To think animal welfare should be added to the National Curriculum?

[SparkleSunshine201]

I was shocked to read that incidents of animal cruelty are increasing. I realise that educating children on animal welfare should start at home, but it's surprising that a number of children aren't being taught the basics, i.e. that animals have thoughts and feelings and can suffer and feel pain, just like us.

There is a petition about adding animal welfare to the national curriculum. I think it could really help children to be aware of how to treat animals humanely.

You can sign the petition here: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170481

What do you think?

It doesn't need to be added to the curriculum, though.

Do people realise schools can touch on all sorts of subjects which aren't part of the actual curriculum?

If everyone wanted the subject close to their heart 'added to the curriculum', the curriculum would become a farcical document that didn't mean anything, and core subjects would get lose in the milieu.

Stop messing with the curriculum! Schools are busy enough without diluting the syllabus further. I want my children to receive the best core education possible, it's my job to make them a rounded human being. Bad parenting shouldn't be patched up by the education system.

onewith
Yes I agree but that's not the same as animal welfare and so not a good argument against not including it.

theonlylivingboy's post immediately after yours makes exactly this point and it's clear that most people have no idea what animal welfare is or misunderstand it as 'be nice to animals' And 'look after pets.'

I find it interesting that the majority of people arguing against animal welfare in schools on this thread have absolutely no idea what animal welfare is, and assume that ownership of a pet magically imbues you with the necessary knowledge and skills to give that animal a good quality of life.

As mentioned before it wouldn't need to be a new subject - it could be covered in PSHE, or through the Scottish curriculum (as it already has)

It's also worth noting that pet ownership does not necessarily confer any sense of childrens' responsibility towards animals as parents usually take on this role
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0907568214524457

It's interesting to see that every post asking what should be dropped/reduced to accommodate such a subject gets ignored.

I'd also like to know who is going to finance the additional resources, training etc that teachers will need to carry this out? As well as the additional funding to release teachers and edcation staff on secondment to form part of the curriculjm building party.

I don't think it should be included. There are large amounts of children with mental health problems - more eating disorders and self harm. if anything was changed I would rather this was addressed somehow - and staff mental health. Starting with getting rid of SATS.
Parents need to parent more and not pass everything to school and blame the under pressure teachers when their own child misbehaves.
Also for those saying 'stick it in PSHe lessons' - it is not statutory. There can be any teacher teaching it, it can all be done on one day (God help you if your off sick) lessons squeezed in, sex ed by school nurses etc. Obvously not all schools but some
I would prefer Pshe was made statutory and given importance over animal welfare - sorry op

I would make first aid a part of the NC as first priority.

YABU Not every important lesson in life should be taught in the classroom.

I think that it should be in the curriculum, but not as a subject that is tested.

As much as how to act around animals, cooking and money management should be taught by parents, there are many parents now who either don't know how to do the above or are too busy working 3+ shift jobs to be able to sit down and pass the knowledge on. This means that you just get into a spiral of ignorance which affects the future generations. We do seem to have the attitude in this country that there is no point in learning, I can just go on benefits, rather than I want to learn so I can get a good job and have a better standard of life than my parents.

I have known people who didn't realise that they have to actually feed their pets, walk their dog or that animals can feel pain or take them to the vet if they are ill.

As much as how to act around animals, cooking and money management should be taught by parents, there are many parents now who either don't know how to do the above or are too busy working 3+ shift jobs to be able to sit down and pass the knowledge on.

But herein lies the problem. Where do you draw the line between parents responsibility and teachers responsibility?
It's all well and good to say 'parents are too busy/lazy to pass this on' but what about an already stretched curriculum and teachers at breaking point with an already busy schedule?

I'm not disagreeing that someone needs to take responsibility for teaching these things to children. I just believe a line has to be drawn somewhere.

To add, just because something is not written on the curriculum, it doesn't mean that it won't be discussed. Sometimes things pop up in context and end up being incorporated into a lesson. Example: in my NQT year I taught a text that dealt with the moral dilemma of intensive farming. Though I was teaching literacy based on the curriculum, our team planned a lot of debate and research tasks that delved into the ethics and morality behind battery farms and free range.
So it can happen! It just takes a bit of creativity.

Goodness, there's enough burden on schools as it is. In an ideal world ok, but not now.

Disagree entirely nothing to do with schools.

theonlylivingboy's post immediately after yours makes exactly this point and it's clear that most people have no idea what animal welfare is or misunderstand it as 'be nice to animals' And 'look after pets.

Then do please enlighten us what animal welfare IS in the context that children in particular need to learn

Because I have never needed to know anything more than I do already. You seem appalled that we dont know this essential stuff, yet reluctant to share any knowledge?

I think it's a good idea. Living in the Gulf many children and their parents were unwittingly cruel to animals through sheer ignorance, such as poking, scaring or chasing them at any sort of animal display or chasing stray dogs etc.
The animal rescue organisations there visit schools to allow the children there to interact in a gentle, appropriate and supervised manner with a variety of animals and it works well. These children will wind up educating their parents.

Toast in theory, taking children to a rescue centre is a great idea. But. Educational visits/trips are a ball ache. You need to have a clear and justified reason, linked to the curriculum, for every trip. You can't just up and say 'let's go to xyz this term'.

So a rescue centre would perhaps, at a push, fit into some early years or lower ks1 topics, but they are too young for it to have any moral impact. Whereas older children could probably get it, but it doesn't fit with any curriculum topics (that I can think of off the top of my head anyway).

So, nice idea but wouldn't happen.

But herein lies the problem. Where do you draw the line between parents responsibility and teachers responsibility?
It's all well and good to say 'parents are too busy/lazy to pass this on' but what about an already stretched curriculum and teachers at breaking point with an already busy schedule?

Could it not also be said that the more we treat people like utter idiots who are incapable of doing X Y Z the more people act like them and offload the responsibility to school etc

So much of what schola have to do was u heard of when I went 30 years ago. Teachers literally taught. Now it seems the more they deal with the more people expect to deal with. The answer to every crisis seems to be "school"

There are some really outraged posters here. Animal husbandry and welfare isnt about caring. Its about setting and achieving standards.

Gileswithachainsaw
If you need a cash incentive or "prize" in order to want to learn how to take care of something not be cruel towards it then I'm. Sorry I have to wonder how much you cared in the first place.

Luck money isnt a prize or cash incentive. Its a point of pride in having high standards.
The people screaming blue murder on this thread are the ones who dont have a discipline involving animals and thinks its about being nice and caring, or an animal lover.

It isnt. Its about self discipline, acquiring practical skills and knowledge. The same as child rearing classes would be more than 'feed the baby and dont throw it at the wall its not a toy'.

Its a shame more life skills cant be taught in schools. We used to be able to teach English, Math, woodworking, metalworking, sports, cooking, agriculture and other skills without having a cow.

Look of you want an in depth knowledge and experience on how to lom after animals then go study it at college or university. I did.

Fir the majority of people what they need to know is not to be cruel towards an animal and that if you are responsible for taking care of an animal its your job to ensure that you find out exactly what you need to know.

And that's the parents job. And schools already teach children how to find out information.

Because all that information you talked about is enough to fill a two year course based soley around that subject.

Animal husbandry and welfare isnt about caring. Its about setting and achieving standards

What has that got to do with most people though? I have nothing to do with animals, or achieving standards of welfare, other than being a member of society and all that entails. Which I don't need lessons on from school.

All I would like is for schools to look after their own pets properly. They don't. Many have animals in far too small cages.

Just asDJbaggy says, animal welfare education can have multiple benefits -to society in general, not just to animals e.g.
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-6922-9_1

And learning it as an adult is too late - you empathetic development and dissociation from your own choices mattering are too well established by then:
booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15685306-12341283

In terms of resources, all of the major animal welfare charities will provide lesson plans free of charge and some even offer teacher training.

theonlylivingboy
Other than being a member of society and all that entails

Exactly - and animals are used in every sector of our society - food, clothing, companionship, biomedical sciences... how they are managed within our society is dependent upon our attitudes towards what is acceptable. And our attitudes are driven by our knowledge and understanding of what animals need and how they experience the world. There's s lot of research that demonstrates the benefits of positive societal attitudes to animals, but that only occurs if people are knowledgeable and empowered as children.

And our attitudes are driven by our knowledge and understanding of what animals need and how they experience the world

Animal neurobiology and the complex arguments on animal ecology, welfare, enviromental needs etc are not appropriate topics for school children.
You're forgetting that the majority of people already have positive societal attitudes to animals already, children do not need to be mini vets or ecologists in order not to be cruel to animals. Not to mention the fact that there are many varying and opposing theories and opinions on all aspects of animal welfare and usage...which are you proposing to teach school children?

It is ludicrous to suggest that this should be put into the National Curriculum.

In regards to reducing animal cruelty, eliminating it from school meals would be start. I'm not sure what it's like in the rest of the country but in Manchester school meals can have ingredients from permanently caged hens and pork from indoor reared pigs.
If we pressure schools and councils for example with a petition like this:
petitions.manchester.gov.uk/consult.ti/system/viewPetition?petitionid=13610&showall=Y
then schools can lead by example without putting more pressures on teachers.