are here together.
There is a further question in connection with dividing a class for language instruction.
Dr. Steiner: We do not want to extend these divisions as they are ruining the organization of the school.
A teacher: Both classes have French at the same time.
Dr. Steiner: I do not wish to continue this division. I would like to hire Tittmann if we had enough money.
If we can get the proper control over the situation, that would bring about a major change. We must gain a fundamental control over the situation. A strong change will have an effect upon the main subjects, even upon the children’s attitude. The children will see that they need to take a number of things seriously. We will not be able to change that if we do not have a firm class schedule. It might be good if some of you who were interested would sketch the class schedule.
There is something else that I would like to come back to and that I am really very sad about, namely, K.F. We cannot do as we had planned. He is coming back. He is collapsing. He is getting sleepier, paralyzed.
Several teachers talk about K.F. and that he is falling behind.
Dr. Steiner: The problem is physiological. I would like to come back to my proposal that we put him in the other class because I think he would be shaken up a little there. We do not need to cure the metabolic residues that are causing the depression. He is a good and kind boy, but he cannot act differently. I do not expect very much of him. I do not think he will want to take Latin and Greek, and in particular I want Mr. X. to work with him. I am doing this not because I believe that he should [not] come back to you (the present class teacher), but because I believe that because of his metabolism, he needs this pedagogically. If you really want to have him with you, I would not take him away, but I would like to try it.
I would prefer if he had only men for teachers. Today, his father told me how he gets around his mother. He is really quite clever. I would like him to have only men as teachers and that he is not taught by a woman during the two periods he has in the morning. On the other hand, I also do not want to break your heart. The class teacher: I like him so much.
Dr. Steiner: Nevertheless, I would like to have him taught by someone else. If you do not want to let him go, well, that is your right, and I will bow to it. However, if we can find some means of helping him pedagogically, then we should do that.
The class teacher: I will send him to the other class on Monday.
Dr. Steiner: The change is something important for the boy, and you will get used to it.
The class teacher: I have had him for three years now.
Dr. Steiner: That is just it. I think the boy needs a change. I have known him for a long time, since he was born. His entire person is deteriorating. It is a continuous deterioration that is quite shocking. For that reason, I would like to do something that is important for him at this decisive moment. He is in danger of going insane.
(Speaking to the new class teacher) You need to work with him. You should not allow him to be undisturbed in any period. Shake him up. You need to work with the boy so that his attention is artificially aroused, as otherwise he will further deteriorate. He needs to know why he is coming into the other class and to understand that we want the change so that he will pull himself together. You need to make it clear to him in the same way as someone who finds himself in a foreign location. It needs to be a significant event for him. He has these things from his mother, but more strongly. The things that live in the bodies of the parents move into the souls of the descendants, particularly such illnesses that are connected with the residues of the metabolism. They lead to the formation of small tumors. I do not dare to tell how dangerous that is. It is a very dangerous thing. His sister has the same astral type as he.
The school inspector will look at the remedial class. He will also look at the handwork class, but there we have less to fear than when he goes into the remedial class. He will not understand anything about crocheting. He is well intentioned and would like to give a good report. He is certainly well intentioned toward the school. He has the same opinions as Abderhalden about the fact that there is so much dust in the gymnasium and for that reason gymnastics is unhealthy.
I have also given some consideration to arithmetic in the various classes. I would like you to arrange the instruction so that you continue to teach new material in blocks, but that there are two half hours of arithmetic review in the normal main lesson. That is something we need to do everywhere, including the upper grades.
A teacher asks whether the mathematics teacher should also give the review classes for the upper grades, when another teacher teaches the main lesson.
Dr. Steiner: I don’t see why that would be necessary. If the faculty is an organism as I have always thought, then I see no reason for that. Why shouldn’t the teacher who is giving chemistry also give the review? You need to know what every one of you is doing. If all the teachers know what the others are doing, then that will not be necessary. I do not see why we should go into a subject teacher system. I think it is desirable that you can do that. I once had a mathematics teacher who did not recognize one single plant when we went on a school excursion. He knew a lot about mathematics and physics, but had no understanding of anything else. He didn’t know anything except Bohemian, German, physics and mathematics.
These are things we need to do. We need to come to a point where the teaching of mathematics is as it is in the eighth grade. That is what I have to say about the classes I have seen.
You see, we need to emphasize that the children can do something, that they actually learn, and that emphasis is almost entirely missing. You pay too little attention to that. In the upper grades, you have fallen into lecturing, and the instruction is mere sensationalism. They listen, but they don’t work inwardly, and for that reason cannot do enough. That is something that is becoming apparent in the little continuation school in Dornach. Those boys and girls are quite interested in what is presented, but they cannot do it. In other areas, too, we should be careful that they know something and remember it. You can often see it in the way they behave during the Socratic method, which is often not done very well. From the way they behave, you can see they have not properly taken what they are learning into their souls. For that to happen, you must have much greater interest and understanding for the echo the class reflects back to you. That is especially true for the higher grades. The fourth grade already shows a lack of inner participation. They need to participate inwardly. Don’t you also feel the children are learning too little? Tell me what you think. What is the problem in your opinion?
A teacher: We have talked a lot about this, but it is not so easy to break a habit.
Dr. Steiner: On the one hand, you lecture too much, but there is also another important problem. When you develop something in the class through the Socratic method, you fall prey to an illusion. You ask obvious or unimportant questions. The majority of your questions are unimportant. You do not tell the class what they need to learn and then reverse the teaching so that five minutes later, you ask them to tell you about it. You only ask obvious questions. It is important that you turn the instruction around during the period, so that the same thing appears several times in various forms and the students then have to participate in it. You also fail to introduce things that point back to earlier times in a way that would eliminate obvious or trivial questions. In truth, you have not overcome lecturing. Often, you have the illusion that you have overcome it, but you simply continue to lecture and ask trivial questions. You must eliminate this triviality and not give into illusions.
A teacher asks about dividing the classes for art.
Dr. Steiner: We want to do that next year. I have to admit I am somewhat against dividing music classes, but we will need to do it if we want more artistic development to occur. Perhaps in the twelfth grade we could institute an artistic-humanistic and business- oriented division. It is really too early to do that now. It would be wonderful to have an artistic middle school, but of course, the leaders would have to be artists. That is not something we can do at the drop of a hat, but we should keep the division of the school in mind.
A teacher asks about vertical and slanting handwriting styles.
Dr. Steiner: As long as people continue to write with the right hand, it is not desirable to use vertical handwriting. Vertical handwriting is unnatural for the human organism. Handwriting does not need to lie on the line, but it does need to give an artistic impression. Vertical handwriting does not give an artistic impression. I once explained that there are two ways of writing. In the one case, there are people who write automatically and do not use their eyes. They make their body into a mechanism and write directly from their wrists. Penmanship trains this kind of writing. I once knew a man who had to make the letters from a circle when he wrote. He went around in circles. Then there is also artistic writing, where you write with your eyes, and the hand is simply the organ that carries it out. It is not possible to develop vertical handwriting mechanically from the wrist. It would always be slanted handwriting, and thus, vertical handwriting is justifiable as an artistic method. This involves a judgment of taste, but it does not meet an aesthetic requirement. It is never beautiful and always looks unnatural, and for that reason is never justified. There is no real reason for vertical handwriting.
A teacher: I have children who are used to writing vertically. Why should they write at a low angle?
Dr. Steiner: You can’t accomplish such a thing by simply saying, “I will now teach slanted handwriting.” You cannot do that. You can only work toward no longer having any children who write vertically, but in the upper grades, you cannot pressure them too much.
A teacher: K.L. in my fourth-grade class writes vertically.
Dr. Steiner: With him, you could try to get him to gradually use a more slanted handwriting, so that the lines are not vertical, but the whole of his writing is artistically vertical.
A teacher: In my fourth-grade class, I do writing exercises while teaching natural history.
Dr. Steiner: You can do that. You should just make sure you do not contradict the block instruction, but keep it as a continuous exercise. It is the same as with arithmetic.
A teacher: Should I continue giving handwriting instruction in my first-grade class when I am teaching arithmetic?
Dr. Steiner: We will have to look at that.
It is, of course, desirable that you try to get the children to learn to write themselves. From our perspective, they should be able to write at least a little when they are about eight years old. We need to remember that we must bring them to where they would be in a normal elementary school.
A teacher: I have an English girl in my 6b class who does not understand German.
Dr. Steiner: You need to make her parents aware that they need to bear the consequences. Of course, you will need to allow her time to learn German.
A teacher: She has been here since September.
Dr. Steiner: She could not learn enough German in six weeks, but she should be past that by spring. You need to tell them that they will have to bear the consequences, but there is no reason why we should not accept children who cannot speak German.
A teacher asks about reading material for the fourth grade and about fairy tales.
Dr. Steiner: It would be a good idea if the Waldorf teachers would work on creating decent textbooks that reflect our pedagogical principles. I would not like to see the current textbooks in the classroom. It would be somewhat destructive to put such reading books in the classes. There are, of course, collections that are really not too bad. One such collection is by a Mr. Richter. It is a collection of sagas. It is neither trivial nor beyond the children’s grasp. Even in Grimm’s fairy tales, you always have to be selective, as there are some that are not appropriate for school.
A teacher mentions a book of sagas.
Dr. Steiner: What do you know about the things in it? If it contains Gerhardt the Good, then it is good. That is something you can use appropriately for the fourth grade. It even has some good remarks for teachers. Gerhardt the Good is wonderful reading material for that age. I discussed it from an anthroposophical perspective in a lecture in Dornach.
A teacher: The children also enjoy ballads.
Dr. Steiner: We need to make a good collection of ballads, otherwise people will think Wildenbruch is a poet. Some people say that there is a poet, Wildenbruch.
A teacher: Could we also use the book of legends in the third grade?
Dr. Steiner: You will need to tell them. In fourth grade they can read it themselves. In the third grade, let them read it only after you have told it.
A teacher asks about reading material for the fifth grade.
Dr. Steiner: There is nothing that has not been made boring. Try a few of the Greek sagas by Niebuhr. His book is not very new, but perhaps the best. Maybe a little too long, but well written.
A teacher: K.P. in the fourth grade is growing weak.
Dr. Steiner: Since when? Who had him earlier? In such things, we need to help him therapeutically. An iron cure, as I described this morning, could be given to him with the help of his parents. You don’t need to say anything more than that he is suffering from a hidden form of weak blood, and that he should take an iron cure. The school doctor should take over the problem. In that way, it can be properly overcome.
You always need to be clear about the case. Concerning K.P., use the kind of iron you get when you make an extract of chamomile root. There, you have iron in a proper balance with sulfur, calcium, and potassium. There is iron in the root of the chamomile. Do it that way. Do not use a tea, but make an extract by boiling the root.
A teacher asks about a girl in the tenth grade who is often absent because school is too strenuous for her.
Dr. Steiner: That is an illness in the soul. You should give her belladonna.
A teacher: Would a calming curative eurythmy exercise be good?
Dr. Steiner: You could do that to support the effects of the belladonna. Do you do curative eurythmy exercises with the children?
A teacher asks about a student in the 2b class.
Dr. Steiner: You should treat him through curative eurythmy, according to the principles that have been given for people who cannot walk.
A teacher: P.U. should also go into the remedial class.
Dr. Steiner: You should treat him as someone who cannot stand up. He is trying to keep himself from falling.
A teacher: P.Z. in the 4b class causes disturbances and makes unnecessary remarks.
Dr. Steiner: Aside from treating him through curative eurythmy, perhaps you could retell something he does, and in the course of telling it, you make it absurd. Try to include a similar remark in a story, where someone who makes such a remark gets totally soaked or something else happens. He should not immediately recognize what you want. You can interest him in such things. With such boys, it often happens that they have irregular brain function for a time, and that the astral body is not properly connected to the brain. Such children are then taken over by a little demon. That lasts for only a short period, but you have to do something about it. You could work with him through curative eurythmy in the same way as with someone who cannot walk. There is more discussion about Z. who has left.
Dr. Steiner: This is actually interesting. He actually falls into a short, rhythmically pathological state. He suddenly writes two lines sloppily and the remainder of the time is quite orderly. One, two, three, four, five words written orderly, and before, one word sloppily. Then, orderly again. The boy is not quite normal, that is the problem. He lacks attentiveness. He can do more than he shows, and you can see that from his handwriting. It would be a good idea if you were to write that his handwriting shows he can do more, but due to lapses in attention, he does things sporadically and worse than he needs to do them. These are like little epileptic fits that then pass.
A teacher speaks about D. in the second grade who feels he cannot do anything about it when he misbehaves.
Dr. Steiner: You should pay attention to him until he is nine years old. Until then, you need to treat him very lovingly. Perhaps you could have him do a number of symmetry exercises, so that he recognizes that he is making errors in writing. Afterward, he will become better.
If there is nothing more, we can close the meeting. I would like to again ask you to remember the difficulty we have gotten into and discussed, and also to take into account that we must not make a fiasco of the Waldorf School. That would be a terrible blow.
We need to take our work very seriously. Everyone is looking at us. We need to do things as seriously as possible. I am convinced that the more we return to the perspective of the first and second seminar courses, the better we can bring the true spirit into our work. I held the second course in order to bring the spirit into the Waldorf School. We need to take that up again so that the proper spirit is here. We may not allow ourselves to go. We certainly must bring fire into our teaching. We must have enthusiasm. That is absolutely necessary, but often lacking. We must do that, otherwise, with our method that depends so much upon the individuality of the teacher, it will be far too easy to fall into a way of working counter to our principles. The school inspector said that with normal teaching methods, average people can be teachers, but with our methods, we need geniuses. I do not think that is necessarily true, but there is something to it. So much depends upon the individual teacher, and we must emphasize and support the individuality of the teacher. The children are not participating enough because we are not bringing sufficient fire into the classroom. There is often a kind of playful element in the instruction that playfully occupies the children, but it is playful in the worst sense. Every teacher should have deep satisfaction upon entering the classroom. Basically, the students in the higher grades are not all that bad.
Have you heard anything about the explanation concerning the expelled students?
He thinks that our methods have brought us so far that we have thrown out a large number of anthroposophical children. This is really a terrible thing. I was actually surprised it was not received with bitterness, and that is what is really bitter, namely, that it was perceived that way. This is something we need to understand from the perspective of the anthroposophical movement. The way you came to me with this terrible document, there is really no difference in this treatment and what some narrow-minded bureaucrat would do. It’s that you really don’t put your soul in it, you lack fire.
A teacher: G.W.A. thought it was unjustified.
Dr. Steiner: You should speak with her, otherwise you will lose more contact with the students. It is so strange that there is so little contact between teachers and students in the upper grades. There is also none in the religion class.
A teacher: People are not satisfied with the explanation printed in the newspaper.
Dr. Steiner: People are speaking about this everywhere in the most detrimental manner. The situation is known everywhere and is being turned into a weapon. There is a whole organization forming around this. The situation is a weapon that can be well forged. Perhaps something like a parent evening would be a way we could make our standpoint clear. We need to find some way of defending the school.
There is really no enthusiasm for the anthroposophical movement. There is no feeling for how it is affected; things are simply accepted with indifference. Within a very short time things have occurred that can cause members to hang the movement, due to a lack of feeling of responsibility.
I held a course for theologians that they promised to treat as a secret. But every day, they write things in letters and, in order to save postage, they give it to someone else to carry across the border where it could easily be taken.
Someone gives information to Dr. S., who carries it only from the clinic to the laboratory, but only a few days later, Kully publishes it in his newspaper in Arlesheim. The movement is being led to the gallows by its own members due to their lack of responsibility. There is so little feeling for responsibility, and that is a very bitter thing.
That has been the case since things became public, and the anthroposophical movement ceased to be an expression of things carried privately in the heart. As soon as things came into the anthroposophical movement that required professionals, something like a kind of mildew grew upon the vitality of the movement. At the moment you put yourself upon a curule chair, enthusiasm wanes.
The faculty needs to publicly justify the expulsion of the students. In spite of the fact that I asked that they only be suspended, things progressed to the point that there was nothing else to be done other than what was done. All contact had been lost. The students were enraged. The situation was grossly mishandled. All this is expressed occultly in the symptoms.
A teacher asks about the justification.
Dr. Steiner: We cannot use the names of the students, but somehow we need to counter what is now being formed as a weapon against us. I thought there would be an opportunity to somehow defend the standpoint of the teachers. You need to look for opportunities where you can say such things.
The cause of the whole uproar was that things were turned around to look as though the teachers had spread some sort of lies about the students. This is connected with the formation of the Students’ Club, and the students felt themselves disparaged. In fact, one such disparagement was added by X. Everything has been stated as though the teachers have done something damaging to the children. It is strange that not all the students are aware of this. It seems impossible that this is not better known. Do the students go around blindfolded? I do not think that is praiseworthy. If these things are not known, the beautiful things will also not be known. I have to admit that in a way this whole affair seems a little strange to me. Basically, it is a symptom of sleepiness.
Neununddreissigste Konferenz
RUDOLF STEINER: Meine lieben Freunde, dasjenige, was mir jetzt namentlich auf der Seele liegt, ist der Stundenplan, der ja so, wie er ist, nicht bleiben kann. Ich habe es ja ungeheuer bedauert, dass ich nicht die Möglichkeit hatte, noch mehr von der Schule zu sehen und zu hören. Aber ich konnte schon einen gewissen Einblick gewinnen in der längeren Zeit, in der ich ziemlich jeden Tag in der Schule war. Der Stundenplan als solcher kann so nicht bleiben, weil eine zu große Zersplitterung und eine zu große Zerstreuung eintreten würde und es wirklich unrationell ist, ihn so zu lassen. Natürlich wird aber eine Änderung nur dann eintreten können, wenn erst eine Klarheit darüber herrscht, nach welcher Richtung das geschehen soll. Und dazu wäre es notwendig, damit die heutige Lehrerkonferenz recht fruchtbar ausfallen würde, dass Sie sich also wirklich nach allen Seiten aussprechen würden. Ich meine nicht, dass bloß über den Stundenplan geredet werden soll. Das soll zuletzt ein Ergebnis sein. Aber es wäre wünschenswert, wenn wirklich die einzelnen Mitglieder des Kollegiums sich restlos über all das aussprechen würden, was sie zu sagen haben. Damit wollen wir jetzt beginnen.
HERMANN VON BARAVILLE möchte mehr Wochen haben in der 11. Klasse für die Mathematik und Physik.
RUDOLF STEINER: Solch eine Sache ist nicht anders zu machen als im Einklang mit allem Übrigen. Zuerst müssen wir einen Überblick gewinnen, was wir mit dem Sprachunterricht in den verschiedenen Klassen zu machen haben. Diesen Überblick müssen wir gewinnen. Namentlich das kann nicht so bleiben. Aber es hängt mit allem Übrigen zusammen.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE mochte die 8b teilen im Sprachunterricht. Die Anfänger soll Hans Rutz nehmen, die Fortgeschrittenen sie selbst.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir können nicht in beliebiger Weise, so, wie sich die Beispiele vermehren, die Klasse[n] spalten. Das können wir wirklich nur dann, wenn wir radikal die Sache so machen, dass wir für den Sprachunterricht eine Gruppierung durchführen nach dem Können. Das müssen wir durchführen. [Sonst] führt das zu einer endlosen, kautschukartigen Erweiterung des Stundenplans, [die] dann ins Maßlose geht. Der Stundenplan ist ein unmögliches Gebilde geworden. Wir bringen es sonst dahin, dass wir bei einer wirklich ganz auf Menschenentwicklung und Menschenerkenntnis basierten pädagogischen Methode das Unpädagogischste zuletzt herauskriegen, was überhaupt nur erreicht werden kann. Man kann das Gute leichter ins Gegenteil verkehren als das Schlechte. Das Schlechte ist im Gegenteil von seiner Eigenheit nicht so weit entfernt. Also, nicht wahr, so, wie der Stundenplan jetzt ist, ist er ein Ungetüm.
MARIA RÖSCHL möchte Griechisch und Latein [in den höheren Klassen] haben im Anschluss an den Hauptunterricht, und immer je zwei Stunden nacheinander.
RUDOLF STEINTER: [Das ist gut], insbesondere dann, wenn man den Unterricht [etwas] kooriert. Die eine Stunde mit Formalem, die andere Stunde mit der Lektüre. Dann ist es besser, zwei Stunden hintereinander zu haben.
Mit Griechisch und Lateinisch [ist] es so, dass es nicht anders möglich ist, die Sache aufrechtzuerhalten, als dass man die Kinder von einer gewissen Klasse an entscheiden Lässt, ob sie nun Französisch und Englisch haben wollen oder Griechisch und Lateinisch. Das wird unbedingt notwendig. Wir müssen darauf hinarbeiten, dass wir die Kinder dahin bringen, ein Abiturium bestehen zu können. Und das ist nicht anders zu erreichen, als dass wir sie entscheiden lassen darüber — was mit den Eltern in Zusammenhang gemacht wird —, ob sie Griechisch und Lateinisch oder oh sie Französisch und Englisch haben wollen. Da wir Französisch und Englisch beginnen mit der 1. Klasse, ist es zweifellos, dass wir irgendetwas zur Wiederholung tun können bei den älteren Schülern, die Griechisch und Lateinisch haben, wenn es gewünscht wird. Aber diese Gliederung müssen wir vornehmen.
MARIA RÖSCHL: Von welcher Klasse ab würde diese Gabelung eintreten?
RUDOLF STEINER: Diejenigen, die Griechisch und Lateinisch nehmen wollen, [das] ist gleichbedeutend mit dem [Gymnasial-]Abiturium-Machen. So wie die Verhältnisse heute liegen, hat man eigentlich kaum eine Veranlassung, den vollen Griechisch- und Lateinischunterricht, so, wie man ihn jetzt gibt, aufrechtzuerhalten, wenn man nicht rechnet auf diejenigen, die zur Gymnasialmatura hinstreben, dass auch die den Segen der Waldorfschul-Methode haben sollen.
CHRISTOPH BOY: Die Schüler müssen Französisch behalten, weil es Prüfungsfach ist.
RUDOLF STEINER: Aber im Allgemeinen ist es so, da wir mit dem Sprachunterricht ganz im Anfang der Volksschule anfangen, [dass] es trostlos wäre, wenn wir nicht bei einem ganz geringen Wiederholungsunterricht die Sache auf der Älterenstufe fortführen könnten, wenn sie Griechisch und Latein haben müssen. Das müssen wir herauskriegen, dass wir das ersparen, was wir zu wiederholen haben. So wie es jetzt ist, lässt es sich nicht aufrechterhalten. Der Stundenplan ist ein Ungetüm und unpädagogisch.
BETTINA MELLINGER schlägt vor, in der 7. und 8. Klasse für die neuen Sprachen die Parallelklassen zusammenzuwerfen und eine Gruppe Anfänger und eine Fortgeschrittene zu bilden: So wie sie jetzt zusammengewürfelt sind, kommt nicht viel heraus.
RUDOLF STEINER: [Überall] sonst hat man für die höheren Klassen dies, dass man die weniger fähigen Kinder zurücklässt. Auch schon in der Volksschule lässt man die weniger Fähigen zurück. Da wir das nicht tun werden, müssen wir nach dieser Richtung einiges überwinden. Man wird immer Fähigere und Nichtfähige durcheinander haben. Die nicht mitkönnen, die stören die Stunde, weil sie sich langweilen.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE: Es gibt auch Fähige, die bloß keine Kenntnisse haben. Die stören sehr.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir müssen die Sache schon etwas systematisch machen. Wir werden zunächst einmal festsetzen. [Zu Karl Schubert;] Sie beginnen das Griechische und Lateinische in der 5. Klasse, Fräulein Röschl hat 8., 9., 10. und 11. Klasse. Also 5. und 6., bei denen müssen wir [alle vier] Fremdsprachen lassen, nicht wahr, [wenigstens Latein]. Da bleibt es also. Von der 7. an muss das so gemacht werden, dass durch alle folgenden Klassen diejenigen, die sich für Lateinisch und Griechisch entscheiden, dies als Hauptunterricht haben, und das Französische nur als eine Wiederholungsstunde, die vom Handarbeitsunterricht weggenommen wird. Auf Englisch müssen sie verzichten.
In der 5. und 6. würde sein Englisch, Französisch, [und wahlfrei] Lateinisch und Griechisch. In der 7., 8., 9., 10., 11. nur französische Wiederholungsstunde, und sonst würden diejenigen, die nicht Lateinisch und Griechisch haben können, ihren regelmäßigen Unterricht [im Französischen und Englischen] weiter haben.
Mehrere Lehrer sagen, zwei Stunden für Fremdsprachen in den Oberklassen sei zu wenig.
RUDOLF STEINER: Da tritt das ein, dass es doch gut wäre, wenn man für diese Klassen gruppierte. Natürlich, nicht wahr, diejenigen, die gar keinen französischen und englischen Unterricht gehabt haben, können doch kaum solche Kinder sein, welche darauf Anspruch machen, ein Abiturium zu machen. Nun ja, also [das] sind Volksschulkinder, die machen kein Abiturium, worin soll da die Schwierigkeit bestehen?
HEEBEHT HAHN schlägt Gruppierungen vor.
RUDOLF STEENER: Für den lateinischen und griechischen Unterricht ändert das nichts. Der bleibt also so. Griechisch also. Von der 7. Klasse an geht Französisch als Wiederholung vorn Handarbeitsunterricht ab. Unter diesen Verhältnissen muss es möglich sein, dass man für die, die den lateinischen und griechischen Unterricht wählen, die Stunden unmittelbar an den Hauptunterricht anschließt.
MARIA RÖSCHL: Könnte man das nicht erst von der 8. Klasse ab machen?
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn wir bei der Stundenanzahl bleiben, so sind fünf Jahre nicht zu wenig für Griechisch und Lateinisch. Wir können aber, da wir in der Zukunft den französischen Wiederholungsunterricht vom Handarbeitsunterricht wegnehmen, in Zukunft zum Lateinischen und Griechischen mehr Französisch haben. Wir können ja in der 7. nur das Englische weglassen. Aber wenn wir durch sechs Klassen englischen Unterricht haben, dann möchte ich einmal den kennen, der dann behaupten wird, dass das zu wenig ist für dasjenige, was man im Englischen kennen soll. Wenn es ganz durchgeführt wird von der 1. Klasse an bis zur 6. Klasse, wie soll dann das zu wenig sein! [Höchstens], dass die Kinder etwas vergessen. Zu wenig gelernt haben die Kinder ganz gewiss nicht, wenn sie durch sechs Klassen hindurch Englisch getrieben haben. Nicht wahr, Englisch wird in der-Regel nicht mehr getrieben als durch sechs Jahre hindurch. Das ist nicht etwas, was [uns] voraus ist, dass es vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahre gemacht wird; da ist es schwerer als für die kleinen Kinder. Wenn es mit Feuer gemacht wird, wenn der Unterricht nicht einschläft, genügen sechs Jahre. Die beste Zeit ist es, die man dazu verwenden kann. Lateinisch haben sie auch nicht mehr. Ein Jahr mehr in einem ungünstigen Lebensalter.
MARIA RÖSCHL: Kommt für das Englische keine Wiederholungsstunde in Betracht?
RUDOLF STEINER: Es könnte höchstens sein, dass aus okkulten oder inokkulten Untergründen Wünsche sich herausstellen. Dann könnte man es festsetzen für die Kinder. Solche Dinge können dann dazukommen. Aber erst müssen wir den Stundenplan in eine annehmbare Form bringen. Das Lässt sich allein machen, wenn wir den Stundenplan nicht überlasten.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Die französische Wiederholungsstunde bringt viel mehr Stunden für die Schüler.
RUDOLF STEINER: DaS ist nicht notwendig, Wir nehmen das Französische weg vom Handarbeitsunterricht. Den Handarbeitsunter-richt schränken wir überhaupt ein. Wir können nicht die Sache so machen, dass wir den Handarbeitsunterricht in derselben Weise ausgedehnt sein lassen, weil dadurch der Stundenplan das Ungetüm wird. Wir müssen vom Handarbeitsunterricht wesentlich etwas wegnehmen.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Soll es bei der [Zahl der] Stunden bleiben für Latein und Griechisch?
RUDOLF STEINWR: Bleiben wir bei den vier Stunden [in der Woche]. —Jetzt wollen wir das von der anderen Seite betrachten. Wenn wir mit dem Lateinischen und Griechischen in Ordnung kommen wollen, wollen wir es von der Seite betrachten, dass wir sagen: Diejenigen, welche Lateinisch und Griechisch haben, in der 7,, 8., 9., 10., 11., haben also dann zunächst den Hauptunterricht. Dann haben sie Latein und Griechisch.
Jetzt das Nächste, was in Betracht kommt, ist das Musikalische. Was haben Sie da?
PAUL BAUMANN: Gesangstunde, Orchester und Gesamtchor. Zum Orchester kommen nicht alle.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ist das auch vormittags? Gibt es nicht eine Möglichkeit, dass wir den Stundenplan dadurch organischer machen, dass wir also auf diese Weise — wenn Sie es so einteilen könnten, dass wir den Hauptunterricht haben in diesen Klassen, für die Schüler, die Lateinisch und Griechisch haben, von acht bis zehn oder elf? Jetzt müsste dann der Latein- und Griechischunterrieht vier Tage lang sich anschließen oder [zweimal] zwei Stunden hintereinander. Dann bleibt die Möglichkeit, am Vormittag auch von den anderen Fächern etwas zu nehmen. Was würde da zunächst in Betracht kommen? Kommt also da für Sie für den Gesangsunterricht und Eurythrnieunterrieht mehr der Vormittag in Betracht?
EDITH RÖHRLE: [Ch hätte gern den Vormittag.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das brauchen Sie nicht so zu machen, dass Sie eine Stunde allgemeinen Eurythmieunterricht und eine Stunde Ton-eurythrnie haben. Machen Sie lieber zwei Stunden Eurythmie. Sonst kommen wir ins Bodenlose. Wir müssen etwas Fixes darin haben. Dieses Zufällige und Launenhafte müssen wir herauskriegen. Machen Sie zwei Stunden Eurythmie, darin ist dann Stoffverteilung. Man sollte nicht in beliebiger Weise Ihren Lehrplan wegtun,
Da hätten wir [zwei] Stunden Eurythmie, vier Stunden Lateinisch und Griechisch. Dann den Hauptunterricht. Jetzt, nicht wahr, Gesang und Musik. Es bleibt noch immer die Möglichkeit, so etwas wie den Chor und das Orchester [zu haben].
PAUL BAUMANN: Ich hätte von der 9. Klasse [an] das Bedürfnis empfunden, dass die Kinder musikalisch theoretisch weitergebracht würden.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn man es schon macht, dann finde ich es nicht zu viel. Dann ist noch immer der Gesangchor. Den nehmen Sie extra. Dann würde es möglich sein, dass man den Gesang in die Vormittagsstunden verlegt, und schließlich den Chor in den Nachmittagsstunden macht, und Orchester auch Nachmittag. Dann würde für die Vormittagsstunden bleiben Hauptunterricht, Lateinisch und Griechisch, Eurythmie, Gesang. Dann für den Nachmittag hätten wir zunächst Chorgesang und [die] Orchestersache. Und diejenigen, die Französisch und Englisch haben, sollen in derselben Zeit, damit wir sie beisammen haben, Französisch und Englisch haben, wo die anderen Lateinisch und Griechisch haben. Handarbeitsunterricht und Turnunterricht müsste in die Nachmittagsstunden verlegt werden, und namentlich für die höheren Klassen. Kann nicht der Handarbeitsunterricht nachmittags gemacht werden? Also Nachmittag Handarbeit und Turnunterricht. Auf diese Weise kann doch ein möglicher Stundenplan geschaffen werden.
Den Turnunterricht möglichst nachmittags. Der Turnunterricht ist nicht etwa eine Erholung. Den Turnunterricht einreihen unter die anderen Unterrichtsstunden ist nicht gut. Man kann zwei Klassen zu gleicher Zeit haben. Ich muss einmal mit den Turnlehrern die Methode besprechen. Ich habe nur so Andeutungen gegeben. Aber im Turnen ist man immer in der Lage, die Übungen danach einzurichten, dass man auch zwei große Riegen [machen] kann. Neulich war es noch ganz gut, das Turnen im Freien. Es hat sich sehr gezeigt, wie die Jungen ihren Körper gar nicht in der Band haben, wie sie schien-kern nach allen Noten. Die Jungens entbehren in der Handhabung ihrer Körper schon gar sehr, dass sie drei Jahre nicht geturnt haben. Das ist nicht zu leugnen. [Zu Paul Baumann:] Sie wurden auch als Turnlehrer genannt.
Für die höheren Klassen würde ich höchstens die Kinder anhalten, dass sie vielleicht irgendwelche Aufgaben für sich arbeiten, wenn Stunden frei bleiben. Aber es bleibt der Religionsunterricht, der eventuell zu bedenken wäre, und dann bleibt Handwerksunterricht. Das sind alles Dinge, die auf die Nachmittagsstunden verlegt werden müssten. Es handelt sich darum, dass es nachmittags gernacht wird Der künstlerische Handfertigkeitsunterricht kann in den Nachmittagsstunden gemacht werden.
PAUL BAUMANN: Die Kinder fragen, ob Stenografie obligatorisch ist oder nicht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es sprechen manche Gründe dafür, dass es obligatorisch sein sollte. [Stenografie] ist etwas, was eigentlich erst in der 10. beginnen würde. Dann ändern wir es so, dass wir Stenografie eine Stunde in der Woche haben [nachmittags, obligatorisch]. Es ist schon ganz gut, wenn die Kinder Stenografie lernen.
MAX WOLFFHOGEL: Wir wollten den Handfertigkeitsunterricht periodenweise geben. Dann werden die Nachmittagsstunden nicht hinreichen.
RUDOLF STE1NER: Wir müssen ausprobieren, wie es mit dem ordentlichen Lehrplan geht. Es hat sich mehr aufgedrängt. Wir müssen es zunächst durchführen. Es wird sich die Notwendigkeit ergeben, dass auch für diesen Unterricht eine zweite Lehrkraft eingestellt wird. Wir müssen es schon in den Nachmittag hineinbringen.
MAX WOLFEHÜGEL: Ich möchte nicht vom Periodenunterricht ah-stehen. Der hat sich gut erwiesen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Mit dem Periodenunterricht werden Sie es zustande kriegen. Wenn man das so macht, dass man den Hauptunterricht zuerst hat, dass man Lateinisch und Griechisch an zweiter Stelle, Eurythmie und Gesang an dritter Stelle, nachmittags die jetzt genannten Fächer hat, dann kann man einteilen. Die eine Stenografiestunde kann man hineinlegen, wo sie hineinpasst. Dann, nicht wahr, würde ich auch meinen, dass man in Bezug auf das andere eine Art ideal erfüllen könnte, sodass im Wesentlichen der Hauptunterricht in den ersten zwei Stunden ist. Dann würde ich daranschließen wollen die Sprachen unbedingt von zehn bis zwölf. Das füllt ja nicht alle Tage aus, sodass immer [noch] etwas anderes in Betracht kommen kann, Der Freie Religionsunterricht macht keine Schwierigkeiten in Bezug auf den Stundenplan. Es ist doch möglich, mit Ausnahme des Religionsunterrichts, für alle unteren Klassen es so zu machen, dass man Hauptunterricht, Sprachunterricht, Gesang, Eurythmie vormittags hat. Wünschenswert wäre es schon, wenn man nachmittags verlegen könnte.
Am leichtesten lässt der Handarbeitsunterricht sich führen, wenn er in die Nachmittagsstunden verlegt wird. Nun wäre es möglich, dass man da tauschen würde mit Gesang und Eurythrnie, damit nicht dieselben Lehrer alle Nachmittage haben, obwohl ich nicht glaube, dass es das Günstige wäre. Wie viele sind Handarbeitsstunden? Wir haben 19 Klassen, also wie viel Stunden sind das? — Wenn wir solche Klassen teilen, müssten wir es mindestens in denselben Stunden haben. Dann bemerkt man es im Stundenplan nicht. Aber gerade durch dieses absolut willkürliche Gestalten, dass man beliebig teilt, dadurch bekommt man einen willkürlichen Stundenplan heraus. Wenn man die 8. teilt, dann müsste man die eine Hälfte und die andere Hälfte mit denselben Lehrern einsetzen. Der Stundenplan hat nicht Hand und Fuß.
ELISABETH BAUMANN: Wir haben beinahe alle Klassen teilen müssen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die [geteilten] Klassen müssen wir in dieselben Stunden verlegen, sonst wären die Kinder unbeschäftigt. Wenn das den Sprachlehrern auch einfallen würde, dann kriegen wir die ganze Nacht besetzt. Wenn wir eine Klasse im gleichen Gegenstand teilen, müssen wir es zu derselben Stunde ansetzen. Jede Änderung des Stundenplans müsste in der Konferenz, wo ich da bin, besprochen werden. Selbstverständlich, man kommt den Dingen, die berechtigte Anforderungen sind, entgegen. Aber in dieser Beziehung geht es wirklich nicht, die ganze Schule unrationell zu machen. Ist es nötig, so viel zu teilen?
ELISABETH BAUMANN: Die Klassen sind zu groß. Wo es mehr als zweiunddreißig Kinder sind, ist es kaum zu machen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Da müssen wir es auf die verschiedenen Lehre rinnen verteilen und zu gleicher Zeit die Stunden halten. Geben Sie halt die Kinder her, welche die anderen gerne haben und so weiter. Das lässt sich dann schon machen. Aber durchgeführt werden muss es. Wir kommen ganz in Misskredit. Wir kommen vom Geiste des Lehrplans ab durch den Stundenplan.
Was ist die orthopädische Eurythmie, was machen Sie da? Die sind auch nachmittags? — Ich wollte es nur wissen. — Es wäre besser, es zu nennen eurythmische Orthopädie. Orthopädische Eurythmie hat so ein bisschen einen Beigeschmack von «sündhafter Engel». Eine contradictio in adjecto.
Dann sind achtunddreißig Stunden Handarbeitsunterricht. Die gespaltenen Klassen müssen zu gleicher Zeit sein. Wie viel Stunden haben wir? Es sind 62 Stunden. Warum können wir nicht bei der Stange bleiben? An vier Nachmittagen müsste man es einteilen. Fräulein Rommel hat 24, Fräulein Hauck [24], Frau Molt und Frau Leinhas 14. Ich bin bloß froh, dass die Handarbeitslehrer nicht den Mathematikunterricht erteilen. Diese 62 Stunden können doch nun wirklich auf die Nachmittage verteilt werden.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Man kann nur 16 Stunden nachmittags geben.
RUDOLF STEINFR: in der Zukunft soll es so sein. Es lässt sich natürlich nur durchführen, wenn man weitergeht. Ich wollte nur zunächst wissen, wie viel Stunden da sind. 62 Stunden. An vier Nachmittagen würden wir haben [je] vier Stunden. Bei äußerster Ausnutzung würden es sein 16 Stunden, 48. Wir müssen ersparen 14 Stunden. Es wird auch in der Zukunft, um das herauszukriegen, so sein, dass wir für die ersten vier Klassen den Unterricht erteilen [in] zwei Stunden [hintereinander in der Woche]; für alle übrigen Klassen eine Stunde [in der Woche]. Wir müssten irgendwie einschränken. Dann werden wir haben in den [unteren] vier Klassen 22 Stunden. Damit würden wir alle vier Klassen haben. Wie viel [Gruppen] sind [da von der] 5. bis 11. Klasse? 21 Gruppen. Sie kennen sich doch selbst nicht aus. Das sind 21 Stunden, sodass es nur 43 Stunden sein werden. Es ist absolut möglich.
Diejenigen, die mehr Unterricht haben wollen zum Üben, müssen ihn unobligatorisch mehr haben. Die haben doch mehr die Schulstunden angefüllt. Wenn es die Eltern wünschen, kann man es unobligatorisch zufügen. Was in diesen Handarbeitsstunden geschieht, ist eine Art Unterhaltung. Da brauchen sie [Sie?' am wenigsten zu tun. Dass es Schulen gibt, die vier Stunden Handarbeitsunterricht erteilen, das ist [für uns] unmöglich. Wir haben keine Mädchenvolksschule. Wenn wir auf diese Dinge eingehen, dann ist es nicht möglich, einen Stundenplan zu machen. Wir müssen darauf bestehen, einen ordentlichen Stundenplan zu haben. Es ist viel gescheiter, wenn man solchen Dingen nicht nachgibt. Es gibt [auch] den Wunsch, dreimal so viel Eurythmiestunden zu haben. Es könnte eine Anzahl Knaben geben und einen Klub harmloser Mathematik gründen. (Anspielung auf die am 4. Oktober besprochenen Geschehnisse.' Wir können nur aus sachlichen Untergründen die Sachen einteilen. Es wird niemand behaupten, dass in zwei Stunden [nicht?] mehr gelernt wird als in einer. Wenn für den Handarbeitsunterricht eine Stunde zu wenig ist, so ist für den Rechenunterricht nur ein Viertel der Zeit da, die angewendet werden sollte. Mit demselben Recht, mit dem man sagt, eine Stunde Handarbeitsunterricht ist zu wenig, mit genau demselben Recht müsste man sagen, es müssten viermal so viel Rechenstunden sein. Man würde den Kindern das andere entziehen, was sie zum Menschen macht, wenn man auf eine Sache so alles verwendet_ Es wird auch auf den Rechenunterricht nicht so viel verwendet. Sie werden [Zeit] gewinnen für den Handarbeitsunterricht, wenn man ihn [ökonomisch j gestaltet, und die Kinder daran gewöhnt, dass es nicht notwendig ist, [dass sie eine Stunde brauchen], um [alle] daran.zukornmen. Da könnten sie im Rechnen auch eine halbe Stunde brauchen, um daranzukommen. Ökonomie des Unterrichts muss sein. Das ist von Anfang an gesagt worden.
Ja, nun scheint mir aber, dass wir jetzt die Sache nach den Lehrfächern erschöpft haben.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Eine Religionsunterrichts-Gruppe muss auf den Nachmittag verlegt werden. Sonst müssten wir einen Religionslehrer mehr haben. Könnte nicht einer der Theologen [Priester] der Christengemeinschaft eintreten?
RUDOLF STEINER: Bock, Spörri, Rittelmeyer. Der Fonds von Lehrern, den das Lehrerkollegium für den Religionsunterricht hergibt, ist erschöpft, zum Teil durch die Zeit. Und in Stuttgart haben wir niemand. Wir haben den unseligen Versuch gemacht mit Arenson. Wir haben niemand in Stuttgart.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN: Ich würde die Stunde geben.
RUDOLF STEINER: Sie müssen längere Zeit hier leben, Man kann sich das nicht vornehmen. Vielleicht später einmal, wenn Sie dazu den Beruf fühlen. jetzt sind Sie zu kurz in Stuttgart und in der Schule. Das ist nicht möglich.
[Zu Maria Röschl] Wenn Sie nicht siebzehn Stunden hätten, würde ich das Ihnen auferlegen.
[Zu Johannes Geyer:] Ich war so wenig mit Ihrem Lateinunterricht einverstanden, dass ich dafür nicht die Verantwortung übernehmen könnte. Sie rrrüssen verzeihen, nachdem Sie mir die Enttäuschung bereitet haben, dass ich ganz frisch von der Leber weg rede. Nach dem, wie ich [an Ihrem] Lateinunterricht teilgenommen habe, kann ich die Verantwortung nicht übernehmen. Der Religionsunterricht ist ein sehr verantwortungsvoller Unterricht.
Die 11. Klasse ist nicht zufrieden. Es ist nicht maßgebend, aber es ist das wohl, dass es eine Zeit lang zu sehr als Sprachunterricht betrachtet wurde.
Herr Baumann hat auch zu viel Stunden.
HANS RUTZ: Harmonielehre würde ich übernehmen.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE: ich würde gerne [Religionsunterricht geben].
RUDOLF STEINER: Vielleicht in fünf Jahren, wenn Sie bis dahin sehr fleißig sind. In diesen Dingen muss man sich einleben. Man darf nicht ohne volle Verantwortung in die Sache hineingehen. Denken Sie nach, was es bedeutet, dass in ihnen das religiöse Leben entzündet wird. Es muss entzündet werden das religiöse Leben. Es kann auf vielerlei Art entzündet werden. — Wie wäre es, Herr Wolffhiigel?
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: ich glaube nicht, dass es geht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich glaube, Sie könnten sich hineinfinden. Ich muss ganz objektiv die Dinge nehmen. Ich glaube es verantworten zu können bei Ihnen und bei Herrn [Baumann] auch.
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: Ich müsste mich vorbereiten für beide Unterrichte.
RUDOLF STEINER: Vorbereitung ist viel notwendig, und Stimmung. Ich glaube, Herr Wolffhügel hat vor der Handlung das Grauen. Der Religionsunterricht müsste Ihnen liegen. Nach dem, wie Sie den Unterricht auffassen> müsste der Unterricht Ihnen liegen. Ich habe Sorge, dass es Sie überlastet.
PAUL BAUMANN: Ich müsste den Musikunterricht etwas anders einrichten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das ist aber auch nicht wünschenswert. Am wünschenswertesten wäre es, wenn es jemand aus der Schule sein könnte. Es könnte auch jemand von außerhalb sein. Es ist traurig, dass es hier niemand sein sollte. Es ist merkwürdig, dass noch nicht irgendjemand herangezogen sein sollte zu diesem Beruf. Nicht wahr, das Kirchenkollegium, die Synode, Spörri, Rittelmeyer, Bock, da wüsste ich trotzdem niemanden darin, der geeignet wäre, den Religionsunterricht bei uns zu erteilen. Sie können es so auffassen, dass die zu hoch sind dazu. Sie können es auch im Guten deuten. Es handelt sich nicht darum, jemandem etwas anzuhängen, um eine gute Interpretation zu haben. Wenn Dr. Geyer mitgekommen wäre (Nürnberg?), wäre es für ihn sehr gut, bei uns den Religionsunterricht zu haben. Dem sind seine Witze vergangen. Von dem Moment, wo er sich entschlossen hat, nicht [?] mitzutun, konnte er wieder Witze machen. [Den] Dr. Baravalle schätze ich außerordentlich für wissenschaftliche Dinge, aber den Religionsunterricht gebe ich ihm doch in keiner Klasse. Das tue ich nicht. Er weiß sehr gut, dass ich ihn außerordentlich schätze,
Dr. Heisler, der hat es schwer, der wird mit seinen eigenen Kindern nicht fertig. Das [eine] wird geprügelt und ist ein Kind, das darauf angewiesen wäre, im höchsten Grade pädagogisch behandelt zu werden. Wenn sie den Jungen noch ein halbes Jahr [dort.] in der Schule lassen, dann ist er für das Leben verdorben. Der Lehrer prügelt ihn. Die Mutter ist zum Lehrer gegangen und wollte mit ihm reden und begann zu dein Lehrer zu reden: «Ich möchte also mit Ihnen nicht sprechen als Lehrer, sondern als Mutter zum Menschen.» — «Mich als Menschen anzureden, das lasse ich mir nicht gefallen!» Sie ging zum Direktor und sagte ihm das. «Ja, wissen Sie, wenn Sie in unserer Schule einen Lehrer als Menschen anreden, dann kann es nicht anders sein, als dass Sie in dieser Weise abgefertigt werden. Das ist eine Beleidigung.»
Mich erinnert das an eine Geschichte, die einmal an der belgisch-deutschen Grenze passiert ist mit einer Russin, die von London nach Petersburg gefahren ist. Sie kommt durch Holland an die deutsche Grenze und will sich russisch benehmen. Der Zollbeamte kommt und sagt, ja, das Gepäckstück, das muss sie herunterschaffen. «Sehen Sie einmal an, das ist so schwer. Können Sie mir nicht helfen?» — «Ich, helfen? Wie kommen Sie dazu, das von mir zu verlangen? Bin ich hier ein Mensch? Ich bin hier ein königlich-preußischer Beamter und kein Mensch. Wenn Sie auf dem Marktplatz gehen würden, würde ich mich Ihnen zur Verfügung stellen und den Koffer tragen, aber hier an dieser Stelle bin ich königlich-preußischer Beamter. Da darf ich das nicht herunternehmen.»
Ich fürchte mich bei Ihnen wegen der Stundenzahl.
PAUL BAUMANN: Ich müsste mich sehr viel vorbereiten.
RUDOLF ST EINER: Würde der Musikunterricht nicht leiden darunter? Die Kinder würden es bedauern. Dazu dürfen wir es nicht kommen lassen.
Herr Boy [würde sich wohl einmal sehr gut eignen, aber er] ist [erst] zu kurze Zeit da für den Religionsunterricht. Man muss die Anthroposophie [länger] miterlebt haben bei diesem Freien Religionsunterricht.
Wer trägt hier in Stuttgart vor? Heyer hätte zwar den Geist und alles, aber er hat nicht das Temperament zum Lehrer. Frau Plincke ist nicht gesund genug. Es ist auch unter den anthroposophischen Freunden niemand. Die Gruppen sind sehr groß. Wir müssen sie anders gruppieren, bis wir jemanden enden. Man zerbricht sich vergeblich den Kopf heute. Es treten die Symptome für unsere Gesamtschwierigkeiten auf. Wir sind jetzt dadurch, dass wir alle diese Institutionen haben, Waldorfschule und Bund für freies Geistesleben, in einer solchen Lage, dass wir tatsächlich Kapazitäten brauchen. Wir brauchen Kapazitäten auf verschiedenen Gebieten. Beim Unterricht handelt es sich darum, dass die betreffende Persönlichkeit am richtigen Platz stehen muss. Es mag sogar unter Umständen, rein äußerlich genommen, manchmal der Unterricht weniger gut ausschauen. Aber auch die Persönlichkeit als solche kommt bei dieser Form des Unterrichts außerordentlich stark in Betracht. — Unter den Ärzten müsste auch jemand sein. Dem jungen Husemann würde ich es gleich geben. Es sind schon unter den Theologen solche, denen ich ihn sehr gern anvertrauen würde. — Dern Eyberg würde ich für lange Zeit überhaupt keinen Unterricht geben. Ich habe ihm gesagt, er mag zu Ostern wieder anfragen. Ich habe ihm gesagt, in welcher Zeit es ganz gewiss nichts gibt. Er hat mir gesagt, er wird zum «Freien Geistesleben» [Verlag] gehen. Dass jemand schlechte Artikel schreibt, ist doch keine Vorbedingung zum guten Waldorflehrer.
ERNST UEHLI: Er hat gewisse Qualitäten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich habe ihn neulich kennengelernt. Er ist ein netter junger Mann. Er kann gar nichts. Es gibt keinen Gegenstand, in dem er [Lehrer] werden kann. Er kann von keinem Gegenstand etwas. Es scheitert schon daran; er kann keinen Klassenunterricht übernehmen. Er kann nichts in einer höheren Klasse übernehmen.
ERNST UEHLI: Er hatte die Meinung, dass er auf die Waldorfschule als Lehrer kommt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es kann doch niemand behaupten, er werde Waldorflehrer, wenn er gefragt worden ist, was er kann, und er sagt, deutsche Literaturgeschichte.
ERNST UEHLI: Es ist mir lieb, dass ich Auskunft erhalte.
EUGEN KOLISK0: Er hat das Gespräch missverstanden.
RUDOLF STEINER: Den Plan, zum [«Freien Geisteslebern] zu gehen, hat er erst gefasst, als ich ihn abgewiesen hatte. Ich habe ihm nur gesagt, dass bis Ostern nichts ist. Dass aber dann etwas sein würde, habe ich ihm nicht gesagt. Weniger kann man schon nicht können. Ja, wir müssen uns behelfen.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Wenn ich jetzt den Stundenplan umändern muss, eine Änderung in der Lehrkräfteverteilung wird doch nicht nötig sein mit Ausnahme der Konsequenzen, die es für die Parallelgruppen hat?
RUDOLF STEINER: Eine Änderung der Lehrkräfte wird nicht nötig sein, wenn wir es nicht doch vorziehen, für den Sprachunterricht anders zu gruppieren, was jetzt ginge.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Es wäre möglich, den Sprachunterricht zu verlegen auf Dienstag, Mittwoch, Freitag von zehn bis zwölf.
RUDOLF STEINER: Frau Plincke hat aber in ihrer Klasse, 8a und 4b Sprachunterricht. Frau Plincke würde haben 2b, 4b, 8b. Alle Sprachstunden können auch zu gleicher Zeit sein. Die Klassen verteilen sich auf die Tage. Es wird so sein, dass allerdings die Sprachstunden zu gleicher Zeit sind, aber nicht jede Klasse wird an zweiter Stelle, [von zehn bis elf], jeden Tag eine Sprachstunde haben.
Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten.. Entweder man wird für die ganze Schule, damit man wechseln kann, am Dienstag, Mittwoch, Freitag von zehn bis zwölf Sprachunterricht legen. Sechs Sprachstunden haben wir [zum Beispiel] in der 2. Klasse. Das gibt an drei Tagen für jeden Tag zwei Stunden. Die liegen [von] zehn bis zwölf. Das wird ausgefüllt durch die eigene Klasse. Jetzt sind noch fünf Stunden [in anderen Klassen]: Montag, Dienstag, Mittwoch, Donnerstag, Freitag, Samstag. Man kann noch immer in ebenso viel Klassen Sprachunterricht machen mit anderen Schülergruppen. Man kann den Hauptunterricht für sich machen von der 1. bis zur 11. Klasse. Jetzt kann man die Schüler anders gruppieren. Dann aber hat man auch nur so viel Klassen im Sprachunterricht, und es verteilt sich wieder so. Man kann eine solche Radikalkur nicht ganz pedantisch durchführen. Man wird doch zwei bis drei schwache Schüler haben.
EUGEN KOLISKO: Man müsste übersehen, um welche Schüler es sich handelt. Es müsste eine Aufnahme gemacht werden nach drei Stufen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Vorläufig müssen wir es lassen, wie es ist. Das ist eine Sache, die wir jetzt gar nicht machen könnten. Das können wir nur machen, wenn ich ein paar Tage anwesend sein sollte. Zunächst muss es so gemacht werden, dass der Sprachunterricht [möglichst) bei denselben Lehrern bleibt.
PAUL BAUMANN: Es wäre nicht wünschenswert, die Stunden von zwölf bis eins zu benützen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die übrig bleibenden Gesangstunden [kann] man auf den Nachmittag verlegen. Stenografie können Sie noch immer machen von zwölf bis eins. Nur dass wir dabei bleiben können im Wesentlichen, dass wir den Unterricht zwischen acht und zwölf so gestalten, wie wir ihn besprochen haben. Das wäre jetzt in Bezug auf den Stundenplan.
Sind nun mit Rücksicht auf die Dinge, die beschlossen worden sind, Wünsche aufgetaucht? Wir sind zu dem Zweck zusammen.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN zur 1. Klasse. VIOLETTA PLINCKE über Schwierigkeiten mit Neuhereingekommenem HANS RUTZ ist bereit, Violetta Plinckes Anfänger zu übernehmen.
Es wird noch einmal gefragt wegen der Teilung einer Klasse im Sprachunterricht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Teilung wollen wir nicht weiter fortpflanzen. Das ist etwas, was die Organisation der Schule kaputt macht.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Die beiden Klassen haben zu gleicher Zeit Französisch.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich möchte diese Spaltung nicht weiter durchführen. — Ich würde doch ganz gerne den Tittmann anstellen, wenn wir finanziell gut [genug] stehen.
Es wird eine große Änderung hervorrufen, wenn wir nur die Situation ordentlich erfassen. Es muss die Situation gründlich erfasst werden. Diese starke Änderung wird bis in die Hauptfächer ihre Kreise ziehen, sogar bis ins Gemüt der Kinder hinein. Die Kinder werden sehen, dass doch eben mit manchen Dingen Ernst gemacht werden muss. Daran werden wir nichts ändern können, als dass der Stundenplan festgelegt wird. Es würde vielleicht gut sein, wenn vielleicht sich alle interessieren würden für den Stundenplan, für die Skizzierung des Stundenplans.
Dann. ist noch etwas, wenn es auch wirklich mir leidtut, ich möchte auf den G. B. zurückkommen. Es wird doch so nicht gehen. Denn er kommt doch zurück. Er sinkt in sich zusammen. Er wird immer schläfriger, kopfgelähmter.
Mehrere Lehrer sprechen über G. B.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Sein Zurückbleiben ist periodenweise.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das ist physiologisch bedingt.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Wenn es besser für ihn ist, so habe ich nichts dagegen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich würde auf meinen Vorschlag zurückkommen, dass wir ihn in die Parallelklasse geben, weil ich glaube, dass er da durcheinandergerüttelt würde. Es ist notwendig, dass man die falschen Stoffwechselablagerungen, die das Drückende ausmachen, behebt. Der junge ist ein guter, lieber junge, er kann nicht anders. Nicht wahr, nun ist dies das Letzte, was ich mir verspreche von ihm. Ich glaube, er wird nicht Latein und Griechisch wählen, und im Übrigen möchte ich, dass sich Baravalle [der Lehrer der Parallelklasse] mit ihm herumschlägt. Nicht weil ich glaube, dass er bei Ihnen [zu Caroline von Heydebrand] zurückkommt, sondern weil ich glaube, dass er das pädagogisch braucht durch seinen Stoffwechsel. Ich will ihn Ihnen nicht nehmen, wenn Sie darauf bestellen, aber ich würde es gerne probieren.
Ich hätte am liebsten, wenn er lauter Lehrer hätte. Heute hat mir sein Vater zugestanden, wie er seine Mutter herumkriegt. Er legt es raffiniert an. Ich würde gern haben, dass er lauter Lehrer hat, einfach, dass er die zwei Stunden, die er am Morgen hat, nicht einer Dame gegenübersteht. Ich möchte Ihnen nur nicht das Herz aus dem Leibe reißen.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND; Ich habe ihn halt so sehr gern.
RUDOLF STEINER: Aber unterrichten würde ich ihn doch von jemand andern lassen. Wenn Sie ihn nicht abgeben %vollen, haben Sie ein Recht auf ihn, Das Recht gestehe ich Ihnen schon zu, Wenn wir irgendein Mittel finden, wodurch wir ihm vielleicht pädagogisch helfen könnten, so sollten wir es doch tun.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Ich werde ihn Montag [in die Parallelklasse] zu Dr. Baravalle schicken.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Veränderung ist etwas, was bei dem Jungen etwas bedeutet. Sie werden sich schon daran gewöhnen.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Ich habe ihn jetzt schon drei Jahre.
RUDOLF STEINER: Aber gerade, weil Sie ihn drei Jahre haben. Ich glaube, dass für den jungen eine Veränderung notwendig ist. Ich kenne ihn seit länger, als er geboren ist. Es ist ein solches Zurückgehen der ganzen persönlichen Kapazität, und es ist ein ständiges Zurückgehen gewesen, das schon erschreckend ist. Daher möchte man etwas tun, was jetzt in diesen entscheidenden Augenblicken für ihn wichtig ist. Es ist die Gefahr vorhanden, dass der Junge dement wird.
[Zu Hermann von Baravalle, dem neuen Klassenlehren:] [Sie] müssten sich um ihn bekümmern. Sie müssen ihn in jeder Stunde nicht unberücksichtigt lassen, sondern [ihn] geradezu aufrütteln. Der Junge muss so gehalten werden, dass seine Aufmerksamkeit künstlich erregt wird, sonst sinkt er ganz in sich zusammen. Und er muss wissen, dass er deshalb [in die Parallelklasse] hineinkommt, muss es auffassen als eine Veränderung, die dazu bestimmt ist, dass er sich zusammennimmt. Man muss es ihm ganz klar machen, wie man sonst jemanden an einen fremden Ort versetzt. Es muss für ihn ein Evenement sein. Er hat diese Dinge von seiner Mutter. Das tritt in verstärktem Maße auf. Was bei den Eltern im Leibe bleibt, bei den Deszendenten geht es in die Seele über. Besonders solche Krankheiten, die mit den Stoffwechselablagerungen etwas zu tun haben, die zu kleinen Geschwürbildungen führen. Wie gefährlich es ist, möchte man gar nicht erzählen. Es ist eine gefährliche Sache. Der C. B. ist sein Bruder. Dann sind auch Mädchen da, [eine Schwester] hat denselben astralischen Typ wie er, der G. B.
Der [Schulrat] Eisele kommt zur Hilfsklasse. [Er kommt auch zur Handarbeit. Da braucht man sich noch weniger zu fürchten, als wenn er in die Hilfsklasse kommt. Vom Häkeln wird er nichts verstehen.] Er ist wohlwollend. Er möchte gerne einen guten Bericht geben. Er steht [durchaus] wohlwollend der Schule gegenüber. — Er hat die gleiche Überzeugung [wie] der Abderhalden: Es wird solch ein Staub in der Turnhalle entwickelt, dass [das Turnen] unhygienisch wird.
Ja, nicht wahr, dann habe ich mir noch viel überlegt über den Rechenunterricht in den verschiedenen Klassen. Für diesen Rechenunterricht würde ich Sie bitten, ihn so einzurichten, dass für die Fortsetzung, für das Nehmen von neuen Stoffen, der Epochenunterricht bleibt, dass aber für den Rechenunterricht in jeder Woche zwei [halbstündige] Wiederholungen im [übrigen] Hauptunterricht stattfinden. Das müssten wir ganz durchführen. In den oberen Klassen auch so.
Es wird gefragt, ob in den oberen Klassen diese Wiederholungsstunden auch dann vorn Mathematiklehrer gegeben werden sollen, wenn ein anderer Lehrer den Hauptunterricht in der betreffenden Klasse gibt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich sehe nicht ein, wozu das notwendig ist. Wenn das Kollegium, was ich eigentlich gemeint habe, ein Organismus ist, dann sehe ich nicht ein, wozu das notwendig ist. Warum soll Kolisko, der Chemie gibt, nicht die Wiederholung fortführen? Man würde voneinander etwas wissen. Wenn die Lehrer voneinander recht viel wissen, [dann] wird es nicht erforderlich sein. Ich sehe nicht ein, warum wir deshalb zu dem eminenten Fachlehrersystem übergehen. Es wäre wünschenswert, dass man es könnte. — Ich habe einen Mathematiklehrer gehabt, der kannte keine einzige Pflanze, was zutage trat, wenn er Schulausflüge machte. Aber er war streng für Mathematik und Physik und verstand von nichts anderem etwas. Er kannte nichts anderes als Böhmisch, Deutsch, Physik und Mathematik.
Dieses müssen wir so durchführen. Wir müssen dahin kommen, dass die Handhabung des Rechenunterrichts wirklich so wird, wie es bei Ihnen in der 8. Klasse ist. Soweit die ( Klassen] in Betracht kommen, die ich gesehen habe.
Was überhaupt notwendig wäre, sehen Sie, das ist das, dass beim Unterricht darauf gesehen würde — das fehlt fast durchweg —, bei Ihnen ist es sehr gut, dass die Kinder etwas können, dass sie könnend mitkommen. Darauf wird viel zu wenig gesehen. Es ist in den höheren Klassen das Prinzip des Dozierens eingerissen, und [der Unterricht] ist eine Sensation. [Sie hören zu], sie arbeiten nicht innerlich mit und können daher zu wenig. Das ist etwas, was sich auch herausstellt in der kleinen Fortbildungsschule in Dornach. Die Schüler und Schülerinnen interessiert ganz gut, was vorgebracht wird, aber sie kommen nicht könnend mit. Aber es sollte auch in den anderen Gegenständen berücksichtigt werden, dass sie etwas wissen und [etwas] behalten. Man sieht es den meisten [an] an der Art und Weise, wie sie sich benehmen bei dieser sokratischen Methode, die manchmal nicht gut durchgeführt ist. An der Art, wie sie sich benehmen, sieht man, dass die Sache doch nicht Seeleneigentum wird. Das müsste sie werden. Dazu ist notwendig, dass ein noch viel größeres Interesse und Verständnis besteht für das Echo, das aus der Klasse entgegenkommt. Namentlich für die höheren Klassen. Es fängt schon bei der 4. an, dass nicht mehr innerlich seelisch mitgearbeitet wird. Die müssen innerlich mitarbeiten. Fühlen Sie das nicht selbst, dass die Kinder viel zu wenig mitkommen? Dann sprechen Sie sich aus. Woran liegt es nach Ihrer eigenen Meinung?
KARL STOCKMEYER: Wir haben darüber sehr viel gesprochen; man gewöhnt es sich nicht so schnell ab.
RUDOLF STEINER: [Auf der einen Seite] wird zu viel doziert. [Und dann] liegt noch eine wichtige Frage vor. Wenn Sie etwas sokratisch im Unterricht entwickeln, geben Sie sich dadurch Täuschungen hin. Sie stellen Fragen über Selbstverständliches oder Unbedeutendes. Der größte Teil der Fragen, der gestellt wird, sind unbedeutende Fragen. Sie machen das nicht so, dass Sie jetzt etwas sagen, was der Klasse beigebracht werden soll, und dann den Unterricht so drehen, dass Sie fünf Minuten [danach] jemanden veranlassen, dass er es wiedergibt. Sie stellen Fragen über Selbstverständlichkeiten. Wichtig ist es, dass man in der Stunde den Unterricht so herumdreht, dass eines in Varianten mehrere Male vorkommt, dass die Schüler auch mitarbeiten müssen. Und dass man dann da hineinmischt, was in frühere Zeiträume zurückführt, sodass tatsächlich nicht Selbstverständlichkeiten oder Trivialitäten abgefragt werden. Das Dozieren ist nicht überwunden worden in Wirklichkeit. Es ist nur manchmal die Illusion vorhanden, dass es überwunden ist, während man weiter doziert und dazu nur Trivialitäten [fragt]. Die Trivialitäten müssen heraus. Man darf sich nicht selbst Illusionen hingeben.
PAUL BAUMANN fragt nach der Gabelung in Bezug auf das Künstlerische.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das wollen wir mit dem nächsten Schuljahr beginnen. Ich muss sagen, es würde mir widerstreben, etwa im Musikalischen eine Gabelung zu machen. Das müssten wir machen, wenn es solche gibt, die wir mehr nach dem Artistischen hin bilden. Vielleicht, dass wir das von der 12. Klasse an machen, eine künstlerisch-humanistische und eine Realabteilung. Das würde wirklich zu früh sein, wenn wir das jetzt schon ins Künstlerische hinüberbringen wollten. Es wäre eine musterhafte Sache, wenn wir eine künstlerische Mittelschule haben könnten. Nur müsste natürlich die Leitung artistisch sein. Das würde sich im Handumdrehen nicht machen lassen. Diese Gabelung wollen wir für die Schule ins Auge fassen.
ALEXANDER STRAKOSCH fragt nach Steilschrift und Schrägschrift.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das Wünschenswerte wäre schon, solange man das Schreiben mit der rechten Hand beibehält, dass man nicht eine steile Schrift führt. Es liegt nicht in der menschlichen Organisation, eine Steilschrift durchzuführen. Es braucht nicht eine Liegeschrift zu sein, aber eine Schrift, die künstlerischen Eindrücken genügen kann, Die Steilschrift genügt nicht einem künstlerischen Eindruck. Ich habe auseinandergesetzt, dass es zweierlei Arten gibt, zu schreiben. Die einen sind die Menschen, die aus dem Handgelenk heraus schreiben, die ihre Augen zum Schreiben nicht gebrauchen; die den Körper zum Mechanismus machen und aus dem Handgelenk heraus schreiben. Für dieses Schreiben hat es Schreibunterricht gegeben. Ich habe einen Herrn gekannt, der hat müssen, wenn er schrieb, den Buchstaben aus einem Kreis machen, er tanzte im Kreis, Dann gibt es die künstlerische Schrift, wo man mit dem Auge schreibt. Die Hand ist nur das ausführende Organ. — Nun wird man eine mechanische Schrift aus dem 1 Iandgelenk heraus niemals als Steilschrift entwickeln. Das wird immer nur Schrägschrift sein, sodass die Steilschrift nur als künstlerische Schrift gerechtfertigt sein könnte. Sie unterliegt dem Geschmacksurteil, [aber einem ästhetischen Urteil genügt sie nicht]. Sie kann nie schön sein, sie sieht immer unnatürlich aus. Daher ist sie nicht gerechtfertigt. Es gibt keinen Grund für die Steilschrift.
ALEXANDER STKAROSCH: Ich habe Kinder, die sind gewohnt, Steilschrift zu schreiben. Ich habe sie angewöhnt, schräg zu schreiben, und sie können es nicht. Ich bin nicht imstande, mir klarzumachen, warum sie liegend schreiben sollen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nicht wahr, die Dinge lassen sich nicht so durchführen, dass man sagt, ich werde jetzt die Schrägschrift lehren. Das kann man nicht machen. Man muss darauf hinarbeiten, dass man kein Kind mehr hat, das Steilschrift hat, [aber in den Oberklassen kann man nicht zu sehr darauf dringen.].
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN: Der K. [in meiner 4. Klasse] schreibt steil.
RUDOLF STE1NER: Bei dem können Sie schon anstreben nach und nach, dass Sie allmählich zu einer mäßigen Schrägschrift kommen, sodass nicht steil steht der Schattenstrich, sondern dass steil steht das Ganze, künstlerisch vertikal.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELUNI: Ich mache Schreibübungen [in der 4. Klasse] neben dem Naturgeschichtsunterricht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Man kann es schon tun. Es ist nur festzuhalten zunächst, dass man nicht dadurch dem Epochenunterricht widerspricht, [sondern] dass man es als fortlaufende Übung gelten lässt. Beim Rechenunterricht muss es so sein.
HANS RUTZ: Soll ich [in der 1. Klasse] den Schreibunterricht weiterführen, während ich rechne?
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Wiederholung wird doch nötig sein.
Es ist wünschenswert, dass man versucht, dass die Kinder selbst schreiben lernen. Zwischen dem achten und neunten Jahr sollten sie nach unserer Ansicht sogar doch eben schon mangelhaft schreiben können. Es kommt dazu der Opportunismus, dass wir es hier so weit gebracht haben müssen, wie das gewöhnliche Volksschulziel ist.
WILHELM RUHTEN BERG: Ich habe eine Engländerin [in die 6b] bekommen, die kein Deutsch versteht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Man muss die Leute verpflichten, dass sie alle Konsequenzen auf sich nehmen. Natürlich müssen Sie die Zeit abwarten, bis sie Deutsch kann.
WILHELM RUHTENBERG Sie ist seit September da.
RUDOLF STEINER: In sechs Wochen kann sie nicht genügend Deutsch können, aber im Frühling wird sie schon darüber hinweg sein. Man muss sagen, dass sie alle Konsequenzen auf sich nehmen muss. Es ist gar kein Grund vorhanden, warum man deshalb, weil die Kinder nicht Deutsch können, die Kinder nicht hereinnehmen soll.
Mehrere Lehrer äußern sich wegen W. St.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn ihn Boy nehmen will und er zufrieden ist, so ist es gut.
HERBERT HAHN fragt wegen des Lesestoffes in der 4. Klasse, nach den Märchen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es wäre gut, wenn die Waldorflehrerschaft sich damit befassen würde, ordentliche Textbücher zu machen, die unseren pädagogischen Grundsätzen entgegenkommen.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Die Fibel ist im Druck.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Dinge, die als Lehrmittel existieren, würde ich nicht gerne in die Klasse hineinnehmen. [Solche] Lesebücher in die Klasse [hineinzu]pfropfcn, hat etwas Zerstörendes. Es gibt natürlich einige nicht schlechte Sammlungen. Eine Sammlung ist von einem gewissen Richter. Eine legendarische Sagensammlung von Richter. Da sind keine trivialen Sachen darinnen, noch Dinge, die zu hoch sind. Selbst bei Grimms Märchen müssen Sie fortwährend auswählen. Aber einige gibt es, die nicht für die Schule zugerichtet sind.
Jemand erwähne ein Sagenbtgch.
RUDOLF STEINER: Was sind da für Dinge darinnen, die Sie kennen? Wenn der «Gute Gerhard» darin ist, dann ist es das Richtige. Das kann man verwenden, und das taugt auch für die 4. Klasse. Es sind sogar für den Lehrer brauchbare Anmerkungen darinnen. «Der gute Gerhard» ist ein vorzüglicher Stoff für dieses Lebensalter. Ich habe ihn anthroposophisch behandelt in einem Dornacher Vortrag.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN: Die Kinder haben auch Freude an Balladen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Da muss man eine Sammlung von guten Balladen machen, sonst kommt die Entdeckung, dass Wildenbruch ein Dichter ist. Es sagen einige Menschen, dass es einen Dichter Wildenbruch gibt.
MARIA UHLAND: Könnte man das Legendenbuch [auch] in der 3. Klasse verwenden?
RUDOLF STEINER: Sie müssten es erzählen. Die in der 4. Klasse können es selbst lesen. In der 3. Klasse [erst] dann lesen lassen, nachdem es erzählt wurde.
RUDOLF TREICHLER fragt wegen Lesestoff in der 5. Klasse.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es gibt nichts, was nicht anphilistert wäre. Probieren Sie es mit [den griechischen Sagen von] Niebuhr. Der ist nicht ganz neu; das ist vielleicht das Beste. Es ist etwas zu lang. Es ist schon ganz gut abgefasst.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGEL1N: Der K. P. [in der 4. Klasse] zehrt sich auf.
RUDOLF STEINER: Seit wann? Wer hat ihn früher gehabt? Bei manchen Dingen wäre es notwendig, dass man therapeutisch nachhelfen würde. Solch eine Eisenkur, wie ich sie heute Morgen beschrieben habe, die könnte man ihm im Einklang mit den Eltern beibringen. Man braucht nichts weiter zu [sagen], als dass der Junge an einer kaschierten Blutarmut leidet und dass er eine Eisenkur machen muss. Die ganze Sache übernimmt Kolisko, der Schularm. So kann das in der richtigen Weise beigebracht werden, wie nur möglich.
Man muss immer klar sein über den Fall. [Bei K. P.] handelt es sich darum, dass man dieses Eisen verwendet, das man bekommt, wenn man einen Wurzelabsud von der Kamille macht. Darin hat man das Eisen mit Schwefel, Kalium und Kalzium im richtigen Ausgleich. In der Wurzel der Kamille ist Eisen darinnen. So in dieser Weise. Nicht einen Tee, sondern eine Auskochung der Wurzel muss man machen.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Karsen und Paulsen wollen kommen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Der ist ein Idiot, aber er ist eine Autorität in Preußen. Haben Sie die Aufsätze gelesen, die er geschrieben hat? Sie hätten ebenso gut einen Stier herumführen können. Hier hat er sich vier Tage herumgedrückt, aber nicht die Spur ist bei ihm geblieben. Wirklich ein Idiot und eine Unterrichtsautorität der Gegenwart.
BETTINA MELLINGER über K H.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir geben ihn eine Zeit lang den] Dr. Schubert, der kann dann dies machen.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE fragt wegen E. H., 2b.
RUDOLF STEINER: Den müsste man auch heileurythmisch behandeln, ganz nach den Grundsätzen, die für solche Personen gegeben worden sind, die nicht gehen können.
JOHANNES GEYER: H. R. ist bei mir, elf Jahre alt. Seine Mutter meint, er sollte in die 6. Klasse kommen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Sache ist in Ordnung. Wenn alle R.-Kinder da sind, wird in jeder Klasse eines sitzen. Die A. R. macht auch nicht den Eindruck, als ob sie das Pulver erfunden hätte.
EDITH RÖHRLE fragt wegen E. E. in der 10. Klasse, die viel fehlt, weil die Schule sie anstrengt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das ist eine seelische Ansteckung. Man müsste ihr Belladonna beibringen.
EDITH RÖHRLE: Wäre die beruhigende [Heileurythmie-]Übung gut?
RUDOLF STEINER: Die können Sie machen zur Unterstützung der Belladonnawirkung. Machen Sie Heileurythmie-Übungen mit den Kindern!
JOHANNA DOFLEIN: Der R. M. müsste auch in die Hilfsklasse.
RUDOLF STEINER: Der ist als ein Nicht-stehen-Könner zu behandeln. Er rettet sich gegen das Umfallen. E. G. müsste behalten werden.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELTN wegen P Z.: Er [stört und] macht unnötige Bemerkungen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Sie könnten vielleicht neben dem, dass er heileurythmisch behandelt wird, ihn veranlassen, solche Dinge zu erzählen, worin er kopiert wird, und sich im Verlauf der Handlung selbst ad absurdum führt. Versuchen Sie, eine ähnliche Bemerkung in eine Erzählung zu verweben, wo jemand durch eine solche Bemerkung klatschnass wird, oder sonst etwas passiert. Er soll nicht gleich erkennen, was Sie wollen. Er wird auch zu diesen Dingen zu haben sein. Bei solchen jungen kommt es sehr leicht vor, dass nur für eine Zeit gewisse Unregelmäßigkeiten in der Hirnorganisation sind, und es bleibt eine Zeit lang, dass der astralische Leib nicht richtig in einer Hirnpartie eingeschaltet ist. Dann werden sie von einem kleinen Dämon besessen, diese Kinder. Das dauert vielleicht eine kurze Zeit, aber man muss etwas dazu tun. [In der Heileurythmiel sollen es dieselben Sachen sein wie für jemand, der nicht gehen kann.
Noch einmal wegen des ausgetretenen Schülers H. Z.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist eigentlich interessant. Er ist nämlich so, dass er in einen kurzen rhythmisch-pathologischen Zustand fällt. Er macht plötzlich zwei Zeilen unordentlich, dazwischen ist er furchtbar ordentlich. Eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf Worte ordentlich, vorher hat er ein Wort unordentlich. Dann wieder ordentlich. Der Junge ist nicht ganz normal, daher kommt es. Es fehlt ihm die durchgehende Aufmerksamkeit. Er kann mehr, als er zeigt, das sieht man aus der Schrift selbst. Es wäre gut, wenn Sie das sogar noch dazuschrieben, dass die Schrift selbst zeigt, dass er mehr kann, und nur durch eine Erlahmung der Aufmerksamkeit würde er sporadisch die Sachen schlechter machen, als er sie zu machen braucht. Das sind kleine epileptoidische Zustände, die auch vorübergehen.
VIOLFTTA PLINICKE über ein Kind, D., in der 2. Klasse, das selbst fühlt, dass es nichts dafür kann, wenn es unartig ist.
RUDOLF STEINER: Jetzt müssen Sie achtgeben, bis er neun Jahre alt ist. Bis dahin muss man ihn recht liebevoll behandeln, vielleicht auch allerlei Symmetrieübungen machen lassen, und darauf sehen, dass, auch wenn er Schreibfehler einsieht ... [Lücke in der Mitschrift]. Dann wird er schon ordentlich werden.
Wenn nichts mehr ist, werden wir [die Besprechung] beschließen können. Ich möchte Sie recht sehr bitten, eingedenk zu sein der Schwierigkeit, in die wir geraten sind und die wir besprochen haben, und ein wenig zu berücksichtigen, dass wir mit der Waldorfschule kein Fiasko machen dürfen. Das wäre ein furchtbarer Schlag im allerweitesten Umfange.
Wir müssen die Sache schon sehr ernst nehmen. Es schaut im weitesten Umfange alles hinein. Wir müssen es so ernst wie möglich machen. Ich bin überzeugt, je öfter man zurückkommt auf das Studium des ersten und zweiten Seminarkurses, umso besser ist es, um den wirklichen Geist in die Sache hineinzubringen. Der zweite Kurs wurde gehalten, um den Geist der Waldorfschule zu bringen. Man müsste ihn wieder vornehmen, damit der richtige Geist hineinkommt. Wir dürfen uns nicht gehen lassen. Wir müssen unbedingt Feuer in den Unterricht hineinbringen. Wir müssen Enthusiasmus haben. Das ist unbedingt dasjenige, was vielfach fehlt. Das müssen wir machen. Sonst ist es eben zu leicht [möglich], dass gerade bei einer Methode, die so sehr auf die Individualität des Lehrers abzielt, dass da sehr leicht ins Gegenteil verfallen werden kann. Der [Schulrat] Eisele hat gesagt: Mit unseren Lehrmethoden können wir mittelmäßige Leute vielleicht haben, aber mit Ihrer Methode brauchen Sie lauter Genies als Lehrer. ich will nicht behaupten, dass er recht bat. Etwas ist daran. Es kommt furchtbar viel auf die Individualität des Lehrers an. Es soll gerade die Individualität des Lehrers herausgeholt und gefördert werden. Es arbeiten die Kinder nicht genügend mit, und dann ist dies, dass man nicht genügend Feuer in die Klasse hineinträgt. Dann ist [dal manchmal ein gewisses spielerisches Element, das in den Unterricht hineinkommt, indem man die Kinder spielerisch beschäftigt, spielerisch im üblen Sinne. Es müsste doch jedem [Lehrer] eine tiefe, gründliche Freude machen, in die Klasse hineinzugehen. Denn im Grunde genommen ist in den höheren Klassen das Schülermaterial nicht schlecht.
Haben Sie etwas erhalten als Nachwirkung [auf die] Erklärung [betreffend die ausgeschlossenen Schüler (F. S.)]?
Er meint, dass man durch die Methode so weit gekommen ist, dass man eine ganze Anzahl Anthroposophenkinder herausgeworfen hat. Eine furchtbare Sache ist es schon. Ich habe mich gewundert, dass sie so wenig bitter empfunden wurde. Das ist das Bittere, dass es nicht so empfunden worden ist. Es ist etwas, was vom Gesichtspunkt der anthroposophischen Bewegung gefasst werden muss. Schon wie Sie hinkamen mit diesem schrecklichen Dokument, es unterschied sich diese Behandlung nicht von der Philisterbehandlung, die sich auch sonst abspielt. Dieses Nicht-mit-der-Seele-Dabeisein bei solchen Dingen, dieses mangelnde Feuer.
WILHELM RUHTEN BERG: Die G. W. [Schwester des O. VV.] empfand das als Unrecht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Man müsste sich um sie annehmen, sonst geht weiter der Kontakt verloren mit den Schülern. Es ist so sehr merkwürdig, dass in den oberen Klassen kein Verhältnis vorhanden ist von Lehrer zu Schüler. Es ist auch im Religionsunterricht nicht vorhanden.
HERBERT HAHN: Die Kinder wollen viel sprechen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist das dauernde Auftauchen der ganzen Aktion, und sie ist schon furchtbar.
WILHELM RUHTENBERG: Die Menschen sind nicht zufrieden mit der Erklärung in der Zeitung.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wie weit ist Doktor Schwebsch gegangen mit der Erklärung?
Es wird ganz gräulich besprochen und in der abfälligsten Weise. Es wird immer mehr bekannt werden, und es wird eine Waffe geschmiedet werden. Es ist jetzt eine große Organisation, die sich immer mehr zusammenschließt. Diese Sache ist eine Waffe, die man gut schmieden kann. So etwas wie ein solcher Elternabend wäre eine Art Kanal, durch den man selbst den Standpunkt klarmachen könnte. Man müsste danach suchen, die Schule zu verteidigen.
Es ist kein Herz für die anthroposophische Bewegung als solche dabei. Es ist kein Nerz dafür vorhanden, und das sind die Dinge, die gleichgültig genommen werden. Sehen Sie, nehmen Sie an, in kürzester Zeit ereignen sich zwei Fälle, die geeignet sind, aus dem Kreis der Mitgliedschaft [aus mangelndem Verantwortungsgefühl] die Bewegung ans Messer zu liefern.
Ich halte einen Theologenkurs ab, für den versprochen wird, dass er sekret behandelt wird. Sie schreiben Tag für Tag in Briefen die Sachen auf, und wollen sich das Porto ersparen und geben sie einem fremden Menschen mit, der es über die Grenze trägt und dem man es eines Tages abnimmt.
Es wird dem Dr. Schmiede! eine berichtigende [?] Mitteilung gemacht, wird nur getragen vom Klinischen Institut nach dem Laboratorium hinüber, aber nach wenigen Tagen hat sie Kully [in Arlesbeim.] veröffentlicht in seiner Zeitung. So viel [Mangel an] Verantwortlichkeitsgefühl ist vorhanden, und das ist dasjenige, was so bitter ist. Wie ich den Schmiede] hier angeredet habe, wird es als natürlich betrachtet. Gerade so, wie die Theologen-Misere als eine naturgemäße Sache betrachtet wird. Es wird aus dem Kreis der Mitgliedschaft die anthroposophische Bewegung durch den Mangel an Verantwortlichkeitsgefühl ans Messer geliefert.
Das ist [so, seit] die Sache zusammengefasst wurde und die anthroposophische Bewegung nicht mehr privater Ausdruck der Herzensangelegenheit war. Sobald anfängt, sich einzugliedern in die anthroposophische Bewegung dasjenige, was notwendig macht, dass sich Berufe ausgestalten, in dem Augenblick geht etwas aus, was sich wie ein Mehltau legt auf den Schwung der anthroposophischen Bewegung_ Es ist nicht der Enthusiasmus da in dem Moment, wo man sich auf die kurulischen Stühle setzt.
Es ist notwendig, dass die Waldorflehrerschaft vor der Welt etwas tut zur Rechtfertigung [des Schülerausschlussesj. Trotzdem ich gebeten habe, man solle die Schüler suspendieren, war die Sache so weit gediehen, dass man nichts anderes [tun] konnte, als dass man es so machte. Es war jeder Kontakt verloren. Die Schüler waren wütend. Es ist [ja] nicht anders behandelt worden. Die Sache ist ja en gros behandelt worden. Die ganze Sache hängt doch mit dem Ganzen zusammen. Es drückt sich in den Symptomen aus in einer okkulten Weise.
Der eine hat doch beim ersten Vorsitzenden sein Quartier gehabt. Wie ich hier war an diesem Sonntag, sagt Dr. Unger, er hätte es nicht gewusst.
PAUL BAUMANN: Wir waren überrascht, dass er hinausgeworfen wurde.
HERBERT HAHN fragt wegen der Rechtfertigung.
RUDOLF STEINER: Man kann nicht die Namen der Schüler nennen. Es müsste [aber] pariert werden dasjenige, was von außen als Waffe geschmiedet wird.
KARL STOCKMEYER fragt, ob das durch eine Darstellung in der «Anthroposophie» geschehen kann.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich habe doch gedacht, dass die Gelegenheit ergriffen wird, den Standpunkt der Lehrer irgendwie [zu verteidigen]. Wenn der Simons nach London geht, hält er eine Rede in Stuttgart. Man sucht sich doch die Gelegenheit, wo man ein Podium hat für diese Dinge. Es hat sich gehandelt um den Stein. Das, was erzählt worden ist, war eine verleumderische Verdrehung dessen, das Stein gesagt hat: Wenn man jemand ein Frauenzimmer nennt, braucht sie auch nicht ein Kind gehabt zu haben. Ich verstand nicht, worin die übertriebene Schlauheit bestand.
Was die ganze Aufregung hervorgerufen hat, war, dass die Dinge so gedreht worden sind, als wenn die Lehrer gegen die Schüler verleumderische Dinge verbreitet hätten. Mit dem Klub hing das zusammen, und die Schiller haben sich beleidigt gefühlt. Und eine solche Beleidigung ist von Stein zugefügt worden. Es ist alles auf die Karte gesetzt, dass die Lehrer über die Schüler Unrechtes verbreitet haben.
EUGEN KOLISKO erzählt die Sache von Sigmund Rascher und Frau H.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist eine merkwürdige Erscheinung, dass nicht alle Schüler etwas davon wussten. Das gibt es gar nicht, dass es nicht weiter herumgesprochen wird. Gehen denn die Schüler so mit verbundenen Augen vorbei? Ich betrachte es nicht als etwas Schönes. Wenn dies nicht bekannt wird, werden die schönen Sachen auch nicht bekannt. Eigentlich muss ich sagen, kommt mir das komisch vor [bei] solch einem Kapitalereignis. Es ist doch im Grunde ein Symptom von Schläfrigkeit. Es ist etwas, was mit Begründung angeführt wird: «Solch ein junge wie W. H.»
Thirty-ninth Conference
RUDOLF STEINER: My dear friends, what is particularly close to my heart at the moment is the timetable, which cannot remain as it is. I deeply regret that I did not have the opportunity to see and hear more of the school. But I was able to gain some insight during the longer period when I was at the school almost every day. The timetable as such cannot remain as it is, because it would lead to too much fragmentation and distraction, and it is really irrational to leave it as it is. Of course, a change can only take place once there is clarity about the direction in which it should go. And for today's teachers' conference to be truly fruitful, it would be necessary for you to really speak your minds on all sides. I don't mean that we should just talk about the timetable. That should be the final result. But it would be desirable if the individual members of the faculty really spoke their minds about everything they have to say. Let's start with that now.
HERMANN VON BARAVILLE would like to have more weeks in the 11th grade for mathematics and physics.
RUDOLF STEINER: Such a thing cannot be done other than in harmony with everything else. First, we need to gain an overview of what we need to do with language teaching in the different classes. We need to gain this overview. Namely, this cannot remain as it is. But it is connected with everything else.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE would like to divide 8b in language teaching. Hans Rutz should take the beginners, and she herself the advanced students.
RUDOLF STEINER: We cannot divide the class[es] in any way we like, as the examples multiply. We can only really do this if we take a radical approach and group the students according to their abilities for language teaching. We have to do this. [Otherwise] it will lead to an endless, rubber-like expansion of the timetable, [which] then becomes excessive. The timetable has become an impossible construct. Otherwise, we will end up with a pedagogical method based entirely on human development and human knowledge, but which ultimately produces the most unpedagogical results that can possibly be achieved. It is easier to turn the good into its opposite than the bad. The bad is not so far removed from its own nature. So, isn't it true that the timetable as it is now is a monstrosity?
MARIA RÖSCHL would like to have Greek and Latin [in the higher grades] after the main lessons, and always two hours in a row.
RUDOLF STEINTER: [That's good], especially if the lessons are coordinated [somewhat]. One hour with formal study, the other hour with reading. Then it's better to have two hours in a row.
With Greek and Latin, the only way to maintain the program is to let children of a certain grade decide whether they want to study French and English or Greek and Latin. This is absolutely necessary. We must work towards enabling the children to pass their high school graduation exams. And the only way to achieve this is to let them decide — in consultation with their parents — whether they want to study Greek and Latin or French and English. Since we start French and English in the 1st grade, there is no doubt that we can do something to help the older students who are studying Greek and Latin to repeat the material if they wish. But we must make this distinction.
MARIA RÖSCHL: From which grade would this division occur?
RUDOLF STEINER: Those who want to take Greek and Latin are equivalent to those who want to take the [high school] Abitur. As things stand today, there is actually little reason to maintain the full Greek and Latin lessons as they are currently taught, unless one expects those who are aiming for the high school diploma to also benefit from the Waldorf school method.
CHRISTOPH BOY: The students have to keep French because it is an exam subject.
RUDOLF STEINER: But in general, since we start language teaching at the very beginning of elementary school, it would be disastrous if we could not continue with a very small amount of repetition at the older level, when they have to take Greek and Latin. We have to figure out how to avoid repeating what we already know. The way things are now, it's not sustainable. The timetable is monstrous and unpedagogical.
BETTINA MELLINGER suggests combining the parallel classes for new languages in grades 7 and 8 and forming one group of beginners and one group of advanced learners: as they are now mixed together, not much is achieved.
RUDOLF STEINER: [Everywhere] else, in the higher grades, the less capable children are left behind. Even in elementary school, the less capable are left behind. Since we will not do that, we have to overcome a number of obstacles in this direction. There will always be a mix of capable and non-capable children. Those who cannot keep up disrupt the lesson because they are bored.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE: There are also capable children who simply have no knowledge. They are very disruptive.
RUDOLF STEINER: We have to approach this somewhat systematically. First of all, we will establish the following. [To Karl Schubert:] You will begin Greek and Latin in the 5th grade, and Miss Röschl will teach the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th grades. So in the 5th and 6th grades, we must [all four] leave foreign languages, right, [at least Latin]. So that's how it will remain. From the 7th grade onwards, it must be done in such a way that in all subsequent grades, those who choose Latin and Greek have these as their main subjects, and French only as a review lesson, which is taken away from handicrafts lessons. They must give up English.
In the 5th and 6th grades, there would be English, French, [and optional] Latin and Greek. In the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th grades, there would only be French review lessons, and otherwise those who cannot take Latin and Greek would continue to have their regular lessons [in French and English].
Several teachers say that two hours for foreign languages in the upper grades is not enough.
RUDOLF STEINER: In that case, it would be good to group these classes together. Of course, those who have had no French or English lessons at all can hardly be children who are entitled to take the Abitur. Well, these are elementary school children who are not taking the Abitur, so what is the difficulty?
HEEBEHT HAHN proposes grouping.
RUDOLF STEENER: This does not change anything for Latin and Greek lessons. They remain as they are. Greek, then. From the 7th grade onwards, French replaces handicrafts as a revision subject. Under these circumstances, it must be possible for those who choose Latin and Greek lessons to have their lessons immediately after the main lessons.
MARIA RÖSCHL: Couldn't we start doing that from the 8th grade onwards?
RUDOLF STEINER: If we stick to the number of lessons, five years is not too little for Greek and Latin. However, since we will be removing French revision lessons from handicrafts lessons in the future, we will have more French in addition to Latin and Greek. We can only omit English in the 7th grade. But if we have English lessons through six grades, then I would like to meet the person who would claim that this is too little for what one should know in English. If it is carried out completely from the 1st grade to the 6th grade, how can that be too little! [At most], the children might forget something. The children have certainly not learned too little if they have studied English through six grades. Isn't that right? English is usually not studied for more than six years. It is not something that is ahead of us, that it is done from the ages of 12 to 16; it is more difficult than for small children. If it is done with enthusiasm, if the lessons are not boring, six years are enough. It is the best time that can be used for this. They don't have any more Latin either. One more year at an unfavorable age.
MARIA RÖSCHL: Is there no possibility of a repeat lesson for English?
RUDOLF STEINER: At most, it could be that wishes arise from occult or non-occult backgrounds. Then it could be decided for the children. Such things can then be added. But first we have to bring the timetable into an acceptable form. That can only be done if we do not overload the timetable.
KARL STOCKMEYER: The French repeat lesson means many more hours for the pupils.
RUDOLF STEINER: That is not necessary. We are taking French away from handicrafts lessons. We are restricting handicrafts lessons altogether. We cannot do things in such a way that we allow handicraft lessons to be extended in the same way, because this would make the timetable monstrous. We have to take something away from handicraft lessons.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Should the [number of] hours for Latin and Greek remain the same?
RUDOLF STEINWR: Let's stick with four hours [a week]. —Now let's look at it from the other side. If we want to get along with Latin and Greek, let's look at it from the perspective that we say: Those who have Latin and Greek in grades 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 will have their main lessons first. Then they will have Latin and Greek.
Now the next thing to consider is music. What do you have there?
PAUL BAUMANN: Singing lessons, orchestra, and choir. Not everyone joins the orchestra.
RUDOLF STEINER: Is that also in the morning? Isn't there a possibility of making the timetable more organic by arranging it in such a way that we have the main lessons in these classes, for the students who have Latin and Greek, from 8 to 10 or 11? Then the Latin and Greek lessons would have to follow on for four days or [twice] two hours in a row. Then there would still be the possibility of taking something from the other subjects in the morning. What would be the first thing to consider? So, would the morning be more suitable for you for singing lessons and eurythmy lessons?
EDITH RÖHRLE: [Ch would like the morning.
RUDOLF STEINER: You don't need to do it that way, with one hour of general eurythmy lessons and one hour of tone eurythmy. It's better to do two hours of eurythmy. Otherwise, we'll end up in a bottomless pit. We need to have something fixed in it. We have to get rid of this randomness and capriciousness. Do two hours of eurythmy, then there will be a distribution of material. You shouldn't just throw away your curriculum in any old way.
So we would have [two] hours of eurythmy, four hours of Latin and Greek. Then the main lesson. Now, singing and music, right? There is still the possibility of having something like a choir and an orchestra.
PAUL BAUMANN: From the 9th grade [onwards], I felt the need for the children to be taught more music theory.
RUDOLF STEINER: If you do it, then I don't think it's too much. Then there's still the choir. You take that separately. Then it would be possible to move singing to the morning hours and finally do the choir in the afternoon hours, and orchestra also in the afternoon. Then the morning hours would be reserved for main lessons, Latin and Greek, eurythmy, and singing. Then in the afternoon we would first have choir singing and orchestra. And those who have French and English should have French and English at the same time, so that we have them together, while the others have Latin and Greek. Handicrafts and physical education would have to be moved to the afternoon, especially for the higher grades. Can't handicrafts be done in the afternoon? So, handicrafts and physical education in the afternoon. In this way, a possible timetable can be created.
Physical education in the afternoon if possible. Physical education is not a form of recreation. It is not good to schedule physical education among the other lessons. Two classes can be held at the same time. I need to discuss the method with the physical education teachers. I have only made suggestions. But in physical education, it is always possible to arrange the exercises so that two large groups can be formed. Recently, outdoor physical education was quite good. It was very apparent how the boys have no control over their bodies, how they seem to be all over the place. The boys are very lacking in their control of their bodies, having not done physical education for three years. That cannot be denied. [To Paul Baumann:] You were also mentioned as a gymnastics teacher.
For the higher grades, I would at most encourage the children to work on some tasks on their own if they have free periods. But there is still religious education to consider, and then there is craft lessons. These are all things that would have to be moved to the afternoon. The point is that it gets dark in the afternoon. Artistic handicraft lessons can be held in the afternoon.
PAUL BAUMANN: The children ask whether shorthand is compulsory or not.
RUDOLF STEINER: There are several reasons why it should be compulsory. [Shorthand] is something that would actually only start in the 10th grade. Then we will change it so that we have one hour of shorthand per week [in the afternoon, compulsory]. It is quite good for the children to learn shorthand.
MAX WOLFFHOGEL: We wanted to give manual skills lessons periodically. Then the afternoon lessons will not be enough.
RUDOLF STEINER: We have to try it out with the regular curriculum. It has become more urgent. We have to implement it first. It will become necessary to hire a second teacher for these lessons as well. We have to include it in the afternoon.
MAX WOLFEHÜGEL: I don't want to abandon period lessons. They have proven to be effective.
RUDOLF STEINER: You will manage it with period teaching. If you do it in such a way that you have the main lessons first, Latin and Greek second, eurythmy and singing third, and the subjects mentioned above in the afternoon, then you can organize it. The one shorthand lesson can be inserted where it fits. Then, I would also think that one could fulfill a kind of ideal with regard to the other subjects, so that the main lessons are essentially in the first two hours. Then I would definitely want to follow that with languages from ten to twelve. That doesn't fill every day, so that something else can always be considered. Free religious instruction does not cause any difficulties in terms of the timetable. With the exception of religious instruction, it is possible for all lower grades to have main lessons, language lessons, singing, and eurythmy in the morning. It would be desirable if these could be moved to the afternoon.
Handicrafts lessons are easiest to conduct if they are moved to the afternoon. It would be possible to swap them with singing and eurythmy so that the same teachers don't have all the afternoons, although I don't think that would be advantageous. How many handicrafts lessons are there? We have 19 classes, so how many lessons is that? — If we divide such classes, we would have to have at least the same number of lessons. Then you wouldn't notice it in the timetable. But it is precisely because of this completely arbitrary arrangement, where you divide as you please, that you end up with an arbitrary timetable. If you divide the 8th grade, then you would have to use the same teachers for one half and the other half. The timetable doesn't make any sense.
ELISABETH BAUMANN: We had to divide almost all classes.
RUDOLF STEINER: We have to move the [divided] classes to the same hours, otherwise the children would be idle. If the language teachers also thought of this, then we would be busy all night. If we divide a class in the same subject, we have to schedule it at the same time. Any change to the timetable would have to be discussed at the conference where I am present. Of course, we accommodate things that are justified demands. But in this regard, it really is not possible to make the whole school inefficient. Is it necessary to divide so much?
ELISABETH BAUMANN: The classes are too large. Where there are more than thirty-two children, it is hardly possible.
RUDOLF STEINER: We have to distribute them among the different teachers and hold the lessons at the same time. Just give us the children that the others like and so on. Then it can be done. But it has to be done. We are falling into complete disrepute. We are straying from the spirit of the curriculum because of the timetable.
What is orthopedic eurythmy, what do you do there? Are they also in the afternoon? — I just wanted to know. — It would be better to call it eurythmic orthopedics. Orthopedic eurythmy has a bit of a connotation of “sinful angel.” A contradiction in terms.
Then there are thirty-eight hours of handicrafts lessons. The split classes must be at the same time. How many hours do we have? There are 62 hours. Why can't we stick to it? It would have to be divided over four afternoons. Miss Rommel has 24, Miss Hauck [24], Mrs. Molt and Mrs. Leinhas 14. I'm just glad that the handicraft teachers don't teach math. These 62 hours can really be spread over the afternoons.
KARL STOCKMEYER: You can only teach 16 hours in the afternoons.
RUDOLF STEINFR: That's how it should be in the future. Of course, it can only be done if we continue. I just wanted to know how many hours there are first. 62 hours. We would have four hours on four afternoons. If we make maximum use of it, it would be 16 hours, 48. We have to save 14 hours. In the future, in order to work this out, we will teach the first four grades for two hours [in a row per week] and all other grades for one hour [per week]. We would have to limit it somehow. Then we will have 22 hours in the [lower] four classes. That would cover all four classes. How many [groups] are there from 5th to 11th grade? 21 groups. You don't know each other. That's 21 hours, so it will only be 43 hours. It is absolutely possible.
Those who want more lessons to practice must have them on an optional basis. They have filled up the school hours more. If the parents want it, it can be added on an optional basis. What happens in these handicraft lessons is a kind of entertainment. That's where they [you?] have the least to do. The fact that there are schools that teach four hours of handicrafts is impossible [for us]. We do not have a girls' elementary school. If we go along with these things, it will not be possible to draw up a timetable. We must insist on having a proper timetable. It is much smarter not to give in to such things. There is [also] a desire to have three times as many eurythmy lessons. There could be a number of boys and a harmless mathematics club could be founded. (Allusion to the events discussed on October 4.) We can only organize things on the basis of objective considerations. No one will claim that more is learned in two hours than in one. If one hour is too little for handicrafts lessons, then only a quarter of the time that should be used is available for arithmetic lessons. With the same right with which one says that one hour of handicrafts lessons is too little, with exactly the same right one would have to say there should be four times as many arithmetic lessons. If we devoted all our energy to one subject, we would deprive children of the other things that make them human beings. Not even arithmetic lessons are given so much attention. You will gain [time] for handicraft lessons if you organize them economically and the children are accustomed to the fact that it is not necessary [for them to need an hour] to [all] get to grips with it. They could also need half an hour in arithmetic to get to grips with it. Teaching must be economical. That has been said from the outset.
Yes, but it seems to me that we have now exhausted the subject in terms of teaching subjects.
KARL STOCKMEYER: One religious education group must be moved to the afternoon. Otherwise, we would need one more religious education teacher. Couldn't one of the theologians [priests] from the Christian Community join us?
RUDOLF STEINER: Bock, Spörri, Rittelmeyer. The pool of teachers available to the teaching staff for religious education is exhausted, partly due to time constraints. And we have no one in Stuttgart. We made the unfortunate attempt with Arenson. We have no one in Stuttgart.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN: I would teach the class.
RUDOLF STEINER: You have to live here for a longer period of time. You can't just decide to do it. Maybe later, when you feel called to the profession. Right now, you haven't been in Stuttgart and at the school long enough. It's not possible.
[To Maria Röschl] If you didn't have seventeen hours, I would assign it to you.
[To Johannes Geyer:] I was so dissatisfied with your Latin lessons that I could not take responsibility for them. You will forgive me for speaking so frankly, after you have disappointed me. After participating in [your] Latin lessons, I cannot take responsibility for them. Religious education is a very responsible subject.
The 11th grade is not satisfied. It is not decisive, but it is probably because it was considered too much of a language lesson for a while.
Mr. Baumann also has too many hours.
HANS RUTZ: I would take on harmony.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE: I would like to [teach religion].
RUDOLF STEINER: Perhaps in five years, if you work very hard until then. You have to settle into these things. You can't go into it without taking full responsibility. Think about what it means to have religious life ignited within you. Religious life must be ignited. It can be ignited in many ways. — How about it, Mr. Wolffhügel?
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: I don't think it will work.
RUDOLF STEINER: I think you could find your way into it. I have to take things quite objectively. I believe I can take responsibility for you and for Mr. [Baumann] as well.
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: I would have to prepare for both lessons.
RUDOLF STEINER: Preparation is very necessary, as is the right mood. I believe Mr. Wolffhügel is horrified by the idea of acting. Religious education should suit you. Judging by how you understand the lessons, they should suit you. I am concerned that it will overload you.
PAUL BAUMANN: I would have to organize the music lessons a little differently.
RUDOLF STEINER: But that is not desirable either. It would be most desirable if it could be someone from the school. It could also be someone from outside. It is sad that there is no one here who could do it. It is strange that no one has yet been recruited for this profession. Isn't that right, the church council, the synod, Spörri, Rittelmeyer, Bock – I still can't think of anyone who would be suitable to teach religious education at our school. You could interpret this as meaning that they are too high-ranking for it. You can also interpret it in a positive light. It's not a matter of attributing something to someone in order to have a good interpretation. If Dr. Geyer had come with us (Nuremberg?), it would have been very good for him to teach religious education here. He has lost his sense of humor. From the moment he decided not to [?] join us, he was able to make jokes again. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Baravalle when it comes to scientific matters, but I will not let him teach religion in any of my classes. I will not do that. He knows very well that I have the utmost respect for him.
Dr. Heisler is having a hard time; he can't cope with his own children. One of them is beaten and is a child who needs to be treated with the utmost care. If they leave the boy in school for another six months, he will be ruined for life. The teacher beats him. The mother went to the teacher and wanted to talk to him and began to say to the teacher: “I don't want to talk to you as a teacher, but as a mother to a human being.” — “I won't tolerate you addressing me as a human being!” She went to the principal and told him. “Yes, you know, if you address a teacher at our school as a human being, then you can't expect anything else but to be treated this way. It's an insult.”
This reminds me of a story that once happened on the Belgian-German border with a Russian woman who was traveling from London to St. Petersburg. She arrives at the German border via Holland and wants to behave like a Russian. The customs officer comes and says, yes, she has to take down her luggage. "Look, it's so heavy. Can't you help me? “ — ”Me, help? How dare you ask that of me? Am I a human being here? I am a royal Prussian official here, not a human being. If you were walking in the market square, I would be at your service and carry your suitcase, but here and now I am a royal Prussian official. I am not allowed to take it down."
I'm afraid of you because of the number of hours.
PAUL BAUMANN: I would have to prepare a lot.
RUDOLF ST EINER: Wouldn't music lessons suffer as a result? The children would regret it. We mustn't let that happen.
Mr. Boy [would probably be very well suited, but he] has [only] been here too short a time for religious education. One must have experienced anthroposophy [for longer] in this free religious education.
Who is teaching here in Stuttgart? Heyer would have the spirit and everything, but he doesn't have the temperament to be a teacher. Mrs. Plincke is not healthy enough. There is no one among our anthroposophical friends either. The groups are very large. We have to group them differently until we find someone. We are racking our brains in vain today. The symptoms of our overall difficulties are becoming apparent. Now that we have all these institutions, the Waldorf School and the Association for Spiritual Science, we are in a situation where we actually need capacity. We need capacity in various areas. When it comes to teaching, it is important that the right person is in the right place. Under certain circumstances, purely from an external point of view, the teaching may sometimes appear less effective. But the personality as such is also taken into account to a very large extent in this form of teaching. — There should also be someone among the doctors. I would give it to the young Husemann right away. There are already some among the theologians to whom I would very gladly entrust him. — I would not give Dern Eyberg any teaching at all for a long time. I told him he could ask again at Easter. I told him when there would definitely be nothing available. He told me he would go to “Freies Geistesleben” [publishing house]. The fact that someone writes bad articles is not a prerequisite for being a good Waldorf teacher.
ERNST UEHLI: He has certain qualities.
RUDOLF STEINER: I met him recently. He is a nice young man. He can't do anything. There is no subject in which he [the teacher] can become a teacher. He knows nothing about any subject. That alone is enough to rule him out; he cannot take on any class teaching. He cannot take on anything in a higher class.
ERNST UEHLI: He thought he was coming to the Waldorf school as a teacher.
RUDOLF STEINER: No one can claim to be a Waldorf teacher when asked what they can do and they say German literary history.
ERNST UEHLI: I appreciate receiving this information.
EUGEN KOLISK0: He misunderstood the conversation.
RUDOLF STEINER: He only decided to go to the [Freie Geistesleben] after I had rejected him. I only told him that there was nothing available until Easter. I didn't tell him that something would be available after that. You can't do less than that. Yes, we have to make do.
KARL STOCKMEYER: If I now have to change the timetable, will it be necessary to change the distribution of teachers, except for the consequences this will have for the parallel groups?
RUDOLF STEINER: A change in teachers will not be necessary unless we prefer to group the language lessons differently, which would now be possible.
KARL STOCKMEYER: It would be possible to move the language lessons to Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
RUDOLF STEINER: But Ms. Plincke has language lessons in her classes, 8a and 4b. Ms. Plincke would have 2b, 4b, 8b. All language lessons can also be at the same time. The classes are spread over the days. It will be the case that the language lessons are at the same time, but not every class will have a second [from ten to eleven], have a language lesson every day.
There are two possibilities. Either language lessons are scheduled for the whole school on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday from ten to twelve so that students can switch classes. We have six language lessons [for example] in the 2nd grade. That makes two lessons per day on three days. They are [from] ten to twelve. This is filled in by your own class. Now there are five more hours [in other classes]: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. You can still teach language classes in just as many classes with other groups of students. You can do the main lessons for yourself from 1st to 11th grade. Now you can group the students differently. But then you only have so many classes in language lessons, and it's distributed that way again. You can't implement such a radical change in a pedantic way. You're bound to have two or three weak students.
EUGEN KOLISKO: You would have to overlook which students are involved. An assessment would have to be made according to three levels.
RUDOLF STEINER: For the time being, we have to leave it as it is. That is something we cannot do at the moment. We can only do that if I am present for a few days. For now, language lessons must remain with the same teachers (as far as possible).
PAUL BAUMANN: It would not be desirable to use the hours from 12:00 to 1:00.
RUDOLF STEINER: The remaining singing lessons [can] be moved to the afternoon. You can still do shorthand from 12:00 to 1:00. The only thing is that we can essentially stick to organizing the lessons between 8:00 and 12:00 as we discussed. That would be it in terms of the timetable.
Now that the decisions have been made, are there any requests? We are here for that purpose.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN on the 1st grade. VIOLETTA PLINCKE on difficulties with newcomers. HANS RUTZ is willing to take over Violetta Plinckes' beginners.
Another question is asked about dividing a class in language lessons.
RUDOLF STEINER: We do not want to continue with the division. It is something that disrupts the organization of the school.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Both classes have French at the same time.
RUDOLF STEINER: I do not want to continue with this division. — I would very much like to hire Tittmann if we are in a good enough financial position.
It will bring about a big change if we just assess the situation properly. The situation must be thoroughly assessed. This significant change will have an impact on the main subjects, and even on the children's minds. The children will see that some things have to be taken seriously. We will not be able to change anything except that the timetable is fixed. It might be good if everyone were interested in the timetable, in the outline of the timetable.
Then there is something else, and I am really sorry, but I would like to come back to G. B. It won't work like this. Because he is coming back. He is collapsing. He is becoming more and more sleepy, mentally paralyzed.
Several teachers talk about G. B.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: His falling behind is periodic.
RUDOLF STEINER: That is due to physiological reasons.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: If it is better for him, I have no objection.
RUDOLF STEINER: I would like to return to my suggestion that we put him in the parallel class, because I believe that it would shake him up. It is necessary to remove the false metabolic deposits that are causing the pressure. The boy is a good, dear boy, he cannot help himself. Isn't that right? Now, this is the last thing I expect from him. I don't think he will choose Latin and Greek, and besides, I would like Baravalle [the teacher of the parallel class] to deal with him. Not because I think he will come back to you [to Caroline von Heydebrand], but because I think he needs it educationally due to his metabolism. I don't want to take him away from you if you insist on it, but I would like to try.
I would prefer him to have only male teachers. Today, his father told me how he gets his mother to do what he wants. He goes about it very cleverly. I would like him to have only male teachers, simply so that he doesn't have to face a female teacher during his two lessons in the morning. I just don't want to tear your heart out.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: I just love him so much.
RUDOLF STEINER: But I would have someone else teach him. If you don't want to give him up, you have a right to him. I grant you that right. If we can find any means by which we might help him educationally, we should do so.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: I will send him to Dr. Baravalle [in the parallel class] on Monday.
RUDOLF STEINER: The change is something that means something to the boy. You will get used to it.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: I've had him for three years now.
RUDOLF STEINER: But precisely because you've had him for three years. I believe that a change is necessary for the boy. I've known him since before he was born. There has been such a decline in his overall personal capacity, and it has been a constant decline, which is already alarming. That is why we want to do something that is important for him at this crucial moment. There is a danger that the boy will become demented.
[To Hermann von Baravalle, the new class teacher:] [You] must take care of him. You must not ignore him in every lesson, but [shake him] up. The boy must be kept in such a way that his attention is artificially stimulated, otherwise he will completely collapse. And he must know that this is why he is being placed [in the parallel class]; he must understand it as a change that is intended to make him pull himself together. It must be made very clear to him how someone is otherwise transferred to a strange place. It must be an event for him. He has these things from his mother. This occurs to an increased degree. What remains in the parents' bodies passes into the souls of their descendants. Especially diseases that have something to do with metabolic deposits, which lead to small ulcerations. One does not even want to talk about how dangerous it is. It is a dangerous thing. C. B. is his brother. Then there are also girls, [a sister] has the same astral type as him, G. B.
The [school inspector] Eisele comes to the remedial class. [He also comes to the handicrafts class. There is even less to fear there than when he comes to the remedial class. He won't understand anything about crocheting.] He is benevolent. He would like to give a good report. He is [definitely] benevolent towards the school. — He shares the same conviction [as] Abderhalden: so much dust is generated in the gym that [gymnastics] becomes unhygienic.
Yes, that's right, then I thought a lot about arithmetic lessons in the different classes. For these arithmetic lessons, I would ask you to arrange them in such a way that, for the continuation, for the introduction of new material, the epoch lessons remain, but that for arithmetic lessons, two [half-hour] repetitions take place each week in the [other] main lessons. We would have to implement this completely. In the upper classes as well.
The question is asked whether these revision lessons in the upper classes should also be given by the math teacher if another teacher is giving the main lessons in the class concerned.
RUDOLF STEINER: I don't see why that is necessary. If the teaching staff, as I actually meant, is an organism, then I don't see why that is necessary. Why shouldn't Kolisko, who teaches chemistry, continue with the repetition? They would know something about each other. If the teachers know quite a lot about each other, [then] it will not be necessary. I don't see why we should switch to the eminent subject teacher system for that reason. It would be desirable if we could. — I had a math teacher who didn't know a single plant, which became apparent when he went on school trips. But he was strict when it came to math and physics and didn't understand anything else. He knew nothing but Bohemian, German, physics, and math.
We must get to the point where arithmetic lessons are really taught in the same way as they are in your 8th grade. As far as the [classes] I have seen are concerned.
What would be necessary, you see, is that attention be paid to this in class — which is almost completely lacking —. It is very good that the children are able to do something, that they are able to keep up. Far too little attention is paid to this. In the higher grades, the principle of lecturing has been introduced, and [the lessons] are a sensation. [They listen], they do not engage internally and therefore cannot do enough. This is something that is also evident in the small training school in Dornach. The students are quite interested in what is being presented, but they cannot keep up. However, it should also be taken into account in other subjects that they know something and retain [something]. You can see it in most of them in the way they behave with this Socratic method, which is sometimes not well executed. You can see from the way they behave that the subject matter is not becoming part of their soul. It should become part of their soul. To achieve this, there needs to be much greater interest and understanding of the response coming from the class. Especially for the higher grades. It starts as early as the fourth grade that they no longer participate inwardly with their souls. They must participate inwardly. Don't you feel yourself that the children are not keeping up nearly enough? Then speak up. What do you think is the reason for this?
KARL STOCKMEYER: We have talked about this a lot; it's not something you can get used to so quickly.
RUDOLF STEINER: [On the one hand] there is too much lecturing. [And then] there is another important question. When you develop something Socratic in class, you are deceiving yourself. You ask questions about things that are self-evident or insignificant. Most of the questions that are asked are insignificant questions. You don't do it in such a way that you say something that should be taught to the class and then turn the lesson around so that five minutes [later] you get someone to repeat it. You ask questions about things that are self-evident. It is important to structure the lesson in such a way that one thing is repeated several times in different variations, so that the students also have to participate. And then you mix in things that refer back to earlier periods, so that you are not actually asking about things that are self-evident or trivial. In reality, lecturing has not been overcome. It is only sometimes that there is the illusion that it has been overcome, while one continues to lecture and only asks trivial questions. The trivialities must be eliminated. One must not indulge in illusions.
PAUL BAUMANN asks about the fork in the road with regard to the artistic.
RUDOLF STEINER: We want to start that with the next school year. I must say, I would be reluctant to make a fork in the road in music, for example. We would have to do that if there are those who are more artistically inclined. Perhaps we could do that from the 12th grade onwards, with an artistic-humanistic and a real-world department. It would really be too early to transfer this to the arts now. It would be exemplary if we could have an artistic middle school. But of course, the management would have to be artistic. That couldn't be done in the blink of an eye. We want to consider this division for the school.
ALEXANDER STRAKOSCH asks about steep writing and slanted writing.
RUDOLF STEINER: It would be desirable, as long as one continues to write with the right hand, not to use steep writing. It is not in the nature of human organization to use steep writing. It does not have to be cursive writing, but it should be a form of writing that can satisfy artistic impressions. Steep writing does not satisfy an artistic impression. I have explained that there are two ways of writing. Some people write from the wrist, without using their eyes; they turn their body into a mechanism and write from the wrist. There have been writing lessons for this type of writing. I knew a gentleman who, when he wrote, had to make the letters out of a circle; he danced in a circle. Then there is artistic writing, where you write with your eye. The hand is only the executing organ. — Now, you will never develop mechanical writing from the wrist as steep writing. It will always be cursive, so that steep writing could only be justified as artistic writing. It is subject to the judgment of taste, [but it does not satisfy aesthetic judgment]. It can never be beautiful; it always looks unnatural. Therefore, it is not justified. There is no reason for steep writing.
I have children who are used to writing in cursive. I have taught them to write in italics, and they cannot do it. I am unable to understand why they should write lying down.
RUDOLF STEINER: It is not possible to say, “I am now going to teach italics.” You can't do that. You have to work towards ensuring that no child writes in steep handwriting anymore, [but you can't push too hard in the upper grades].
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN: K. [in my 4th grade class] writes in steep handwriting.
RUDOLF STEINER: With him, you can gradually strive to achieve a moderate italic script, so that it is not the shadow line that is steep, but the whole thing is steep, artistically vertical.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELUNI: I do writing exercises [in the 4th grade] alongside natural history lessons.
RUDOLF STEINER: You can certainly do that. It should just be noted at the outset that this does not contradict the epoch lessons, [but] that it should be considered a continuous exercise. This must be the case for arithmetic lessons.
HANS RUTZ: Should I continue writing lessons [in 1st grade] while I am doing arithmetic?
RUDOLF STEINER: Repetition will be necessary.
It is desirable to try to get the children to learn to write themselves. In our opinion, they should already be able to write, albeit poorly, between the ages of eight and nine. Added to this is the opportunism that we must have progressed as far as the usual elementary school goal.
WILHELM RUHTENBERG: I have an English girl [in class 6b] who doesn't understand German.
RUDOLF STEINER: People must be obliged to accept all the consequences. Of course, you must wait until she can speak German.
WILHELM RUHTENBERG She has been here since September.
RUDOLF STEINER: She cannot learn enough German in six weeks, but by spring she will have overcome this. It must be said that she must accept all the consequences. There is no reason why children should not be admitted because they cannot speak German.
Several teachers comment on W. St.
RUDOLF STEINER: If Boy wants to take him and he is satisfied, then that is fine.
HERBERT HAHN asks about the reading material in the 4th grade, about fairy tales.
RUDOLF STEINER: It would be good if Waldorf teachers would work on producing proper textbooks that are in line with our educational principles.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: The primer is in print.
RUDOLF STEINER: I would not like to bring the things that exist as teaching materials into the classroom. Grafting [such] reading books into the classroom has something destructive about it. Of course, there are some collections that are not bad. One collection is by a certain Richter. A legendary collection of legends by Richter. There are no trivial things in it, nor things that are too highbrow. Even with Grimm's fairy tales, you have to constantly select. But there are some that are not suitable for school.
Someone mentions a book of legends.
RUDOLF STEINER: What are the things in it that you know? If “Good Gerhard” is in it, then it's the right one. That can be used, and it's also suitable for the fourth grade. There are even useful notes in it for the teacher. “Good Gerhard” is excellent material for this age group. I treated it anthroposophically in a lecture in Dornach.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELIN: Children also enjoy ballads.
RUDOLF STEINER: You have to compile a collection of good ballads, otherwise they will discover that Wildenbruch is a poet. Some people say that there is a poet named Wildenbruch.
MARIA UHLAND: Could the book of legends [also] be used in the third grade?
RUDOLF STEINER: You would have to tell them the stories. Fourth graders can read it themselves. In third grade, let them read it [only] after it has been told to them.
RUDOLF TREICHLER asks about reading material for fifth grade.
RUDOLF STEINER: There is nothing that is not philistine. Try Niebuhr's [Greek myths]. It is not entirely new; that is perhaps the best. It is a little too long. It is quite well written.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGEL1N: K. P. [in the 4th grade] is wearing himself out.
RUDOLF STEINER: Since when? Who had him before? In some cases, therapeutic help would be necessary. An iron cure, as I described this morning, could be administered to him in consultation with his parents. All you need to say is that the boy is suffering from hidden anemia and that he needs to take iron supplements. Kolisko, the school nurse, will take care of everything. That way, it can be taught in the best possible way.
You always have to be clear about the case. [In K. P.'s case] it is a matter of using the iron that is obtained by making a root decoction from chamomile. This contains the right balance of iron, sulfur, potassium, and calcium. Chamomile roots contain iron. That is how it works. You have to make a decoction from the roots, not a tea.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Karsen and Paulsen want to come.
RUDOLF STEINER: He's an idiot, but he's an authority in Prussia. Have you read the essays he's written? You might as well have led a bull around. He hung around here for four days, but didn't retain a trace of it. Truly an idiot and a contemporary authority on teaching.
BETTINA MELLINGER about K H.
RUDOLF STEINER: We'll give him to Dr. Schubert for a while, he can do this.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE asks about E. H., 2b.
RUDOLF STEINER: He should also be treated with healing eurythmy, according to the principles that have been given for such people who cannot walk.
JOHANNES GEYER: H. R. is with me, eleven years old. His mother thinks he should be in the 6th grade.
RUDOLF STEINER: That's fine. When all the R. children are there, there will be one in each class. A. R. doesn't give the impression that she invented gunpowder either.
EDITH RÖHRLE asks about E. E. in 10th grade, who misses a lot of school because she finds it stressful.
RUDOLF STEINER: That is a mental contagion. She should be taught belladonna.
EDITH RÖHRLE: Would the calming [eurythmy] exercise be good?
RUDOLF STEINER: You can do that to support the effect of belladonna. Do eurythmy exercises with the children!
JOHANNA DOFLEIN: R. M. should also be in the remedial class.
RUDOLF STEINER: He should be treated as someone who is unable to stand. He saves himself from falling over. E. G. should be kept.
ANNA FRIEDA NAEGELTN regarding P Z.: He [disturbs and] makes unnecessary comments.
RUDOLF STEINER: In addition to treating him with eurythmy therapy, you could perhaps encourage him to tell stories in which he is copied and ends up making himself look ridiculous in the course of the action. Try to weave a similar remark into a story where someone gets soaked by such a remark, or something else happens. He shouldn't immediately recognize what you want. He will also be receptive to these things. With such young people, it is very easy for there to be certain irregularities in the organization of the brain for a time, and for a while the astral body is not properly connected to a part of the brain. Then these children become possessed by a little demon. This may only last for a short time, but something must be done about it. [In eurythmy therapy, it should be the same as for someone who cannot walk.
Once again about the student H. Z. who has left.
RUDOLF STEINER: It's actually interesting. The thing is, he falls into a brief rhythmic-pathological state. He suddenly writes two lines untidily, but in between he is terribly tidy. One, two, three, four, five words tidy, then one word untidy. Then tidy again. The boy is not quite normal, that's where it comes from. He lacks sustained attention. He can do more than he shows, you can see that from his handwriting. It would be good if you could even add that the handwriting itself shows that he can do more, and it is only because of a slackening of attention that he sporadically does things worse than he needs to. These are minor epileptoid states, which also pass.
VIOLFTTA PLINICKE about a child, D., in the 2nd grade, who feels that he cannot help being naughty.
RUDOLF STEINER: Now you must be careful until he is nine years old. Until then, you must treat him with great affection, perhaps also have him do all kinds of symmetry exercises, and make sure that, even if he realizes his spelling mistakes ... [gap in the transcript]. Then he will become neat and tidy.
If there is nothing more, we can conclude [the meeting]. I would ask you to bear in mind the difficulty we have encountered and discussed, and to take into account that we must not allow the Waldorf School to become a fiasco. That would be a terrible blow in the broadest sense.
We must take this matter very seriously. It has far-reaching implications. We must take it as seriously as possible. I am convinced that the more often we return to the study of the first and second seminar courses, the better it is for bringing the true spirit into the matter. The second course was held to bring the spirit of the Waldorf school. It would have to be done again so that the right spirit is brought into it. We must not let ourselves go. We absolutely must bring fire into the classroom. We must have enthusiasm. That is definitely what is often missing. We must do that. Otherwise, it is all too easy [possible] that, especially with a method that focuses so much on the individuality of the teacher, we can very easily fall into the opposite extreme. The [school inspector] Eisele said: With our teaching methods, we may be able to have mediocre people, but with your method, you need nothing but geniuses as teachers. I don't want to claim that he was right. There is something to it. An awful lot depends on the individuality of the teacher. It is precisely the individuality of the teacher that should be brought out and encouraged. The children do not participate enough, and then it is because there is not enough fire in the classroom. Then [dal sometimes a certain playful element enters the classroom by keeping the children busy in a playful way, playful in a bad sense. Every [teacher] should derive deep, profound joy from entering the classroom. Because, basically, the student material in the higher grades is not bad.
Have you received any feedback [on] the statement [regarding the expelled students (F. S.)]?
He believes that this method has led to a number of anthroposophical children being expelled. It is a terrible thing. I was surprised that it was not perceived as so bitter. The bitter thing is that it was not perceived as such. It is something that must be understood from the perspective of the anthroposophical movement. The way you arrived with this terrible document, this treatment was no different from the philistine treatment that usually takes place. This lack of soulfulness in such matters, this lack of fire.
WILHELM RUHTEN BERG: G. W. [sister of O. VV.] felt that this was wrong.
RUDOLF STEINER: One would have to take care of her, otherwise contact with the students will continue to be lost. It is so strange that there is no relationship between teacher and student in the upper classes. It is also absent in religious education.
HERBERT HAHN: The children want to talk a lot.
RUDOLF STEINER: It is the constant recurrence of the whole affair, and it is already terrible.
WILHELM RUHTENBERG: People are not satisfied with the explanation in the newspaper.
RUDOLF STEINER: How far did Dr. Schwebsch go with the explanation?
It is being discussed in a very gruesome way and in the most derogatory manner. More and more will become known, and a weapon will be forged. It is now a large organization that is becoming increasingly united. This matter is a weapon that can be forged well. Something like a parents' evening would be a kind of channel through which one could make one's own point of view clear. One would have to seek to defend the school.
There is no heart for the anthroposophical movement as such. There is no mink coat for it, and these are the things that are taken for granted. You see, suppose that in a very short time two cases occur that are likely to deliver the movement to the knife [due to a lack of responsibility] from within the circle of membership.
I am holding a theology course, which is promised to be treated as confidential. Day after day, you write things down in letters, and to save on postage, you give them to a stranger who carries them across the border and who one day takes them away.
A corrective [?] It is only carried from the Clinical Institute to the laboratory, but after a few days Kully [in Arlesbeim] has published it in his newspaper. There is so much [lack of] sense of responsibility, and that is what is so bitter. As I have addressed Schmiede here, it is considered natural. Just as the plight of theologians is considered a natural thing. The anthroposophical movement is being sacrificed by its own members due to their lack of responsibility.
This has been the case since the matter was summarized and the anthroposophical movement was no longer a private expression of a matter close to the heart. As soon as what is necessary for professions to develop begins to be integrated into the anthroposophical movement, something goes out that lays itself like mildew on the momentum of the anthroposophical movement. The enthusiasm is not there at the moment when one sits down on the kurul chairs.
It is necessary for the Waldorf teachers to do something in front of the world to justify [the expulsion of the students]. Although I asked that the students be suspended, the matter had progressed so far that there was nothing else [to do] but to do it that way. All contact had been lost. The students were angry. It was not treated any differently. The matter was dealt with en gros. The whole thing is connected to the whole. It expresses itself in the symptoms in an occult way.
One of them had his quarters with the first chairman. When I was here on that Sunday, Dr. Unger said he didn't know about it.
PAUL BAUMANN: We were surprised that he was thrown out.
HERBERT HAHN asks about the justification.
RUDOLF STEINER: You can't name the students. But you have to counter what is being forged as a weapon from the outside.
KARL STOCKMEYER asks whether this can be done through a presentation in “Anthroposophy.”
RUDOLF STEINER: I thought that the opportunity would be taken to [defend] the teachers' point of view in some way. When Simons goes to London, he gives a speech in Stuttgart. One looks for opportunities where one has a platform for these things. It was about Stein. What was reported was a slanderous distortion of what Stein said: If you call someone a woman, she doesn't need to have had a child. I didn't understand what the exaggerated cleverness was all about.
What caused all the excitement was that things were twisted as if the teachers had spread slanderous things about the students. This was connected with the club, and the Schillers felt offended. And such an insult was inflicted by Stein. Everything was staked on the teachers spreading falsehoods about the students.
EUGEN KOLISKO recounts the story of Sigmund Rascher and Mrs. H.
RUDOLF STEINER: It is strange that not all the students knew about it. It is impossible that word did not spread. Do the students walk around with blindfolds on? I don't consider it a good thing. If this doesn't become known, the good things won't become known either. Actually, I have to say, it seems strange to me [in the case of] such a significant event. It is basically a symptom of sleepiness. It is something that is cited with justification: “A young man like W. H.”
