CC BY
25PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
CLASSROOM PETS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL EDUCATION: BENEFITS AND WELFARE
CONCERNS
Arnaudova-Otouzbirova A.
Assoc. prof., PhD, Faculty of Education, Trakia University,
Stara Zagora, Bulgaria https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7258690
Abstract
Young children are intrinsically fascinated with animals from an early age and the role of animals in the life of children has been the focal point of many research articles in the last years, some of which focus primarily on the positive effects of human-animal interactions on child health and well-being. In line with the above, this article discusses the problem of keeping non-human animals as classroom pets in primary school settings. Some of the reported benefits of keeping live animals in the classroom are outlined, as well as the risks and welfare concern associated with such educational practices. The question whether animals are suitable for a classroom environment is specifically addressed in relation to animal welfare and, finally, some recommendations for future pedagogical practices are discussed.
Keywords: classroom pets, primary schools, human-animal interactions, benefits, animal welfare
Human-animal interaction (HAI) represent a relatively new and important field of study that has attracted considerable interest among developmental scientists in the last 30 to 40 years with a particular focus on child health and well-being. [5, 7]. Literature studies indicate that HAI may result in many beneficial effects for children, related to their social, emotional and cognitive development. Various authors emphasize the positive impact of HAI on empathy development and respectively on children's prosocial behavior [1, 5]. In addition, animals are believed to enhance social and emotional support, both directly and indirectly [7, 15] by providing secure attachment relationships [11] and relieving stress associated with anxiety [17]. Besides encouraging a child's positive development HAI may provoke sincere interest and concern for animals and the natural world [17] and thus teach responsibility and enhance cognitive development.
Benefits of having pets in the primary classroom
The practice of keeping animals as classroom pets is a popular activity in many primary school settings [2, 9, 20], Animals are believed to provide enjoyment and hands-on experience for young learners, to support effective education and childrens' biopsychosocial health [12] and are considered to be a useful teaching aid in humane education programmes [1].
Teachers, as a whole, seem to agree on the positive effects of having classroom pets, mainly because of the perceived contributions to learners' development with regards to: children's psychological well-being, increased empathy, socio-emotional development and interpersonal skills [4]; improvement in their learning outcomes (affecting learners' reading ability, motor skills, adherence to instructions, categorisation of objects and their recognition, as well as classroom behaviour) [2]; greater motivation and attention focus during task completion [17]; as well as the provision of opportunities for building responsibility and leadership when looking after other living creatures and for participating
in physical and creative activities when enriching the classroom pet's environment [8].
Despite the above described benefits resulting from the seemingly effective integration of classroom pets in the primary school curriculum, many teachers voice their concerns about the costs associated with keeping live animals in a classroom setting [8, 13, 20]. These costs are usually financial related to the purchase of animal food, the provision of proper housing and the costs for veterinary care in relation to a limited school budget. Other considerations may arise from the problem of allocating a suitable space in the classroom or from inconveniences due to the amount of noise and smell, the need for constant care and cleaning, as well as the potential distraction for pupils. In addition to that, emotional costs need to be considered, such as a child's fear of certain animals or the emotional stress caused by a classroom's pet injury, illness or eventual death. Last but not least, there are liability concerns due to bites, allergies, and the risk of animals transmitting zo-onotic diseases.
While these research findings indicate that most primary school teachers are primarily concerned with the human aspect of the relationship, there remains an obvious and alarming lack of reference in HAI research to risk assessment and animal welfare [2].
Welfare concerns for classroom pets
According to a survey conducted among 1400 teachers [2] 70% of them employed live animals in the classroom and another study [8] involving a sample of 1,131 teachers indicates that the most common pets in educational settings in the USA and Canada are: fish (31 %), reptiles and amphibians (29%), guinea pigs (13.7 %) and hamsters (10.6 %). These animals are most probably selected because they are small and are considered to be relatively easy to maintain [20] but the fact that many of them are exotic species is in itself alarming. Study findings indicate that non-traditional pets make up 34% of all pets in Europe, 63% in UK alone and almost 36% in USA [18]. Their welfare is
complicated by factors such as lack of knowledge, difficulties meeting species-specific requirements in the home (respectively the classroom) and their keeping as pets raises the ethical question of whether these animals have been part of the illegal pet trade.
These reported challenges pose important issues for teachers to consider before welcoming pets into their classroom environment. Fish, for example, despite being the most popular classroom pet, rely heavily on their environment and only those species with relatively simple needs should be incorporated into a classroom setting [10]. They require fresh water with a sufficient surface and amount of oxygen to breathe, a relatively stable temperature, a water filter and a sufficient amount of water for swimming. Therefore, a small aquarium or a simple bowl filled with water cannot provide adequate housing. If we consider reptiles, as being the second most popular classroom pet, their species-specific needs would probably pose even more serious challenges. Reptiles have special requirements for heat, light, humidity and food and when inappropriately accommodated they are prone to exhibiting signs of stress, such as hyperactivity, hypoactivity, interaction with transparent boundaries, co-occupant behaviour and aggression. [19]. In addition, reptiles and amphibians are associated with many zoononotic diseases and may pose a serious health risk to children due to salmonellosis [20]. Unlike exotic species, guinea pigs might be considered more suitable for a classroom environment since they are diurnal and highly social. Nonetheless, they should always be housed with same-sex, same-species mate to avoid unwanted breeding and the floor of their enclosure should be solid to prevent tangled paws and broken limbs [10]. Hamsters, on the other hand, are not recommended because they are nocturnal and will want to sleep just when children are most likely to interact with them and this may cause severe stress and disrupt their natural biological rhythm [3].
In addition, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) [16] argue that classroom animals are often improperly accommodated, may suffer from stress, injuries and abuse, lack appropriate care during weekends and school holidays are usually not included in schools' emergency preparedness plans. These issues raise both ethical and welfare concerns that need to be addressed when considering: the animal's living environment (size, type and location of the enclosure, group versus individual housing, lighting and climate control, etc.); the type of care provided (type and amount of food, feeding frequency, access to fresh water, comfortable bedding and a quite resting place, environmental enrichment, care over weekends and school holidays, plus veterinary care); and interaction (species-specific behaviours and needs, type and length of interaction with humans, handling versus watching/quite and stress free time).
Furthermore, these considerations are best discussed within the concept of the Five Freedoms (developed in the UK after the Brambell report of 1965 and now widely adopted by professional organisations). Briefly stated, these are:
S The freedom from hunger and thirst — by ready access to water and a diet to maintain health and vigour.
S The freedom from discomfort — by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
S The freedom from pain, injury and disease—by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
S The freedom to express normal behaviour — by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and appropriate company of the animal's own kind.
S The freedom from fear and distress — by ensuring conditions and treatment, which avoid mental suffering
Since all of the Five Freedoms can be easily compromised in a school setting, the question whether it is really necessary to have a classroom pet remains a debatable one.
Is it really necessary to have a classroom pet?
Some researchers arrive at the conclusion that current findings are insufficient to prove the positive effects of classroom animals due to methodological and statistical shortcomings and that the use of live animals in the classroom is not in any way superior to other forms of teaching including educational resources [2, 14]. A treatment-control study, conducted in 2012, found no difference in pupils' academic achievements between the two experimental groups (animals in the classroom v/s a video lesson with animals) [14].
In light of the above, replacing classroom pets with other educational resources can be viewed as an appropriate and useful pedagogical choice that will enable teachers to introduce the 3-Rs concept of animal research based on the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement [10]. Replacement will require that we replace classroom pets with educational materials and instructional resources, such as window observations, field studies, bulletin boards and posters, films and videos, stuffed animals and puppets, story writing and discussions, art projects, and humane education materials. Reduction can be achieved by means of reducing the number of classroom pets, reducing unnecessary human-animal interaction and prohibiting the keeping of exotic species and any animals whose welfare needs will not be accommodated in the classroom. And finally, refinement means that when and if animals are used as classroom pets, this should be done responsibly, appointing a primary adult caregiver, providing veterinary care and guaranteeing safe handling under adult supervision. The species-specific needs have to be taken into account in accordance with the Five Freedoms and animal welfare has to be considered at all times, especially when young children are involved [7]. Lastly, but importantly, human-animal interactions in the classroom must be guided by a strict and thorough protocol for risk assessment measures [2] whereas teachers currently having or having the intention of acquiring a classroom pet can benefit from participating in specially designed human-animal interaction and animal welfare courses.
As suggested by Dinker and Pedersen [6] other non-invasive and non-interventionist critical animal pedagogies should be developed as a response to con-
ventional anthropocentric education. This does not necessarily mean that the practice of keeping live animals in the classroom should be completely abandoned. But its potential positive effects should not be taken for granted. As a decision it should be considered with caution since it requires great responsibility, risk assessment, strict supervision and regulations, as well as essential knowledge of species welfare needs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be argued that animals can provide numerous beneficial opportunities for learning and development in a primary school setting. However, regardless of teachers' good intentions and educational purposes, the keeping of animals in the classroom should not be encouraged since it can easily jeopardize animal welfare. Scientific evidence for the beneficial effects of human-animal interactions for young learners will necessitate precise and methodologically sound studies and the risks for both children and animals should not be underestimated. Bearing in mind that a classroom setting is not an ideal environment for an animal, other ways of teaching learners to appreciate animals and the beauty of life should be encouraged as an efficient and more humane alternative.
References:
1. Akow, P. (2010) Animal-assisted interventions and humane education: opportunities for a more targeted focus. In: Fine, A. (ed.) Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice (Third Edition), Elsevier, 457-480
2. Brelsford, V. L. et al, (2017) Animal-assisted interventions in the classroom - a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 669. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih. gov/pmc/arti-cles/PMC5551107/ [Accessed 20 October 2022].
3. Birkholz, E. and Theran, P. (2000) Animals in the Classroom: A Guide for Elementary and Secondary Educators, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Boston, USA. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED473857 [Accessed 12 October 2022].
4. Correale, C. et al. (2017) Development of a dog-assisted activity program in an elementary classroom. Veterinary Sciences, 4 (4), 62, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publica-tion/321323140_Development_of_a_Dog-As-sisted_Activity_Program_in_an_Elementary_Class-roomn [Accessed 10 October 2022].
5. Daly, B. and Suggs, S. (2010) Teachers' experiences with humane education and animals in the elementary classroom: implications for empathy development. Journal of Moral Education, 39 (1), 101-112. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240903528733 [Accessed 2 October 2022].
6. Dinker, K. G. and Pedersen, H. (2016) Critical animal pedagogies: re-learning our relations with animal others. In: Lees, H. E. and Noddings, N. (eds.) The Palgrave International Handbook on Alternative Education, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 415-430
7. Esposito, L. et al. (2011) Directions in human-animal interaction research:Child development, health, and therapeutic interventions. Child Development Perspectives, 0, 1-7. Available at: https://www.re-searchgate.net/publication/230201485_Direc-tions_in_Human-Animal_Interaction_Re-search_Child_Development_Health_and_Therapeutic _Interventions [Accessed 10 October 2022].
8. Ganzert, R. and McCullough, A. (2015) Pets in the Classroom Study. American Humane Association, Available at: https://www.americanhu-mane.org/app/uploads/2016/08/PETS-IN-THE-CLASSROOM-CKT-R4.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2022].
9. Gee, N. R., Griffin, J. A. and McCardle, P. (2017) Human - animal interaction research in school settings: Current knowledge and future directions, AERA Open, 3 (3), 1-9, Available at: https://jour-nals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332858417724346 [Accessed 20 October 2022].
10. Gee, N. R., Rawlings, J. M., O'Haire, M. E., Bennett, P. C, Shellgrove, D. Peralta, J. M., (2017) Caring for classroom pets. In: Gee, N.R., Fine, A. H. and McCardle, P. (eds.) How Animals Help Students Learn: Research and Practice for Educators and Mental-Health Professionals, NY and London: Routledge, 197-211
11. Hawkins, R. D. and Williams, I. M. (2017) Childhood attachment to pets: Associations between pet attachment, attitudes to animals, compassion, and humane behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 490, Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/5/490 [Accessed 10 October 2022].
12. Hediger, K and Beetz, A. (2015) The role of human - animal interactions in education. In: Zinsstag, J et al. (eds.), One Health: The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health, CAB International, 73-84, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publica-tion/307393133_The_Role_of_Human-Animal_Inter-action_in_Education [Accessed 12 October 2022].
13. Herbert, S. and Lynch, J. (2017) Classroom animals provide more than just science education. Science and Education, 26, 107-123.
14. Hummel, E and Randler, C. (2012) Living animals in the classroom: A meta-analysis on learning outcomes and a treatment - control study focusing on knowledge and motivation, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 95-105. Available at: https ://link. springer.com/article/10.1007/s 10956-0119285-4 [Accessed 12 October 2022].
15. O'Haire, M. E. et al. (2013) Effects of animal-assisted activities with guinea pigs in the primary school classroom. Anthrozoos, 26:3, 445-458. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303713X136974294638 35 [Accessed 2 October 2022].
16. PETA, What's the Problem with Classroom 'Pets'? Available at: https://www.peta.org/teach-kind/humane-classroom/whats-problem-classroom-pets/ [Accessed 2 October 2022].
17. Serpell, J. and McCune, S. (eds.) (2012) WALTHAM Pocket Book of Human-Animal Interactions, Beyond Design Solutions Ltd., UK. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica-tion/267869536_WALTHAMR_Pocket_Book_of_Hu man-Animal_Interactions [Accessed 20 September 2022].
18. Schuppli, C. A., Fraser, D. and Bacon, H.J. (2014) Welfare of non-traditional pets, Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1), 221-231.
19. Warwick, C., Jessop, M., Arena, P., Pliny, A., E. Nicholas & Lambiris, A. (2017) Future of keeping
pet reptiles and amphibians: animal welfare and public health perspective (Veterinary Record), British Veterinary Association.
20. Zasloff , R. L. et al. (1999) Animals in elementary school education in California. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2 (4), 347-357. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327 604jaws0204_8?journalCode=haaw20 [Accessed 12 September 2022].
