Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

PISA, Schleicher, claim which should be removed.

Regarding the Science section and PISA: The dispute springs from this sentence: Several empirical studies have noted how this method appears effective and even exemplary when evaluated against age-matched peers using the internationally recognized PISA test of 15-year-old students in mathematics and science.

I think that sentence is just plain wrong and should come out. There seems to have been one study in one country, published in 2009, utilizing the PISA 2006 test. I find numerous references to Waldorf education and PISA, every one that contains any sourcing refers back to this one study. And that study showed mixed results: Waldorf students were a bit better in some aspects, a bit worse in others.

Of the three citations for that sentence about PISA, two are irrelevant to the claim. One is English study published earlier than the PISA-based study and contains precious little quantitative comparison. Another is a news report in Die Welt on a study of Waldorf schools in Germany which was generally positive but somewhat mixed. Schleicher seems to have been part of the German study. The third reference is the actual PISA study.

Regarding the El Círculo Escéptico blog post quoted above that one editor wants to cite: it contains only personal attacks and guilt-by-association. There is virtually no information and no citations. Oddly, their trash-talk is misdirected. They allege that PISA always finds Waldorf schools to be excellent. But to repeat: there seems to have been one study in one country 15 years ago. That's it. So they are flinging their venom at something that didn't happen. Showing further it is not a credible source.

Enough! I think the errant claim should come out. There is a Wiki-page Studies of Waldorf education, inserting a link to that page might be appropriate here. -- M.boli (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can google-search for Waldorf PISA and see that this claim is being used again and again, so there might be only one study, but the claim has echo chambers inside the Waldorf movement. If there's a source noting what the problems with this claim are, it should be cited here, even more if the claim is false/not true. The El Círculo Escéptico web is devoted to debunk sects and pseudoscience, so yes, it's normal to have information about sects (Waldorf) and pseudoscience (Waldorf). I would ask again not to say that this source is trash-talk, you are doing it again against the assumption of good faith. -Theklan (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we can use this study with care. I skimmed through it and was impressed with their methodology and coverage. The team met with teachers from 23 Steiner schools in England plus "the research team spoke to teachers from New Zealand, South America and several mainland European countries. It is old but on the plus side it was a government study and included a number of members in the research team. Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The study you are describing has nothing to do with the claim about multiple studies using PISA data (false) finding "exemplary" results (false). I agree with you it likely has value and could be cited, but citing it here in support of the errant statement is wrong. It is almost entirely not quantitative, based on interviews, with very little about the measured effeciveness of Waldorf education. -- M.boli (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

“Discuss on talk page if you disagree”

I read through those news articles that were cited after “he asserted a hierarchy of races with a white race at the top” and the statement of “a white race at the top” is found nowhere in Steiner’s actual books or lectures and is just a very cherry picked statement, it’s also worded very strongly, as if it was actively trying to convince people that the reality of all Steiner schools is entirely racist. Either fix the wording or find some better sources. 94.199.30.34 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That for Steiner white race was the top race is not in doubt. However, Steiner's take was humanitarian, and this distinguishes him from racists. So, he did not say that the white race has to oppress other races. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly i have not seen any actual steiner books/lectures that even contain a heirarchy of races, and "he did not say that the white race has to oppress other races" is fine i guess in context but at first glance it looks extremely racist and in my opinion comes off as extremely biased. 2A00:23C4:DD8C:CB00:9C09:FDD5:BA9C:DC18 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is weird, given his general humanism, but he really did echo the racial hierarchy thinking typical of his period. And also sometimes say that everyone was equal, regardless of race. Some cognitive dissonance there. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Analyzing Steiner's own works is prohibited by WP:OR. We simply WP:CITE WP:RS written by experts in their field (e.g. religion studies). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think some article with a overarching negative tone wrote to incite clicks and emotions is written by an expert on religious studies, and even if the articles were they are clearly not written in a Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL way. There's obvious bias in these sources. 2A00:23C4:DD8C:CB00:596B:CAB7:2B00:BABE (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, we are biased against fringe views and pseudoscience. It's true that Steiner had a racialist worldview, but it is also true that he was well-meaning towards people of other races. I mean: both are true, and dodging one of these is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

European Journal of Educational Studies

A citation to this journal was removed by @Headbomb: as predatory, but Citefactor states "European Journal of Education Studies is an international peer reviewed journal that presents high quality, original and recent research focused on a wide range of thematic areas from traditional to contemporary, from formal education to alternative, examining and comparing various education policies, trends, reforms and programmes..."  ??? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And Citefactor is meant to be a reliable guide? Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

CiteFactor is a purveyor of fake impact factors. It's a front used by predatory journals appear legitimate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's on beall's list of predatory publishers as it is published by EUROPA which has a bad track record for accuracy, retractions, and being "pay to play" [1] [2] [3] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)