Worksheets and Waldorf?

Multitasking: Eating an apple, moving beads on an abacus, and writing in answers on a worksheet

I think that wherever you go, it seems to be human nature to want to put labels on everything, to categorize things in our minds at least. We like to put people, things and events into boxes, perhaps to make sense of them so as to increase predictability for ourselves. We like those things that we can count on, that we can grasp very securely. In homeschooling circles, this is true no matter *what* type of homeschooling niche you encounter. 

For example, within those who consider themselves as "unschoolers", there is a wide spectrum between "purists" on one end, and those who "have periods of unschooling sprinkled into other methods" on the other end. I've seen endless arguments spring up online between people at different extremes of a particular homeschooling label, discussing the validity of claiming to fall within that label if one doesn't do so exactly as someone else does, or with the same "purity". For some, it needs to be all or nothing. For some, if you only dabble in one direction, or if you borrow from one or more methods to create a hodgepodge, you must create a separate label for yourself or else you may face ridicule and/or simply a rejection from purists in that particular niched label.

Personally, I'm not concerned with labels. If it makes others happy, I'm fine to say we're "eclectic homeschoolers". That description seems to satisfy people, as it assumes that we dabble in at least two or more approaches. That's fine with me. I have no need to be accepted into some select club whose requirements are that I strive to be a purist in their methods (as they choose to define them). If someone then wants to know what sorts of methods we borrow from, then I'm also happy to be more specific about the kinds of activities and approaches we use. 

I have studied Rudolph Steiner for some months now (has it been a year already?!). I come from a background of "classically-trained public school educator". Such a background drilled into my head that the "typical" method of ensuring that a child "learns" a concept or skill is for them to practice that skill. The typically-accepted method of practice tends to be worksheets, creating projects, pen-and-paper answers to questions from a textbook, lecture, and/or from the board, lab reports usually based on in-class experiments, and sometimes computer games. 

The Steiner approach, however, tends to eschew such pre-determined resources such as textbooks, workbooks and worksheets in favor of child-created pages in a main lesson book. At the elementary level, students often copy from the chalkboard, putting their own version of the chalkboard lesson into their books (often after they have created a "rough draft" on a spare piece of paper, and then copying more neatly into their lesson books).  This then makes the work partially their own. As they grow older, they are expected to do less copying from the board, and more creating of their own interpretation of the information they are learning.

My question is, then: what really is the difference between copying from the board, and copying from a worksheet the child has just practiced upon and copying from a "rough draft"?  Personally, I see very little difference. Do I always have my son (in particular) copy from his worksheet and then create it in his own way into his main lesson book? No. It's true: I often allow the worksheet to stand by itself. The reasons for this are several, but one of the biggest reasons is that my son has pencil-grip issues. Writing is physically painful and difficult for him, and so I pick my battles in terms of how much writing I have him do each day. I want to ensure he does enough writing to try to strengthen his hands, but at the same time not so much writing that it becomes a drudgery and therefore he is no longer learning anything from the activity, but rather simply moving his hands in exercise.

Our time is precious to us, and therefore in my mind an activity must have meaning. My son must be invested at least partially in the activity, otherwise there will be little actual *learning* occurring, which means the activity then simply becomes "busy work". I'm not interested in giving my son "busy work". I want our time to be used efficiently for maximum learning and minimum time-wasting.  We want life to be focused on play first. We want to explore how creativity can direct our lives as our primary objective. We want to be INSPIRED by the activities we choose to engage in......otherwise, what's the point? Many studies have shown that when children are not inspired, the motivation to actually absorb and truly learn something (and retain it) decreases significantly.

Life, for us, isn't about cramming as many useless pieces of information into ourselves that we'll then forget the moment we move onto something else....all so that some bureaucrat can check us off the list as having successfully satisfied some "busy-ness" requirement. 

If we choose to use a combination of worksheets *and* a main lesson book, and if both of those methods inspire us, get us to practice and learn skills, and have meaning to us, then that is really all that matters to me!!!  There are also times (gasp) when my son logs onto such games as Prodigy Math online to practice math (for example), Minecraft Homeschool (which I've noted combines science, social studies, reading, and math), or some other computer activity that is both fun and inspires learning. We try to find a balance that works for our family.

I do agree with the Waldorf philosophy that a child's first priority should be PLAY - creative, imaginative play. The child should have long periods of time without outside influences to manipulate the direction of the play. It should be as open-ended as possible, allowing for possibilities of all kinds. Our children definitely have that. Every day.

Very rarely do I ever hear our children bringing computer-based themes or movie themes into their play (not that we watch a lot of movies, but we do watch some). They are fully able to take blocks and create a castle, or a house, or a bridge over which their horses can ride, etc. They have a healthy balance of influences, and any time we sense there may be too much device time (for example), we take a few days off and focus on other things.  Both of our children have incredibly vivid imaginations!!  They create stories ALL THE TIME!!!  

I do not worry for one moment that my children cannot think or create for themselves. I do not worry that they cannot approach academic subjects from many different angles. They both think outside of the box. They both enjoy approaching learning from creative directions. They enjoy both reading stories as well as listening to and telling their own stories. They don't need information crammed into them, as they are both curious enough to seek out learning in a child-led manner very regularly!!!

For us, this combination of approaches works. That doesn't mean it needs to be everyone else's approach. That doesn't mean a more purist approach into a particular method isn't great for that family (or individual child within a family). I think we can and should all be flexible enough to "allow for" the ability to choose our own paths without judgement or the need to fit neatly into someone else's box.

I still consider us to be "Waldorf-Inspired", but maybe the real label should be "Waldorf-Influenced".

We have many different things that influence us. I am not sure I could really place any one influence above another, because they all work together in harmony...but at the same time, I still feel I have a "claim" to the "Waldorf-Influenced" label.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Ha!

It's OK to be unique. It's OK to do it the way that works for your kids. Don't judge yourself and then deem that you are somehow "failing" because you don't fit exactly into someone else's idea of perfection. That's ridiculous! Perfection doesn't exist! LOVE is perfect....and so long as you teach and parent from a place of love, then you cannot ever fail.