'The girl L.K. in class 1… is one of those cases that are occurring more and more frequently where children are born and human forms exist which actually, with regard to the highest member the ego, are not human at all but are inhabited by beings who do not belong to the human race…they are very different from human beings where spiritual matters are concerned. For instance they can never memorise sentences, only words. I do not like speaking about these things, as there is considerable opposition to this. Just imagine what people would say if they heard that we are talking about human beings who are not human beings……but do not let us broadcast this. There is enough opposition already…don't let us publicise these things.'

Rudolf Steiner: Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1923 to 1924: Being to the end of Dr. Steiner's visits to the School. Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1989
 
In no way is it intended to suggest for one moment that  Anthroposophical centres would regard your special person as less than human in any way, (although there was a case in Aberdeenshire, Scotland in 1996 where an autistic child was excluded on the basis that she was 'possessed by demons'.) We would however suggest that people should demand a bit more than "Steiner is difficult."
However, for those simply wondering about what 'Principles of Rudolf Steiner' actually entails, we would encourage you to look just a little beyond the publicity of the centres, to look behind the mask, ask your own questions. You don't have to blindly accept all that is said...this website included. 
Of course, some visitors might find that other people's disquiet apart,  Camphill is right for your own needs. Walk your path in peace. 
Committed Anthroposophists might feel under attack. No need. Openness is all that is sought and encouraged. it is suggested that this will indeed smooth difficulties for you too.
Whatever path you choose, the choice is indeed your own to make.
It simply behoves some of us to help more widely inform that choice.

Perhaps the worst case encountered of  failure to deliver what might reasonably be expected is that of Wandin Springs in Victoria, Australia. (1)
This 81 page report highlights the gap between what people and officers expect from a care centre, and what might in fact be delivered. Here are the issues with which the supervising authority were not satisfied - repeatedly -  and they are offered as an assistance to both user and providers of such centres: does your centre have the same vulnerabilities to supervisory investigation?  

Some list! Twenty five areas of concern. They are offered now so that you may form your own questions in order to ensure that your own reasons for making a placement are also the prime reasons of function at the particular centre you have in mind.. They are also proffered to Anthroposophical centres as suggested areas for self-review: Is Care- as it is commonly understood, the prime aim of your "ethos", or is your prime aim support of Anthroposophy, with its attendant corollaries for staff members and their families?

Let's not forget that "principles of Rudolf Steiner" reflect the thoughts of a guy who had no more formal training in special needs care than he had in education. Instead, Steiner's "principles" seem to stem from a comparatively short time spent as a 1-2-1 carer with one young man (Otto Specht) in Vienna.
From this apparently successful excursion, Steiner applied his 'Spiritual Science' discipline to explaining all special needs, but all of course according to the lights of Anthroposophy with its twelve-yes twelve senses et al.

Grateful thanks to Canadian researcher Steve Walden for the following:-

From time to time we hear the word "danger" or "potentially dangerous"
associated with Anthroposophy. I'm not simply out to *get* Anthroposophists
but I am concerned when I read Steiner talking about working with children
or mentally challenged people - concerned because today's very well
intentioned, Anthro-inspired teachers and caregivers might actually
*believe* what Steiner wrote. This holier-than-thou attitude can be ignored
on email lists but it is another thing for a child or a mentally challenged
person to try to ignore such stuff when they are forced to face it day in
day out. Again - it seems to come from a place of care and love but what is
*really* happening here in the *real* world of those involved in such
situations?

Here, Steiner goes on about various incarnations and livers, etc. and then:

"In dealing with adult mental patients you will not be able to apply the
guidance in the same way; for something extraneous comes in there - namely,
the law. And the moment you have to reckon with factors other than those
that arise out of the nature of the case, the moment you have to do with
hard and fast laws, the thing becomes unworkable. For what the law lays down
is general; it cannot be individual in its application, it has to be
general. So far as treatment of abnormal human beings is concerned, the law
is a veritable poison. It is there in the world, however, and you have to
reckon with it."
Rudolf Steiner, Curative Education SECOND LECTURE 26th June, 1924
 
So there you have it: The Law is poison! Presumably this is the same law that protects your special person.

Look to the law because you have to, but find a way by which to deliver Anthroposophy anyway.

That's how I see it. You?





Accepting 'Spiritual Science' require a leap of faith. It can't be measured, it can't be quantified. Not without faith in the whole doctrine, and so once again we encounter the doctrinaire use of language in Anthroposophy.
If you were to be informed that your son or daughter had "failed to incarnate properly" would you be fussed to know if this failure had arisen at the physical (birth), etheric (age seven) astral (age fourteen) or individual ego (age 21) stage of incarnation? Maybe the failure arose at more than one stage.

Would you care to have your special person categorized according to medieval wisdom of  The Humours: phlegmatic, sanguine, choleric, melancholic?

Are these sufficient to arrange care for your special person according to their needs rather than care designed to cater for what these devices indicate ought to be their needs?


Do you have any training or experience in needs identification yourself?

What do you think the Anthroposophical approach says of that training and/or experience?

(1) The Wandin Springs Report.  

This is available under Australia's Freedom of Information Act, 1982. 
 See contact info on our Further Info page