Copies of this journal are no longer available for sale, but our other two journals, Society & Animals and the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, are available and subscriptions are quite affordable. They can be ordered online via our secure order page.

Regulation of Animal Use in Australian Classrooms

COLIN BOYLAN

The author describes what happened in Australia when public awareness and concern caused the Australian government to issue an Act of Parliament which required that all research and teaching establishments become accredited and seek permission to use animals in the classroom. He discusses ways the schools and teachers have responded to the Act including the creation of teacher guidelines and special educational programs that include animals.

KEY WORD INDEX:: animal welfare, education, educational methods, educational programs, agricultural education,
regulations

About the Author

INTRODUCTION

Animals have been used in schools for many years. Teachers recognize the motivational benefits when animals are brought into classrooms to assist in developing students' understanding. Students are curious about themselves and other animals in the world in which they live (Rose, 1991). Students want to care for and nurture animals and learn about the biological principles of life. Teachers can guide students in learning effective animal management strategies in agricultural subjects where regular school farm experiences are provided.

Teachers use many life forms: invertebrates such as snails, slaters, worms, beetles; and vertebrates such as goldfish, mice, frogs, sheep, cattle, goats, fowl, and budgerigars to achieve a range of learning outcomes. Students achieve a varied range of learning when they understand bio-diversity, take responsibility for the care of animals, develop safe and sound farming practices, understand physiological and morphological organization in animals, and observe, record, and analyze animal behavior.

Generally, the decisions of when to use animals in the classroom and for what purposes were left to the teacher. Recently, Australian schools have been required to identify the ways they use animals. Social and political forces operating from outside schools have questioned the in-school animal use practices of teachers.

SOCIAL INFLUENCES

Over the past thirty years, traditional animal welfare organizations like the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (R.S.P.C.A.) and the Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies have increased their emphasis on raising public awareness for the humane treatment of animals. In recent years, they have been joined by other groups such as the Animal Liberation Movement, Animal Rights Activists, and the Animal Welfare League. These organizations have presented a more dramatic response to the use of animals in educational settings. They focused public attention on inhumane practices carried out by both schools and research institutions. This rise in public awareness and concern created the environment in which government needed to respond through action.

POLITICAL INFLUENCE

Where once voluntary codes of practices were used by schools and research institutions, the strength of public opinion and concern required government action. Political action initially took the form of parliamentary inquiries about animal welfare at both state and federal levels such as the Commonwealth Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. In New South Wales, the state government responded with the proclamation of the N.S.W. Animal Research Act No. 123 (1985). This Act was fully implemented in 1991. Under the Act all research and teaching establishments (schools, universities, research organizations, like C.S.I.R.O.) that use vertebrate animals must be accredited and seek permission to use animals (Jarzabkowski, 1992). This Act does not include invertebrate animals.

In 1991 Margaret Rose, the chairperson of the N.S.W. Animal Research Review Panel writes: "The cornerstones of the Act are responsibility and accountability. The Act seeks to ensure that through carefully structured Animal Care and Ethics Committees. The decision to use animals will be accountable
to and reflect the views of the wider community."

THE RESPONSE BY HIGH
SCHOOLS IN NEW SOUTH WALES

The Animal Research Act deals specifically with the use of animals in schools and mandatory responsibility for the teacher to: "...ensure that the students in the class are aware that the care and use of animals must be in accordance with the provisions of this code, the Act, and the regulations." (Regulations, Schedule 1 Part 4, clause 128) The response of the N.S.W. Department of Education has been to: 1) establish a Schools Animal Care and Ethics Committee to accredit all government schools, most Catholic schools, and many independent schools in N.S.W.;

2) create an in-school Animal Welfare Liaison officer who has the responsibility to monitor and ensure that animal use be consistent with the Act;

3) develop guidelines on the care and use of animals in schools;

4) identify the responsibilities of the class teacher; and

5) list the range of approved activities involving animals. Teacher reactions to these legal requirements and departmental guidelines have been varied. For some teachers, it has meant the removal of all animal based activities from their classrooms. Others have been forced to rethink the purposes for which animals have been used, and consider alternative activities involving textbook, video, 35mm slide, or computer simulations. For other teachers, it has created the opportunity to introduce courses on animal care into the curriculum so that students can develop the basic knowledge and skills needed to adequately care for animals, and to enable them to enjoy association with animals (Animal Care Syllabus, 1985).

CARING AND USING ANIMALS IN THE CLASSROOM

The New South Wales Department of School Education responded to the Act by creating guidelines on animal welfare and use within its schools. The animal welfare guidelines (N.S.W. Department of School Education, 1991) describe the general principles for the welfare, care, and use of animals, responsibilities of the class teacher, and a listing of approved activities with animals in schools. The general principles state: 1) animals are to be used in teaching only where there is no practicable alternative to achieving educational objectives. Learning outcomes and selecting appropriate methods to achieve those outcomes require teacher reflective analysis to determine whether the use of an animal will most effectively achieve those educational goals. This does not preclude some wonderful learning experiences for students such as caring for injured animals and learning how to humanely handle animals in science and agriculture, rather, it asks teachers to justify the role of animal activities in their curriculum;

2) teachers undertaking activities involving live animals in schools are responsible for the animal's welfare at all times. The quality of accommodation, feeding regimes, and animal health issues are established clearly as the prime responsibility of the teacher. For example, teachers must know that it is forbidden in N.S.W. schools to allow any animal to be placed on a feeding regime that is less than a maintenance diet. it is expected that all animals will show positive growth while in the care of the schools;

3) all activities which involve animals in schools must have appropriate approval and must be carried out under the supervision of a teacher. All personnel involved with animals must have appropriate competence and skills. In agriculture, for instance, students are not permitted to engage in mulesing sheep, carry out tail docking, nor collect ruminal fluids. In fact, the recommendation in the guidelines is for a veterinary officer to perform these operations on sheep. Additionally, whenever students examine internal organs or systems of animals procured from an abattoir, they are required to wear surgical gloves at all times. Prior to the full implementation of the Act, this was not a mandatory requirement;

4) animals must be treated with respect, and care. Steps must be taken at all times to prevent pain and distress;

5) projects must be designed to use the minimum number of animals necessary; and

6) animals must be disposed of in an appropriate manner when they are no longer required.

One innovative educational program that incorporates all these principles in its classroom activities is Pet Pep. Pet Pep is a new elementary school program developed by the Australian Veterinary Association that explores all aspects of the interactions between humans and companion animals. The program consists of four components: i) the benefits of pet ownership, which examines the role of pets in society; ii) pets in the community and how the way pets are kept affects other members of the community; iii) pets and the environment where issues of the adverse affects of pets on the environment and differences between responsibly owned domestic animals and ferals are raised; and iv) animal welfare where elementary children learn about the health and general welfare needs of the household pet (Newby, 1994). Each component in the program lasts ten weeks. Lesson plans and support materials are supplied as part of the teaching kit.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLASSROOM TEACHER

The greatest responsibilities associated with the care and use of animals in the classroom reside with the classroom teacher. Under the Act, the classroom teacher is legally required to ensure that: 1) the use of animals conforms with the general principles described in the guidelines policy.

2) any activity included on the approved list is entered into a school register along with the name of the class teacher responsible for implementation. This register must be made available on request to the N.S.W. Department of School Education Animal Care and Ethics Committee.

3) for any activity beyond the approved list, a proposal is submitted through the Schools Animal Care and Ethics Committee and that the approval is received from the Committee before the activity begins.

4) there is involvement of the minimum number of animals necessary to meet valid educational objectives.

5) immediate steps are taken to alleviate any pain, distress, or illness in an animal.

6) the housing, feeding, husbandry, and transportation of animals are of an appropriate high standard and that care is provided at all times by persons of appropriate competence and skills.

7) restraint of animals is effective, involves the least possible adverse reaction from animals, and is of the shortest possible duration.

8) there is compliance with legislation relating to the acquisition, transportation, use, and disposal of animals.

9) activities set out below are not carried out by students or demonstrated to them:

-- performance of surgical procedure without anaesthesia other that in the conduct of normal animal husbandry operations;

-- induction of infectious diseases;

-- nutritional deficiency giving rise to distress;

-- administration of drugs or chemicals other than those recommended for a particular therapeutic purpose;

-- administration of ionizing radiation other bio-hazardous material;

-- other stimuli causing distress (Animal Research Act, 1985; Jarzabkowski, 1992; N.S.W. Department of School Education, 1991).

APPROVED CARE FOR AND
USE OF ANIMALS IN SCHOOLS

The Schools Animal Care and Ethics Committee has created a comprehensive set of guidelines for the care for an extensive range of vertebrate animals. Detailed information on the physical attributes, normal behavior, food requirement, signs of illness, housing, and environmental conditions to provide for the animals, handling procedures, and the correct disposal procedures for the dead vertebrate are provided to schools and teachers. Teachers cannot plead ignorance, the Act holds the teacher responsible for all school based activities involving animals.

Additionally, the committee has created a list of activities that schools may and may not conduct on vertebrate animals. A four-category system of activities is used to identify types of permitted activities and who is permitted conduct them. 1) Category 1 represents activities that can be conducted by students of all ages and no special training is needed. Examples of Category 1 activities focus on observing and recording the normal behavior of the animal such as observing placental reproduction in mice or courtship behavior in parrots.

2) Category 2 represents activities that are restricted to students with relevant background, maturity, or students following a science or agricultural related course for which the activity is appropriate. Examples of Category 2 activities include: captive, restraint and handling of non-free-living animals; measuring and observing body weight, growth patterns, blood and pulse flow, respiration, temperature, age by dentition, measuring and observing mild dietary effects such as high/low protein, high/low energy; and behavior activities like imprinting in chickens, mazes with rats or mice, farming sheep, goats, and cattle, and training animals for performance and showing.

3) Category 3 represents activities demonstrated only by the teacher. Examples of Category 3 activities include standard animal husbandry practices for livestock and other animals such as: ear notching in domestic livestock like goats, pigs, and sheep; castration in immature livestock, artificial insemination, collecting blood samples from poultry, goats, cattle, sheep; microchip tagging, and breaking in cattle or horses.

4) Category 4 represents activities that are prohibited. Activities that teachers cannot demonstrate include: performing surgical procedures such as fistulating sheep; administering drugs and chemicals other than those recommended for a particular therapeutic purpose, administering stimuli causing distress in the animal; and inducing disease in animals.

CONCLUSION

The Animal Research Act is relatively new for schools, and its implications are becoming understood. The Act clearly places responsibility and accountability for the care of animals in schools with the class teacher. Many teachers have examined their current practices and opted for substituting animal use with alternate sources (video, books, computer simulation) in their teaching. Other teachers have included more instruction on the appropriate ways of caring for and maintaining animals. The result is the provision of positive experiences for students in which high quality animal care and humane methods of inquiry promote in students the development of respect for all life.

REFERENCES:

Animal Research Act (1985) No. 123. New South Wales Parliament.
Jarzabkowski, P. (1992). The Animal Research Act 1985:
Implications for Educational Institutions. In C. Boylan (Ed) Rural Education: In Pursuit of Excellence. Proceedings of the Eighth annual Conference of the Society for the Provision of Education in Rural Australia. July, Armidale.
N.S.W. Department of School Education (1991). Animals in School.

Colin Boylan

Ph.D.
Professor of Education
Charles Sturt University
Wagga Wagga, Australia

Colin taught secondary science in New South Wales high schools before moving into his current position of secondary teacher education at Charles Sturt University. He taught general science and biology to students in class years seven through twelve.

As a biology teacher, he recognized the need to treat animals in appropriate, ethical, and humane ways when using them in the teaching program. From observing high school teacher education students, he realized that many students feared handling animals or displayed inappropriate behavior when caring for and maintaining animals in the classroom. He has attempted to create learning situations in which students respect and handle animals in responsible ways.

www.PSYETA.org

P S Y E T A