Talk:Curriculum of the Waldorf schools

Mathematics

And where is maths in all of this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajr1212 (talk • contribs)

Whoops! There again. Hgilbert (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Excising Non-RS

User:Alexbrn, if you excise texts in this page and the other off-shoot pages, it will make it considerably harder for me to work on the curriculum section on the Waldorf Education main page as I agreed to do. I can't follow you all over wiki. Please slow down and work with other editors who are trying to discuss things before making changes. I don't see any egregious self-serving claims being made here. And Rist & Schneider isn't exactly self-published. It was a UNESCO working paper/white paper. Perhaps eventually some of these citations can be replaced with other sources but there is no urgency. When accompanying text is excised it's hard to get a sense for the content that has been removed. The potential result is that the page becomes devoid of precisely the kind of descriptions people are looking for when they come here. Selected quotes can only go so far in creating overall useful descriptions. Please, please allow the chance for other editors to reflect on content and discuss it. As it stands now, a majority of these pages have been written or highly edited by you. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative and open. Most people don't have hours upon hours to devote to this. We all need to act in ways that allow others to participate no matter their level of interest and time. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am tagging body text rather than removing it; see also discussion on the main Talk:Waldorf education page. Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You just removed body text again. Perhaps you forgot that you wrote the above? hgilbert (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Dahlin

These are works published in peer reviewed journals, not the university research reports. Clearly RSshgilbert (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - your revert is correct. I had completely forgotten that Dahlin was an author of those too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Curriculum Order

I think this sub page would be more informative if the subjects and the order in which they are typically offered to students could be incorporated. I see no other way of doing this than to rely on internal Waldorf sources. This is allowable in the Arbcom decision for non-controversial claims. Thoughts? Jellypear (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

POV problems

This is essentially an advertisement for the school, presenting its methods without discussing how they are distinctive from the usual methods, if indeed they are--I know that I was not able to gain any actual information from the article, tho I was from some of the references in the main article. At present, it's as if I were to write an article on Curriculum of the Boston public school system, and parallel ones for others. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It would seem appropriate to have such articles , where distinctive curricula exist.

For comparison, an article on US history would not be expected to focus on how this history differs from that of other nations. hgilbert (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to have a section regarding how educationalists describe the curriculum? I am thinking that encyclopedias of education would be useful for that because their focus is on comparing and contrasting different forms of education. I do see your point that in some ways this might as well be the curriculum of the Boston public schools - all schools teach reading comprehension, mathematics, and so on, so what is distinctive about this curriculum? Is that the point you are trying to make? If so, I don't think that Waldorf is particularly unique in curriculum content but rather in the pace and order of when things are presented and also in the techniques used - block instruction, integration of the arts, phenomenological approach to science and so on. A bit of that is here but significantly in the main article. Can you give some concrete examples of how this sub article can be improved? In any event, describing these issues as a POV problem doesn't seem quite right. Jellypear (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a new introductory section that hopefully addresses the concerns noted above. Jellypear (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)