|
|
|
|
实在是片面。
不管是什么教学体系都有其缺点。
吴因为是华德福的追随者就恶意攻击蒙氏实在是心胸与眼界不够开阔。
看看他所谓的对比都是用华德福的强项与蒙氏的弱项相比，貌似客观，其实是一种有意的偏见。
她怎么不说说华德福为何将巫婆的故事当成历史来讲？怎么不回答一下环境为什么用成粉红色等等问题？甚至连steiner本人都说，只有他自己操作方能达到最佳效果，也就是说华德福的成功非常依赖于老师的水平，steiner要求的老师甚至是那个方面专家的水平。试想一下，不管什么教育，老师都能达到那个水平，教学效果能不好吗？？
我没有时间就她提出了对比问题作出详细的回答，但求有时间来分析分析。
让人了解一个教学法最好的方法是先让人了解它的缺陷，而不是优势。缺陷就是缺陷，不是别人了解了就会不喜欢甚至反对之，反而给人立体的认识，让人更加信服。
当然，人难免有偏见，但作为一个真正为孩子好的教育者应尽量将偏见限制在客观的基础上。
华德福不是没有问题，它的问题甚至是根本问题。自然主义教育不是华德福的是卢梭的，大家不要崇拜错了对象。华德福教育的核心思想是人智论。大家如有时间请看看，用现代的眼光看看它的正确性。
我倒是觉得追究到根本问题上，蒙氏追求的自由精神是正确的，而具体的操作过程有着欠全面或流于机械的倾向。而华德福教育的根本是人智论与玄学，而操作却有着发光的东西。
还是不要迷信任何单一的什么教学法，一定要吸收现代生物学与心理学发展的精华。可以以某一个教学法为蓝本，用现代科学修正它，让它更趋向于完善，但还是无法达到完美的地步。
附：
Welcome! People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is a world-wide network of former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators and trustees who come from a variety of backgrounds with a common goal: to educate the public about the reality behind Waldorf's facade of progressive, arts-based education. Waldorf is the most visible activity of Anthroposophy, an occultist sect founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925).
Together, we have performed exhaustive research on Waldorf schools and Anthroposophy, the esoteric, occult religion that both guides and inspires Waldorf teachers. PLANS affirms the right of all religious groups to practice and to teach their beliefs. But we expect those groups -- including Anthroposophy -- to tell the truth about their missionary efforts.
My personal experience with Waldorf was very confusing. Instead of the progressive and liberal alternative school I was led to expect by the school's promotional materials and staff, I discovered a rigid, authoritarian environment that seemed to be rooted in a medieval dogma that I did not understand. When, in an effort to make sense of things, I asked questions about this, I found Waldorf teachers to be strangely defensive.
I was stunned to arrive at the conclusion that the education of children -- at least as I use the term "education" -- did not seem to be the school's most important focus and objective. But what was?
I began to ask questions. What is Anthroposophy? Why don't teachers allow students in the preschool through the early elementary grades to use black crayons in their drawings? Why do students use the wet-on-wet watercolor painting technique exclusively for so many years? Why is mythology taught as history? Where is the American flag, and why don't Waldorf schools teach civic lessons in America? In a school system that promotes itself as "education toward freedom," why do students copy everything from the blackboard? Why do Waldorf teachers talk in high voices and sing-song directions to their classes? Why must the kindergarten room walls be painted "peach blossom"? Why is learning to read before the age of 8 or 9 considered unhealthy? Why do so many Waldorf classes have problems with bullying, and what is the school's policy for dealing with this? Why are teachers always lighting candles?
What answers I received were not forthright, and the teachers made it clear that my questions were not welcome. They told me, "If you understood Anthroposophy, you wouldn't be asking that question." Yet before we enrolled, I was told that the school was non-sectarian and that Anthroposophy was not "in the classroom!" I was eventually invited to leave.
Thanks to PLANS' dedicated researchers, I now have answers to all of my questions, and many more that I had not even thought of asking! If the information on the PLANS Web site had been available 9 years ago, our family would have passed by Waldorf's door, knowing that its sectarian, occultist nature was not what we were looking for after all.
My sincere hope is that the information contained in this Web site will help other families avoid a Waldorf disaster. I strongly believe parents have the right to make fully informed decisions about their children's education. Until Waldorf promoters start being honest, PLANS will be here.
(此文由echo-g在2006-11-11 00:15:43编辑过)
|
| |
|
|
2006-11-11 00:10:55
