Since the first Waldorf school was founded in Stuttgart, Germany, in 1919, the Waldorf educational movement has grown to include more than seven hundred schools in over fifty countries. Waldorf schools exist in rural areas, cities, suburbs, small towns, a kibbutz, and inner city neighborhoods. In addition, Waldorf education has inspired initiatives in state schools, in refugee camps, in day-care centers, homeless shelters, and in juvenile prisons. In 1994, the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) honored Waldorf education with a special exhibition for its contributions to the world. The establishment of the Independent Waldorf School may one day be regarded as one of the most significant initiatives of the twentieth century.
The establishment of the Waldorf school not only answered an educational need of our times but was a deed of spiritual proportions. Rudolf Steiner spoke at the founding of the school:
It is our duty to be aware of the importance of our task. This we shall achieve when we realize that this school is to become the bearer of quite a special impulse. And so, first of all, we must direct our thoughts toward the consciousness that something special is to be borne into the world through this education. Such a realization will come about when we no longer view this act of founding the school as an ordinary, everyday event but as a festive act in the ordering of the world."

The Historical Context of the First Waldorf School
The establishment of the first Waldorf school occurred within a particular historical context. With the end of World War I, the situation in Europe was unstable. Germany had collapsed and revolution had begun. In Russia the Revolution and the civil war that followed was tearing the country apart as power was redistributed. The call was out to workers everywhere to join forces to overthrow the bourgeois system and embrace Marxism. At first, American President Woodrow Wilson remained neutral in the European conflict, and then tried to make "peace at any price." Finally, he brought Americans into the war to "make the world safe for democracy." As an idea, his idea of self-determination of nations sounded fine, but it was not rooted in the realities of the extreme nationalism present in Europe. Representatives of various European countries used the peace process as an opportunity to advance their country's political gains, while keeping Germany blockaded. The situation in Germany worsened as the country suffered defeat and monumental inflation; people began to look for a scapegoat for a lost war, millions of unemployed, and widespread disorganization. Anything could happen.
This was the environment into which Steiner introduced his ideas on social threefolding, with the hope that it would bring about a new social order. He had already written his "Call to the German People and the Civilized World" in February, 1919. It was circulated by means of flyers and newspapers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. His book Towards Social Renewal was published in April that year. The Union for the ThreefoIding of the Social Organism was begun, which generated a great deal of enthusiasm among some European statesmen. It eventually included almost sixty local groups in Germany and attracted many people who otherwise had no connection with anthroposophy. Steiner lectured to many large audiences on the subject. At the same time, though there was extensive interest, his ideas threatened the established power of entrepreneurs, trade unions, and state officials, and it evoked much opposition. The time was not yet right for a new kind of Germany, with a social order that respected the rights and beliefs of each individual.
Central to the ideas of a threefold social order are the dignity of the human being and a new relationship of culture to the economy and the political sphere. The day of the centralized state, with its power over the other branches of public life, was to end. A new relationship was needed that would anchor cultural life in individual freedom; so that free initiatives could arise, economic life would be based on associations of producers and consumers, who would in freedom be able to support human community; and political life would recognize fundamental human rights under the law. Steiner saw that if major changes in this direction were not taken, violent solutions would be sought to doom the old system, as was already happening in Russia. Under the threefold social order the spiritual-cultural domain of education would be freed from state control; the power of the state in education would be limited and placed in the hands of teachers' associations. Parents would choose the schools they wanted for their children. When the impulse for threefolding society could not be realized, the Waldorf School kept alive the seed that had been planted there.
Although most of the early Waldorf schools were established in Europe, the impulse behind them is a universal impulse that meets the needs of children of our times.

The Teachers' Meetings
The contents of these faculty meetings were compiled from notes taken by Dr. Karl Schubert and by other teachers. Steiner assumed that the teachers were familiar with the three foundation courses he gave in August 1919. The first group of teachers had attended the courses, and teachers who subsequently joined the faculty studied them.
By reading the faculty meetings chronologically we can observe the dynamic process between the teachers and Steiner during the seventy meetings from 1919 to 1924. Waldorf education did not spring into being fully formed. The teachers and Steiner discussed the needs of particular students, the relationship between the school and the Waldorf-Astoria Company, the regulations of the state of Wurttemberg, personnel matters, and issues of curricula and pedagogy. Steiner sat in the classrooms and observed the teachers and children. He was able to contribute comments from the perspective of both the spiritual and the practical.
As we follow these meetings one by one, we gain access to Steiner the man, who encounters the joys and sorrows of everyday life. We come to know varied aspects of his personality as expressed in his special relationship with the teachers - his warmth and support; his enthusiasm, frustration, and disappointment; and his sense of humor, joy, and stern expectations.
Not only were these years difficult because of political events, but also events within the Anthroposophical Society between 1919 and 1924 created tremendous stress for Steiner. In addition to his concerns with the Waldorf School, he was involved in the internal and external difficulties of the Anthroposophical Society-attacks on the Society, frictions between older and younger members, construction of the first Goetheanum and the fire that destroyed it, reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society, criticism that was heaped on him personally, and ever increasing demands on his time. Most of all, one can feel the pressures and difficulties he experienced in trying to bring spiritual impulses into a materialistic time. Despite all the problems, the Waldorf School held a special place in Steiner's heart, and he came to the teachers' meetings with deep interest and warmth.

The Relationship between the Waldorf School and the State
In Germany the state exerted a strong controlling force on education. Private schools were uncommon, and the State Department of Education placed the state in the position of supreme authority. Following the German Revolution of 1918, which shook up the old state, the new leadership was more open to new ideas and initiatives; nevertheless, they were not ready to make basic changes. In 1919 the Movement for Threefolding demanded a clear separation of the school system from the state. However, this was impossible, and the founders of the Waldorf School had to negotiate approval for a new school.
Three main compromises had to be made:

1. The Board of Education had to approve the school.
2. Teachers' credentials had to be recognized officially before they would be allowed to teach. However, they did not have to pass the state teaching exam. Each teacher had to provide a detailed biography and have a personal interview at the ministry. All the teachers at the Independent Waldorf School were approved. Later, all of the teachers were required to have a state teaching certificate.
3. The curriculum could be independent of state control. The compromise proposal was that the students at the Waldorf school would have to achieve learning goals of public school by the end of third, sixth, and eighth grades. The regulation stated that private schools could be approved officially only if they did not lag behind public schools in learning goals, facilities, and teacher training. Private elementary schools were discouraged. The Elementary School Law was passed in April 1920, which required that all children attend public elementary schools for the first three grades, and later four. All private elementary schools were to be disbanded.

The authorities notified the Waldorf School that they would have to close the lower classes (December 31, 1920). The Waldorf School obtained approval to open one more first grade for the school year 1921-1922, but the four lower grades were not allowed to accept any more children than were already enrolled (240).
After Steiner's death, in 1926 School Inspector Hartlieb made an intense investigation and provided a favorable assessment. The ministry recognized the school as having special pedagogical value and removed the limitation.
Steiner mentioned before he died that there had been a small window of opportunity for the school's establishment and its first years. He commented that the school could not have begun in the few years after 1919.

The Relationship between the Independent Waldorf School
and the Waldorf-Astoria Company
One of the misunderstandings in the Waldorf movement involves the relationship between the Independent Waldorf School and the Waldorf-Astoria Company. It is often implied that the Waldorf-Astoria Company supported the Waldorf School, and therefore children were able to attend the school tuition free. This is held up as an example of Steiner's intention in the threefolding of society.
Emil Molt, the General Director of the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette Company, had heard Steiner speak already in 1903 and was impressed by the practicality of certain exercises for concentration. In 1918, when Molt listened to Steiner's description of the underlying causes of events and social needs, he was moved deeply. Thus, in 1919, he shared his dream to establish a school for his workers' children. When he asked Steiner if he would help, Steiner indicated positively if four conditions were met. First, the school must be open to all children, not just the children of employees. Second, the school must be based on a unified twelve-year curriculum rather than on a curriculum that segregated children over eleven years of age into those going on to university and those going into the trades. Third, girls and boys would be educated together. Fourth, the teachers, who carry the daily responsibility for educating the children, would be free to teach and run the school free of government or economic control.
Molt gained support of the Workers' Council for the project, but the board of directors and stockholders who learned about it after the fact were not supportive. They tolerated it as Molt's pet project. Molt purchased the restaurant that became the home for the school. (He is sometimes referred to as the owner of the company, but in fact he had controlling shares in the company only briefly.) For a brief time the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette Factory supported the school, realizing one of the goals of the Threefold Social Order. The actual economic situation was that tuition and materials were free for all children of the workers; a "Waldorf" child was any child who had any near relative in the company."
At the beginning the school was an economic and legal extension of the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette Company; Molt employed the teachers and paid their salaries. Tensions developed among the teachers in relationship to Molt, however, as they felt dependent on the company. At the same time the percentage of Waldorf children in the school decreased from approximately seventy-five percent the first year, to fifty percent the second year, to even fewer Waldorf students the third year. The Waldorf School charged tuition for "non-Waldorf" children according to the parents' own estimate. To collect and administer the money, the Association for the Independent Waldorf School (The Waldorf School Association) was formed in May, 1920. The board of directors of the company had no interest in sponsoring the school, and Molt tried to elicit contributions toward the school expenses without much success. With the establishment of the Waldorf Association, a legal separation was complete. The Association took over the ownership of the school buildings and property, and set up a board of directors of the Waldorf School Association.
Tensions continued, however. The faculty had not understood that Molt had founded the school as a private person, not as the company's general director. Steiner made it very clear to the teachers that Molt was the school's protector and a selfless helper who donated his personal funds on behalf of the school, and that he was not there to exert the company's power over them. Gradually, the teachers understood this and came to appreciate Emil Molt's unique relationship with the school. When the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette Company was bought out, Molt included a passage in the sales contract that, for at least ten years, the company would pay the same amount to the school as tuition had been for the Waldorf children.

The Economic Basis of the Independent Waldorf School
As described, the company paid the Waldorf children's tuition during the school's early years. The amount of tuition that the school could rely on from the company decreased along with the declining percentage of Waldorf children. Parents paid tuition according to what they thought they could afford, and patrons were sought who were able to pay tuition for the poorer parents. Since Rudolf Steiner was determined to accept children who could not pay tuition, they had to emphasize their attempts to obtain public donations. He had hoped a World Waldorf Association would be able to raise funds for the school, but this did not happen. Each school has since established its own Waldorf School Association to help with its funding.
A shortage of funds was a serious problem, and it occupied the agendas of many meetings. The Goetheanum was being built at the same time in Switzerland and was also in need of funds. Contributions were not forthcoming from anthroposophists in other cities, who were unable to see the Independent Waldorf School in Stuttgart as worthy of their donations. Thus, the enrollment grew but was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in support. Steiner often commented on the need to reduce teaching loads, increase salaries, and add facilities, but there was not enough money. At one point the school day started at 9 a.m., because there wasn't enough money to light and heat the school for the extra hour. This meant some children were getting home as late as 7 p.m. (December 9, 1923).
Steiner had intended that all teachers keep their teaching schedule to 16-18 hours (December 5, 1922, May 25, 1923). In 1919 he was hoping teachers' schedules could be 12 hours plus preparation time. By 1920, however, he stated that 18 hours would be normal. He figured two to three hours preparation for each class, which was more than a 48-hour week. He continuously commented that the teachers did not have time for proper preparation, and this showed in the classes. The reason their loads were higher was due strictly to finances. The financial situation, as a source of frustration and anxiety, remained precarious and was never resolved, although Steiner tried to involve the teachers and the Waldorf School Association in fund-raising.
Rudolf Steiner's hope that the economic sphere of society would support the cultural life was not realized. We can say that only a few places in the world have realized this ideal, and funding for Waldorf schools largely continues to be a serious and controversial issue.

The Growth of the Independent Waldorf School 1919-1924
School year Students Teachers Classes
1919-1920 256 12-14 8
1920-1921 420 19 11
1921-1922 540 30 15
1922-1923 640 37 19
1923-1924 687 39 21
1924-1925 784 47 23

The first year started with great enthusiasm as teachers set out to implement the new pedagogy. The curriculum was planned in greater detail, adding handwork and shop. Basic administrative aspects such as reports and student promotion were considered.
The second year saw the addition of the ninth grade. Issues that preoccupied the teachers included spiritual independence of the school especially in relation to the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette factory, the integration of new teachers, pressure from state regulations, and financial concerns.
The third year brought more focus on problems with specific children, greater detail about subjects and methods, and concerns over a lack of connection between certain teachers and students. Practical subjects such as spinning, weaving, hygiene, first aid, surveying, technical drawing, and shorthand were added to the curriculum.
The fourth year was characterized by a solemn mood as tensions among the teachers arose and some became indifferent toward their classes. Steiner worked hard to lift the mood with special contributions for their consideration. Student problems, and difficulties caused by the way teachers handled them, led to a feeling of depression. Steiner emphasized the need for more interaction between the teachers and high school students. The eleventh grade was added to the school.
The fifth year saw the mood lift. With the addition of the twelfth grade, the teachers' primary task was to deal with the state and the outside requirements-specifically final exams.
During the sixth year a thirteenth grade was added as an exam year, which allowed the full twelve-grade Waldorf curriculum to be kept intact. There were compromises, however, in order to accommodate the exams. Steiner encouraged the teachers to intensify their interest in the children and to deepen their understanding of the child and the curriculum.
The teachers looked forward to a course Steiner had planned about the moral aspects of education and teaching, but he was unable to give it due to illness.
Interest in the work of the Independent Waldorf School led to the formation of new Waldorf schools in Germany as well as in England, Holland, and, in 1928, the United States. It was the Waldorf schools outside Germany that preserved Waldorf pedagogy when the German government banned the schools in the 1930s.

The Organization of the Independent Waldorf School
The organization of the school formed gradually during those four years. It has often been said that Waldorf schools are "faculty run." The translation of the term Selbstverwaltung, however, is much closer to "self-administered." There are many misunderstandings around this issue, and a study of these faculty meetings could help Waldorf teachers to understand what form the school assumed under Steiner's guidance.
During the first year, 1919-1920, the school was organized as follows: Rudolf Steiner, director; Karl Stockmeyer, administrator (indicated but not verified); and Emil Molt, the patron who provided most of the funds, either personally or indirectly through the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette Company. A bookkeeper employed by the company kept the account books.
Over the next four years an organization developed that included clear roles for administrator, administrative committee, internal faculty (or "college of teachers"), external faculty, and board of directors. Steiner assumed the role of director until his death.
As director of the school, Steiner stated that his position was not based on power but on the "free will and confidence of the teachers" (September 22, 1920). He interviewed prospective teachers and reported his recommendations to the faculty. Hiring and firing were basically accomplished by him.
Initially, the administrator took care of many issues in the school. When the administrative committee was formed in 1923, however, Steiner said the administrator would retain responsibility for the economic and technical things, business and custodial work.
Teachers and staff were not members of the board of directors at first, but later a permanent representative of the faculty and the chief administrator of the administrative committee each had a seat on the board of directors.
Early discussions and decisions were carried out with all the full-time teachers, but on July 30, 1920 a distinction was made between an inner faculty of class teachers and some older specialty teachers and an extended faculty. The inner faculty seems to be what came to be called the "college of teachers," or Collegium. The faculty meetings from July 1920 on appear to be inner faculty meetings. They discussed personnel issues and made decisions relating to the daily life of the school. In other schools these decisions would have been made by a principal. Sometimes Steiner came to the meetings with a proposal, but the teachers modified it or rejected it. Steiner was able to be flexible because he was clear that the faculty had to make the decisions they would live by. When the faculty had difficulty coming to a decision, Steiner used secret ballot and parliamentary procedure. In principle the teachers had complete freedom in how they taught, but not in things connected with administration of the school.
In January 1923, an administrative committee was established with three teachers who rotated administrative duties on a biweekly basis for two months. The committee would represent the school internally and to the outside world. The administrative committee carried out the administrative function on behalf of the faculty.

Internally:
1. Prepare and take minutes for faculty meetings.
2. Name specific faculty members for specific areas, i.e., the question of student boarding, decorations for the classrooms.
3. Prepare and oversee a yard supervisory schedule.
4. Assign classrooms.
5. Supervise the use of school rooms for events by outsiders.

Externally:
1. Correspondence and communications with school officials and the Department of Education.
2. Enrollment issues (introductions, meeting the parents, follow-up, tests, graduation reports).
3. Yearly reports.
4. Visitors.
5. Public relations-working against laws that affect the school.
6. Gathering information about salaries and administering particular donations (January 31, 1923).

The Key Requirement: The Administrative Body Should Arise from the Will of the Faculty
The main role of the teachers was teaching in the classroom. Steiner was emphatic that the teachers have independence in their own teaching. The actual how of teaching was up to them, without government interference or dictates. The what was spelled out by Steiner in broad strokes. The teachers had to meet the compromise agreement with the Department of Education concerning the goals of state school third, sixth, and ninth grades. The teachers' administrative duties were clearly involved with pedagogy, not with "running" the school, nor with the physical plant, the finances, salaries, hiring and firing, fund-raising, and so on.
The faculty meeting agendas resemble many teachers' meetings today. Yet there were two major differences. Since this was the first Waldorf school, everything was new, and Steiner was there directing the school, giving it as much time as he could. One can feel the warmth and respect the teachers felt each time he was able to attend the meetings. They rose to their "best selves" and were able to achieve significant steps in developing the school. Occasionally he had to take the reigns and make decisions that the faculty had been unable to resolve.
Through reading about the struggles, we come to see the basic principles Steiner was trying to uphold as the true gift of Waldorf education to humanity. These include:
1. independence from the state in developing the curriculum
2. educating boys and girls together
3. the ability of all children to attend who wished to do so
4. freedom of the teacher in the classroom
5. school self-administration
6. an education that would develop capacities needed for the future
7. an understanding of the child's development of spirit, soul, and body

One becomes very aware that Steiner was determined to keep the school from becoming a bourgeois prep school-one based on abstract, intellectual knowledge-and that he intended to create a practical curriculum anchored in real life. The craft curriculum was particularly important, because it introduced the students to practical life. Yet he was also very clear that the school needed to prepare the students for university entrance.
He always tried to lift the teachers to the ideals that had called them to their work in the Waldorf school. Anyone who thinks nostalgically that all was harmonious and idyllic need only read these proceedings to see the difficulties that arose over recalcitrant students, expulsions, lack of money, poor decisions, parent issues, inadequate teaching, and lazy, uninspiring teachers. There were also creative heartfelt, enthusiastic teaching and matters of children dropping out or being required to leave the school. Steiner was discouraged at times by the antagonisms among teachers, which he addressed directly. "The Waldorf school can prosper only when the faculty is in harmony. It is impossible for everyone to find everyone else sympathetic, but this is a personal question and does not belong in the faculty.... The only question is that of trust" (January 23, 1923).
At times he expressed concern that the children were not learning enough and that certain classes were undisciplined. He was clear that the school's responsibility was to educate the children so that they could transfer to another school if they wished.
Steiner's confidence in the teachers increased, and his comments from 1923 on are much more positive. Nevertheless, he continued to be concerned about the interactions among them.

Pedagogical Issues
In addition to helping awaken us to insight into the early years of Waldorf education, these faculty meetings can help us gain perspective on some of the key questions confronting modern Waldorf educators: What are the essential principles of Waldorf pedagogy presented by Steiner as an education for our time? To what degree do the indications for the Waldorf school relate specifically to schools in Germany-to the fact that the children were German-and to what degree were the indications intended to be applied universally? How was Waldorf education shaped by the particular teachers who participated in the early years of the Waldorf school? How far can Waldorf education adapt to other situations and countries and still be considered Waldorf schools? And finally, how do we identify and address the numerous myths in circulation about the nature of Waldorf education?

The Development of the Curriculum
The main impression given by the faculty meetings is that the curriculum was not a fixed recipe but an ongoing dialogue between Steiner and the teachers. The lower school curriculum had been presented in lectures in 1919, thus, the faculty meetings offered an opportunity for teachers to ask specific questions. Many of the curriculum discussions centered around teaching foreign languages. As the high school grades were added each year, the curriculum for the high school was presented in the faculty meetings of 1920-1924. These meetings offer the high school teachers substantial indications in almost every subject area. The general direction of the subject is suggested, as well as specific aspects that should be taught. These faculty meetings offer the most direct guidelines from Steiner himself on training high school teachers.
The question has been raised, especially in America, about whether or not the Waldorf curriculum is Eurocentric. In reading the faculty meetings, it becomes clear that the curriculum was answering two different needs. The general thrust of the curriculum is universal. Subjects such as geology, mathematics, physics, music, woodworking shop, foreign languages, and handwork relate to students anywhere. History and literature curricula have elements that are both local and universal. In discussing the ninth grade, for example, Steiner says, "It is important that you cover the history of the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.... In teaching about these centuries, the goal would be that the students understand the present, don't you agree?... Take the nineteenth century as a confluence of the histories of various peoples.... There is a great deal of material in those lectures you can expand upon by bringing in literature from everywhere" (November 15, 1920). On the other hand, he speaks of literature with an awareness that the exams will cover German literature, and he expects the students to study that material. "We need to see to it that the students learn the things they may be asked" (April 24, 1923). The curriculum thus focused on German writers, historians, language, and so on.
As Steiner reflected on developing the curriculum, he often commented on what is effective and what is not. For example, Steiner comments, "The Austrian college preparatory high schools were exemplary. When you think of Leo Thun [Minister of Culture, 1848-1860] and 1854, their curriculum was the very best imaginable" (November 15, 1920). Essentially, he expected the school to produce students who were well educated. He wanted students who are connected with the contemporary world. On June 17, 1921 he said, "If only stenography had never been created! But now that it exists, people cannot live without it, just like the telephone." We can compare that to the use of computers today.
When teachers asked for more hours for handwork or eurythmy, Steiner was practical: "There are schools with four periods for handwork but this situation is not possible for us.... If we were to do such things, it would be impossible for us to create a class schedule.... There is also a desire to have three times as many eurythmy periods, but we can divide things based only on objectivity.... Even though we are an hour short for handwork class, we only have a quarter of the time we need for arithmetic.... We must be efficient in our instruction, as I said at the beginning" (October 28, 1922).

Foreign Language Grouping
A myth has been passed down through the years that children should always be kept together and that there should be no grouping. It is evident from many of Steiner's comments that this was not his intention.
He commented that keeping all the students in the foreign language classes grouped according to their grade level was causing frustration for the children who had been in the same class for years. Children in a particular grade (for example, the fourth grade) had different capacities or experiences, either because some of the children were new to the school and had no previous experience in the language while others had been learning the foreign language for several years, or because the children had various levels of ability. Each time the teachers would start over again or review work taught in the past, some children would lose interest in the foreign language.
Steiner advised mixed groupings between several grades, but this did not happen, because teachers claimed it was too difficult to schedule. Steiner was not at the school often enough to see that this change would take place and to have the teachers accept it. He addressed this again on May 3, 1923 when he said that the teacher had to test the children to determine their capacities for grouping children in foreign languages.

Specialization
Another myth has been perpetuated that, in Waldorf schools, the children do everything together and do not specialize. When a teacher mentioned that a student wanted a more musical education, Steiner responded, "If we begin allowing differences, we will need three different areas-the humanities, business, and art. We will have to see if that is possible without a significant increase in the size of the faculty" (October 15, 1922). In discussing preparation for the examinations, he said children should be prepared for what they wanted to do even if at times the classes were very small. "If only one child is there for Greek or Latin, that one child needs to be taught" (June 16, 1921).
He also thought that children could be recognized for special work as long as it didn't get out of hand. He commented that each child should receive an atlas upon graduation. "Perhaps we could even do these things as awards for good work. A larger more beautiful book for those who have done well, something smaller for those who have done less, and for those who were lazy, perhaps only a map" (September 25, 1919).
In the upper grades students who want to develop themselves musically need more time for practice. He suggested they be excused from those classes that could stiffen their fingers. "We could change the curriculum for individuals.... What provides human education should remain, otherwise you can specialize" (May 26, 1921). He clearly considered handwork part of human education. When new boys came into the school they didn't want to be in handwork with girls. Steiner insisted handwork was not an elective, but the boys and girls could have different activities beginning in eighth or ninth grade (December 9, 1922). "If we do not prepare [the students] for the examinations, we would eventually close the last four grades. Parents would not send their children" (May 3, 1923). Steiner's flexibility concerning students, their individual needs, and the curriculum may have been far greater than some Waldorf schools are willing to consider today.

Homework in a Waldorf School
Although Steiner did not want the younger children to have the load of homework that the German university preparatory schools gave in the lower school, it is also clear he expected the children to have homework. His comments on homework focused mostly trying to inspire the students to do it on their own, making certain that the teachers collected and reviewed any homework that was assigned, so that homework would be meaningful rather than merely busywork, and making sure that the teachers weren't all assigning homework at the same time. If one selectively chose some of Steiner's comments, it could lead to the belief that he simply wanted homework to be voluntary; but this is not supported when considering the totality of his remarks. He usually distinguished between homework for children in the lower grades and those in upper grades. When he addressed the issue concerning the students in the upper classes he was very specific: "If the children do not do this homework, you could keep the lazy ones after noon and threaten them. This could occur often" (December 22, 1919). This seems harsh, but we don't know what he means when he says "threaten them." Does this mean they would be threatened to stay after school every time their homework isn't done? This seems similar to the lunchtime study halls or after-school homework sessions required by schools today.
On the other side of the issue, a teacher asked about homework and how to possibly get through all the material. Steiner answered, "You should present homework as voluntary work and not as a requirement. In other words, 'Who wants to do this?'" (January 1, 1920).
On September 11, 1921 another teacher commented, "I think it would be good if we gave the children homework. It is certainly clear in this case that the children should do some problems at home." Steiner responded, "You should never give children homework unless you know they will return with the problems solved, and that they have done them with zeal."
In addition to the issue of homework, he commented on the difference of teaching the various ages. In discussing the eleventh grade on June 21, 1922 Steiner suggested the teachers should continue with the material so that they strengthen the students' capacity to judge. "Become involved in discussions. Until now you have given a pictorial presentation, but now we need to work toward comprehension of the concepts."

Textbooks in a Waldorf School
It is often said by Waldorf teachers that there should be no textbooks in a Waldorf school. In various instances in the faculty meetings Steiner recommends a particular textbook, states that most textbooks are inferior, questions whether the teachers couldn't write their own, and suggests that the class needs a textbook to unite all the students. "I have nothing against using a textbook, but all of them are bad.... Look for a textbook, and show it to me when I come back" (September 11, 1921).

Concern for the Individual Child
When one reads the faculty meetings chronologically and carefully, it becomes clear that Steiner responded to each situation spontaneously. It is difficult to make dictums out of his comments. Words such as "never" and "always" do not fit with Steiner's recommendations. Therefore, it behooves us to abide by the guideline to consider each situation carefully, taking into account the particular children, teacher, and problem. Teachers need to develop inner capacities of perception and judgment, which they can then bring to each situation. Taking refuge in such statements as "Rudolf Steiner said," does not serve the aims of Waldorf education.
As a final note I call to the reader's attention Steiner's concern for each student. He recognized that the relationship between the teacher and student was very influential in the student's moral development. Although such close connections were not typical of the day, his comments anticipate the advice of our contemporary psychological approach to teenagers. He said, "We need to have more contact with the students in the upper grades. At that age students cannot stand going through a whole morning of class without any personal contact. They want you to be interested in them personally" (July 31, 1923).
He was disappointed that the teachers' schedules did not allow time for the necessary connection that would affect a student's self- image. On July 15,1924 Steiner commented:
We can hardly change [our relationship with the students] while the faculty is overworked to such a degree that personal relationships with the children do not really arise as they should, in which a moral and soul development is achieved along with that of the intellect and spirit. Beginning in the eighth grade, the faculty's moral influence on students is largely lacking. And outside the class there is also a lack of the kind of contact that should exist between the students and teachers. Thus, in terms of morals, whenever eighth grade students have certain tendencies, they are left too much on their own. We do not speak of our students as we might if we had closer contact with them.
The letter you wrote to me about R. is the result of your classroom relationship. Nothing appeared in it that would indicate a personal relationship with the students. It was also quite clear from your verbal reports today that you have no real contact with the students. I can certainly see that there is not enough time and that teachers are overworked; on the other hand, it is an objective fact that things have been this way for a long time. What we are missing is something that should certainly occur through the attitude of the Waldorf school pedagogy; an exact psychological picture of the students should live within the teachers, but a detailed psychological picture of the students does not live in the teachers' souls. I don't know how your development of this student psychology in recent faculty meetings compares with how it might have developed in meetings with me. You could have given some of the students in the higher grades special attention here. I don't know how much you do this when you meet by yourselves, but what exists is certainly not what it should be.
Now we have these three children-N.N., S.Z., and W.R. There was a slight limitation in N.N.'s mental capacities, which could have been remedied through energetic, more extended psychological treatment. Whenever we spoke about N., I said that if he were treated in such a way that he developed some trust, he could come to a teacher when he was in need and relate to the teacher as he would to a father. That would have improved the situation. My impression is that you did not do that; thus, N.N., who would otherwise have been easy to treat, did not in fact develop the deep love for a teacher that might have enabled him to improve…. The only thing that can help is that a close relationship is formed with a teacher so that the student feels especially drawn to that teacher. (July 15, 1924)

Cautionary Note concerning the Faculty Meetings
Because the faculty meetings were recorded in the form of notes, some statements may be misleading. Indeed, some of the statements attributed to Steiner may not have been said at all. Therefore, we need to be extra careful in using them to justify one or another positions.
Another aspect of the faculty meetings is that they were not intended to be made public. In most Waldorf school faculty meetings, teachers explore issues, raise questions, agree or disagree with one another, state positions, and consider new ways to educate children more effectively. These meetings between the teachers and Rudolf Steiner were held behind closed doors, so to speak. Comments were made in this intimate setting and not meant to be repeated. Thus, taken out of context, some comments can lead to misunderstanding.
There are a few comments that are very confusing to me, and I frankly do not understand what Steiner meant by them. We do not know if they were actually said, if they were misquoted, or if they are correct. I recently had the experience in which I told a group of teachers and parents that as Waldorf educators we need to do a better job explaining to parents why Waldorf high schools emphasize the thinking aspect of students. The next day, a parent commented that she was not sure she wanted to enroll her son in the particular Waldorf high school, because I had said that the Waldorf high school does not do a good job of teaching students how to think. Luckily, I had her comment reflected to me, and I was able to have a conversation with her. We cleared up the misunderstanding, and she was very relieved. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to do something similar with Rudolf Steiner's statements.
During the faculty meeting of February 14, 1923, he speaks about the French language and about immigration, of "moving black people" to Europe. Before I can judge the comment, I would need to understand it, and I am not able to do so. Either missing sentences would have to be included or the context would have to be clearer before I could know what to say about it. During the faculty meeting of June 9, 1920, Steiner comments about Allah and Mohammedan culture. It is a comment that would need much more elaboration for me to understand whether he is being negative or just explaining his point of view. He also comments during the same meeting about the difference between Catholic and Lutheran religious instruction. I take these as his personal opinions, not as categorical statements.
What is far more important, in my opinion, is to take the full body of Steiner's work as his general commentary and to set aside the few comments that either seem confusing, lacking in full explanation, or inappropriate in our time. What is most important is that we, as human beings striving to bring Waldorf education into being, honor the spirit of each child we teach, and to seek the positive contribution each group offers to world evolution.
There is always a danger that any worldview or philosophy may become frozen at the time in which it arose, that each word spoken by its founder becomes fixed as orthodoxy, and thus dogma and heresies arise. Waldorf education is as vulnerable to such tendencies as any body of knowledge and insight. By reading the faculty meetings, we can gain a certain amount of perspective.
Despite the shortcomings of the faculty meeting notes, they offer a tremendous help to Waldorf educators in allowing an experience of participation in one of the great educational achievements of the twentieth century. It also becomes clear that we are only beginning Waldorf education. Through these meetings we can grasp the legacy that Steiner left to Waldorf teachers. The call is out for us to deepen our perceptions, our inner life, our awareness of our students and colleagues, and our relationship to the spiritual beings that stand behind Waldorf education. When we understand and participate in the intention behind Waldorf education-freedom for individual thinking, heart-warmed community sharing, and active will in the world, we may be able to carry a vision into the twenty-first century. May we be worthy of it.