I don't think teaching kids to read, or any sort of reading facilitation, earlier than they learn in the public school system is a bad idea, particularly a giftie, as long as it's not forced. Plenty of parents that would huff and puff about hothousing probably give their kids Leapfrog and other toys that teach in various ways, or actively stimulate a child to self-teach (I don't think there's anything wrong with these in general, though I tend not to like them much either). I don't see harm unless the child is uninterested and "encouraged" despite that.
It would be damned foolish to... yank researched and intensive reading instruction away from socioeconomically disadvantaged kis with HS dropout parents and no books in the house on the theory that they of course would do just as well as Waldorf kid without being taught these skills. Why no one gets this, I have no idea.
A good way of putting it. I've never understood this either. Another thing I don't understand about Waldorf specifically is how people can point to the more supportive studies (and there are less supportive ones) as evidence that Waldorf is a perfectly great way to learn math, late start while fiddling with cornhusk dolls and all. I've always been more interested in finding out how to nurture math talent than eager to adopt teaching methods that aren't the worst when compared against public school results. I wonder how many Math Olympiad contestants relative to the general population have been Waldorfed...
