Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 8 July 2006

People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is an anti-Waldorf lobby group based principally in the San Francisco, USA and on the Web. In 2000, it claimed to have 44 members. Its mission statement says that it intends to educate people about the reality behind Waldorf education, the most public activity of Anthroposophy (a movement founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)), which it claims is an occultist sect. It was founded in 1995 by former Waldorf parents and became a California non-profit corporation in 1997. Its secretary is sound engineer Dan Dugan.

The group runs a discussion list on Topica for critics of Waldorf education and has its own extensive web page.

Charter schools law suit

In October 1998, PLANS brought a law suit against two California public schools districts, Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, that had funded two Waldorf-methods schools, one a charter school and one a magnet school. PLANS argued that because of Waldorf education's basis in anthroposophy, publicly-financed Waldorf methods charter schools are in violation of the "church and state" establishment clause of the First Amendment. The organization asserted that Anthroposophy is a religion, and that therefore not only independent Waldorf schools, but also publicly funded Waldorf methods schools have a religious basis. The lawsuit by PLANS was financed by an evangelical organisation, using false allegations of satanism and withcraft at Waldorf, and Waldorf methods schools. When criticized by a supporter for this on his mailing list, Mr Dugan stated that he was pandering to the prejudices of Christians. During depositions for the trial, Mr Dugan later denied that he believed in the allegations.

Court case

The Federal District Court of California has ruled on the case in 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2005. In 1999, the Court found that the two school districts targeted in the litigation have a secular, non-religious purpose for the operation of the two schools using Waldorf methods. However, it let the case proceed, to find whether public Waldorf-methods programs might have the unintended consequence of directly and substantially advancing religion to such an extent that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

In 2001, however, the Court dropped the case based on PLANS' failure to bring sufficient supporting evidence. A legal precedent set earlier in a similar case in New York, though not related to Waldorf education, led the Court to conclude that PLANS lacked a basis to claim taxpayer standing in the case. After an appeal by PLANS, the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in February 2003 reversed the decision on taxpayer standing by the lower court, allowing the case to proceed towards trial.

In May 2004, PLANS filed a motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, requesting that the Court rule that anthroposophy is a religion, based on material presented by PLANS. But the Court did not accept these arguments, and on 15 November 2004 denied the motion, stating that "triable issues of material fact exist as to whether anthroposophy is a religion".

In April 2005, the Court issued an order outlining the trial issues and the evidentiary and procedural guidelines for the trial, scheduled for September 12, 2005. The court separated the issues, stating that it would be first necessary to try the question of whether Anthroposophy was a religion, and secondly, whether Anthroposophy was present in the schools. The order denied PLANS eleven witnesses, for failure by its attorney to make timely disclosure to Defendants, and 101 of PLANS' exhibits, as a result of discovery sanctions.

The estimated length of trial was to be sixteen days. The only expert witness to be heard in the trial on the issue if anthroposophy is a religion was Douglas Sloan, Columbia University Professor Emeritus of Education, adjunct Professor of Religion and Education at the Union Theological Seminary and The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and former Director of the Masters Degree Program in Waldorf Education at Sunbridge College, New York. Before the trial, he filed a declaration stating that in every fundamental respect anthroposophy is not a religion and that the Anthroposophical Society is not a religious organization.

Once the trial started, the Court found that the Plaintiff did not have one legally-admissible witness or evidence to support their assertion that anthroposophy is a religion, and the trial came to an end after 30 minutes.

The case was decided by the Federal District Court of California for the two school districts.

PLANS presented no further case, and the judge ordered PLANS to pay the costs for the school districts.

See transcript of the trial and a complete summary of the course of the lawsuit. PLANS is appealing the court's decision on the grounds that the disclosure of evidence rules were not in force when the seven-year trial began.

PLANS' official press release reporting the results of the court case misrepresented the judge's decision in a variety of ways:

• The press release claimed that the organization had refused to present its case at trial.
  • At the trial, PLANS' attorney presented all the evidence and witnesses that were allowed; it was the judge that had disallowed witnesses that had not been properly disclosed according to a law that had been in place for six years.
• The press release claimed that the judge said he intended to dismiss the case.
  • The judge gave the case a full trial and decided the case for the defendants.
• The press release claimed that the school district had withdrawn two witnesses - that were also witnesses for the prosecution - due to fears that their testimony would hurt the schools.
  • The judge stated that the prosecution could have presented these witnesses independently of whether they were to appear for the schools if they had followed the rules of disclosure.

Criticism of the PLANS organization

Americans for Waldorf Education, an organization that supports Waldorf education, claims that:

"PLANS' statements on their web site and in online discussions on the "Waldorf Critics" mailing list, owned by the secretary of the group, are seriously distorted and are not supported by the published research on Waldorf education."

References

1. Public schools teaching occult religion? Worldnet Daily News October 1999
2. Witch hunt Americans for Waldorf Education
3. See above foot note
4. See above foot note
5. The PLANS Litigation Americans for Waldorf Education
6. See above foot note
7. See above foot note
8. See above foot note
9. See above foot note
10. The court disallowed the two witnesses the plaintiffs offered at trial time on the grounds that these were:
    • previously disclosed as defendants' witnesses ,
    • formally recognized as defendants' witnesses by the plaintiffs, and
    • never disclosed as plaintiffs' witnesses by the deadline for such disclosures.
    PLANS' appeal is based on the assertion that the rule cited in the judge's dismissal was not in effect when this trial began, and that the witnesses were fully disclosed under the applicable rules.
11. The organization sought to bring a single piece of evidence, a book written by a Waldorf teacher, The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide. In lieu of any witnesses to testify about this, the court judged this "rank hearsay"
12. Change of PLANS -Waldorf foes will try their luck in another court Newsreview September 2005
13. PLANS Press Release on the 2005 Trial PLANS website
14. A detailed, if partisan analysis of the press release
15. The judge stated all of these facts in the transcript of the trial
16. See above footnote.
17. See above footnote.

External links

• PLANS web site
• Comments about PLANS by Americans for Waldorf Education

This article relating to education is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

• Education stubs
• Alternative education