Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:36:22 EST
Comments:     <Parser> W: SUBJECT field duplicated. Last occurrence was
              retained.
From:         mpriestley@VNET.IBM.COM
Subject:      W.H. Murray's post about buying an electronic keyobard for a kid
Comments: To: ethics-l%UGA.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu

Cute post.  You are reacting to Val Setzer's earlier posts about computers?

While I think "evil and corrupting influence" may be an overstatement,
I understand and sympathise with Val's position.   If you think your post
constituted a "reductio ad absurdem" I'm afraid you're wrong.  Whether or
not you agree with Waldorfian educational practises, they are consistent.
Grant them some basic premises and they make a lot of sense.

Waldorf tends to teach everything from the ground up; a child's education
in a particular subject-matter follows the progression of the subject
through history.  Every subject is given a historical context.  In chemistry,
we started with ancient greek speculation about atoms, progressed through
medieval alchemy, phlogiston, the Bohr model of the atom, and ended up
doing some pretty interesting (and current) things.  In math, we started with
Euclid basic postulates and ended with projective and spherical geometry etc.
In a study of agriculture, we progressed from planting seeds with our bare
hands in soil we had tilled ourselves, to a study of modern techniques in
farming and an understanding of the benefits and hazards of pesticides, etc.

How does this apply to music?  Waldorf preaches that you should always start
with a basic and (if possible) physical grasp of concepts.  The relationship
between action and generated sound is kept as direct as possible at a young
age: we used recorders (flute a bec's).  The interaction between child and
environment was kept as direct and simple as possible.  There was certainly
no problem with using an electronic keyboard in later stages of education;
we used one in the highschool choir for a recital once.  But a child gains
a direct and useful experience of his or her environment from banging on
a wooden xylophone that is lacking in an electronic keyboard.  For a child,
it is a "black box" that takes input and gives output.  The child won't have
an understanding of the basic principles behind music (eg the length of the
string, the length of a vibrating column of air, the way the material used
affects the tone, etc).  A computer is a complex machine, and Waldorf generally
only uses machines at a level that a child can understand.  Waldorf has a VERY
hierarchical understanding of educational development, with a map of what
should be taught when and what comes first.  Computers, as a relatively recent
development, belong later in the curriculum.

Whether or not you agree with the thoughts behind their position, Waldorf
certainly hasn't caused havoc with the development of the children it has
taught.  Some of tthem went wild with synthesizers once they started using
them; others ended up in computer programming.  They generally out-performed
their peers in university education.

Waldorf concentrates on basics, and BUILDS UP to complex structures and uses.
They are VERY consistent about this, and I don't believe they do anything
without careful consideration of the consequences.  So far, their results
have been extraordinarily positive.

I should mention that I am not a Waldorf teacher, but a former student.  As
such, I am extrapolating their educational philosophy from their practise.
They never bothered to teach us their philosophy; they just taught us.

Michael Priestley
Student in English, Philosophy, Drama - University of Toronto
Industry Internship Student - IBM Canada
Graduate, Toronto Waldorf School, 1987

My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, university,
co-workers, peers, friends, or anyone else on this planet.  I came up with
them on my own, and deserve all the blame (or credi) for them.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU