humane education past, present, and future · humane education past, present, and future bernard...

Animal Studies RepositoryAnimal Studies Repository

The State of the Animals 2003 Public Policy Series

2003

Humane Education Past, Present, and FutureBernard UntiThe Humane Society of the United States

Bill DeRosaNational Association for Humane and Environmental Education

Follow this and additional works at: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/sota_2003

Part of the Humane Education Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Socialand Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Public Policy Series at Animal Studies Repository. It has been accepted forinclusion in The State of the Animals 2003 by an authorized administrator of Animal Studies Repository. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended CitationUnti, B., & DeRosa, B. (2003). Humane education: Past, present, and future. In D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of theanimals II: 2003 (pp. 27-50). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.

http://animalstudiesrepository.org?utm_source=animalstudiesrepository.org%2Fsota_2003%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://animalstudiesrepository.org/sota_2003?utm_source=animalstudiesrepository.org%2Fsota_2003%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://animalstudiesrepository.org/public_policy_series?utm_source=animalstudiesrepository.org%2Fsota_2003%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://animalstudiesrepository.org/sota_2003?utm_source=animalstudiesrepository.org%2Fsota_2003%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1295?utm_source=animalstudiesrepository.org%2Fsota_2003%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages




mailto:[email protected]

rom the earliest years of orga-nized animal protection in

North America, humane educa-tion—the attempt to inculcate thekindness-to-animals ethic throughformal or informal instruction of chil-dren—has been cast as a fruitfulresponse to the challenge of reducingthe abuse and neglect of animals. Yet,almost 140 years after the move-ment’s formation, humane educationremains largely the province of localsocieties for the prevention of crueltyand their educational divisions—ifthey have such divisions. Efforts toinstitutionalize the teaching ofhumane treatment of animals withinthe larger framework of the Americaneducational establishment have hadonly limited success. Moreover,knowledge, understanding, andempirical measures of the impact ofhumane education remain limited. Inmany respects humane education isbest seen as an arena of untappedpotential rather than one of unful-filled promise.

The Origins ofthe Kindness-to-Animals EthicAppreciation for the value of cultivat-ing kindness to animals in childrenflowed directly from John Locke’sobservations on the subject. Althoughothers had made the point previously,in 1693 Locke offered the mostprominent early statement of the

need to correct children’s cruelty.“This tendency should be watched inthem, and, if they incline to any suchcruelty, they should be taught thecontrary usage,” Locke wrote. “Forthe custom of tormenting and killingother animals will, by degrees, hardentheir hearts even toward men; andthey who delight in the suffering anddestruction of inferior creatures, willnot be apt to be very compassionateor benign to those of their own kind”(Locke 1989).

Over time Locke’s insight raisedinterest in the beneficial moral effectof childhood instruction favoring thekindly treatment of animals. Growingcomprehension of the importance ofchildhood experience and its impacton youthful character sustained arobust transatlantic publishing indus-try devoted to the production of liter-ature for children. In North Americathe first juvenile works infused withthe humane didactic began to appearin the late 1790s and early 1800s. Theearliest were reprints or excerpts ofEnglish titles, but the genre quicklygained important American enthusi-asts, including Lydia Maria Child andHarriet Beecher Stowe (Pickering1981; Unti 2002).

One explanation for the spread ofthe kindness-to-animals ethic lies inits consonance with the republicangender ideology of the post-revolu-tionary United States. Early Americansociety assumed a set of paternalisticrelationships both within and outsidethe family, emphasizing the impor-

tance of a virtuous citizenry devotedto republican principles of gover-nance. This made education of theboy especially critical, since as a manhe would assume authority over fami-ly, chattel, property, and social insti-tutions. Responsibility for educatingthe child for his leadership role restedwith women, who were assumed to bethe repositories of gentle virtue, com-passionate feeling, and devotion—buffers against the heartless struggleof the masculine public sphere.Humane education provided onemeans of insulating boys against thetyrannical tendencies that mightundermine civic life were they to gounchecked. Animals were nicely suit-ed for instruction that impressedupon the child their helplessness anddependence upon him and his consid-erable power over them (Kerber1980; Grier 1999; Unti 2002).

The presence of the kindness-to-animals ethic in antebellum child-hood experience had still broaderimplications for the process of classformation in North America. Fromthe 1820s onward, sympathy withdomestic animals, gradually encodedin education lessons for children,became an important means of incul-cating such standards of bourgeoisgentility as self-discipline, Christiansentiment, empathy, and moral sensi-tivity. Moreover, as a household com-panion, a domestic animal couldserve as a convenient real life medi-um for the practice and expression ofcompassionate feelings. Merciful

27

Humane EducationPast, Present, and Future

Bernard Unti and Bill DeRosa

3CHAPTER

Introduction

F

regard for animals became one hall-mark of a developing middle-class cul-ture rooted in Protestant evangelicalpiety (Grier 1999).

In addition to their socioculturalutility for instilling and enacting theprinciples of kindness and compas-sion, the presence of animals in chil-dren’s literature fulfilled other didac-tic functions in nineteenth-centurydomestic ideology. Narratives of ani-mal life offered idealized conceptionsof middle-class family relationshipsand served as morality tales forhuman domestic relations. By theirexample the animal heroes of thesenarratives served to reinforce cher-ished norms of conduct and behavior(Grier 1999).

Over time such functions helped toconsolidate the place of animals inthe emotional framework of middle-class domestic life. By the 1850s thekindness-to-animals ethic was a stapleof juvenile literature as well as a fix-ture of many middle-class homes. Ageneration before the advent of orga-nized animal protection in America,the humane didactic was an estab-lished instrument of childhood social-ization (Grier 1999; Unti 2002).

The Era ofOrganizedAnimalProtection After the anti-cruelty societiesformed in the late 1860s, humaneeducation became a vital objective ofa burgeoning social movement specif-ically devoted to the welfare of ani-mals. In the earliest stages of anti-cruelty work, humane educationreferred broadly to the instruction ofboth adults and children. As the lim-its of law enforcement-centeredapproaches became clear, animal pro-tectionists embraced early instruc-tion in kindliness as a means of reduc-ing adult crimes and prosecutions.Accordingly they shifted their empha-sis to the education of children as along-term response to the spread of

cruelty. Although many advocatesadopted this approach, George T.Angell of the Massachusetts Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani-mals (MSPCA) stood at its forefront.Under Angell’s leadership, theMSPCA and its sister organization,the American Humane EducationSociety (AHES), provided both theinspiration and the resources forhumane education, which becamecentral to the coalescence of a na-tional animal protection movementduring the last quarter of the nine-teenth century (Angell n.d.).

Like the kindness-to-animals ethicitself, enthusiasm for humane educa-tion of children within organized sys-tems of education predated the anti-cruelty societies, coinciding with theemergence of the common schoolmovement. The massive influx ofimmigrants in the 1830s and 1840sled some educators to envision theschool as a central instrument ofassimilation, guiding immigrant chil-dren away from the “backward” cul-tures of their parents. Horace Mann(1796–1859), universal schooling’sbest-known proponent, based his edu-cational philosophy on unlimitedfaith in the perfectibility of humanbeings and their institutions. His con-viction that the public school couldbe the answer to all of the Republic’sproblems had roots in the deepest ofAmerican traditions, including Jeffer-sonian republicanism, Christianmoralism, and Emersonian idealism.As Mann conceived the commonschool, it would be a guarantor ofsocial order that reduced the destruc-tive potential of class, political, orsectarian difference. This was not anunproblematic or unchallenged view,of course, and popular education wasa subject of intense debate (Cremin1969; Button and Provenzo 1983).

By 1860 Mann’s ideals had reachedfruition, with public schools operatingin a majority of the states. Althoughtheir philosophies varied, supportersof the common schools hoped toimprove children’s character by incul-cating morality and citizenship and tofacilitate social mobility by promotingtalent and hard effort. Through edu-

cation they would push young citizenstoward what one reformer called the“civilized life” of order, self-discipline,civic loyalty, and respect for privateproperty. Between 1860 and 1920, thecommon school movement, expand-ing its reach to include kindergarten,elementary, and secondary levels, became the dominant tradition inAmerican education. During the sameperiod, compulsory attendance re-quirements—rare before the CivilWar—became universal, with Missis-sippi the one exception (Butts andCremin 1953; Cremin 1969).

Mann recognized the value of hu-mane instruction, noting that

the good man grows in virtue, andthe bad man grows in sin....Fromthe youthful benevolence thatrejoices to see an animal happy,one grows up into a world-widebenefactor, into the healer of dis-eases, the restorer of sight to theblind, the giver of a tongue to thedumb, the founder of hospit-als. . . . Another grows from cruel-ty to animals, to being a kidnap-per, and enslaver, and seller ofmen, women, and children.(Mann 1861)Over time, humane values were

incorporated into formal systems ofeducation, including those inspiredby the object-teaching method associ-ated with the State Normal School atOswego, New York, and its president,Edward A. Sheldon (1823–1897)(Sheldon 1862).

Angell, influenced by Mann,stressed humane education’s utilityfor ensuring public order, suppressinganarchy and radicalism, smoothingrelations between the classes, and re-ducing crime. Humane educationwould be the solution to social unrestand revolutionary politics, he be-lieved, and a valuable means forsocializing the young, especially theoffspring of the lower classes. Angellalso appreciated the significance ofthe public school system as a forumfor socialization in an increasinglysecular society. He told the annualmeeting of the American HumaneAssociation (AHA) in 1885 that “thepublic school teachers have in the

28 The State of the Animals II: 2003

first fortnight of each school year,about four times as many children,and have them more hours, than theSunday school teachers do during thewhole year.” Humane education pro-vided a means of spreading the wordthat could be adapted easily by otheradvocates, especially women, in what-ever region or situation they might beactive. It did not require substantialfunds, and anyone able and willing towork with children in the schools orelsewhere could participate (Unti2002).

Angell’s enthusiasm for humaneeducation helped to make it one ofthe most important elements of ani-mal protection work in the GildedAge and the Progressive Era. TheMSPCA directed tens of thousands ofdollars toward the production and dis-tribution of humane education litera-ture, making it the preeminentsource of such materials in thenation. It also invested time, effort,and funds toward the formation ofBands of Mercy. The English temper-ance movement’s Bands of Hope,which rallied children against alcoholconsumption and related evils, pro-vided the model. Band of Mercy mem-bers pledged to “be kind to all harm-less living creatures and try to protectthem from cruel usage.” Angell andThomas Timmins, a minister who hadassisted with the development ofBands of Mercy in his native England,introduced the concept to the UnitedStates in 1882. Timmins worked toform bands, while Angell strove toraise money and awareness (Timmins1883). In 1889 this initiative coa-lesced as AHES.

From the 1870s onward, Angell hadbeen on the lookout for suitable liter-ature to guide the young toward thevalues of kindness. He found his idealvehicle in Black Beauty, the novel dic-tated by a dying British invalid, AnnaSewell, and first published in 1878. In1890 Angell circumvented copyrightlaws and brought out the first Ameri-can edition under the auspices ofAHES. In just two years, more thanone million copies were in circula-tion. Black Beauty cast a long shadowover the field, and Angell, wishing to

inspire a canine analogue, advertiseda contest for the purpose. The win-ning entry was Beautiful Joe, by Mar-garet Marshall Saunders of Nova Sco-tia. Later, a spate of autobiographicalworks—written by a host of maltreat-ed animals—appeared, and the ani-mal autobiography became a staple ofhumane literature. The other booksin the AHES series anchored by BlackBeauty—Our Goldmine at Hollyhurst(1893), The Strike at Shane’s (1893),Four Months in New Hampshire(1894), and For Pity’s Sake (1897)—were mainstays of the field well intothe twentieth century. The books,along with cash awards, medallions,badges, and rewards of merit, weredistributed in schools in recognitionof good behavior, recitations, essays,acts of kindness, and other attain-ments (Sewell 1890; Anonymous1893; Bray 1893; Saunders 1893;Barrows 1894; Carter 1897; Unti2002).

In the post-Civil War period, the for-mation of character became “a newsocial religion and the dynamic forsocial change,” especially for femi-nists and moral reformers. It wasbelieved that the properly instructedchild could resist temptation andinternalize a morality consistent withmiddle-class ideals of social purity(Pivar 1973). Such preoccupationwith youthful virtue provided humaneadvocates with both rationale andwider opportunities. The promotionof humane education as an antidoteto depraved character and a panaceafor numerous social ills brought ani-mal protection into close alignmentwith other reform movements of theera. The movements for temperance,child protection, and humane treat-ment of animals, in particular, allreflected deep concerns about theramifications of cruelty and violencefor individuals, the family, and thesocial order. Each cause addressedissues that straddled the line betweenprivate and public spheres. Humaneeducation work received an especiallysignificant boost in the 1890s fromthe creation of the Department ofMercy as a division of the Women’sChristian Temperance Union during

its “Do Everything” phase underFrances Willard (Unti 2002).

TheCompulsoryHumaneEducationMovementThe first discussion of compulsoryhumane education occurred in Mass-achusetts in the 1880s, and by 1886George Angell had helped to secure ahumane instruction mandate as partof compliance with an extant statuterequiring “the teaching of humanity,universal benevolence, etc.” By theearly 1900s, the notion of a nationalcampaign for compulsory humaneeducation began to gather momen-tum. In 1905 William O. Stillman ofAHA and professional educator StellaH. Preston formed the New YorkHumane Education Committee toadvance a state requirement. In thatsame year, both Oklahoma and Penn-sylvania passed state laws providingfor moral and humane education. The Oklahoma legislation requiredhumane instruction as part of themoral education of future citizens.Sponsors wanted educators

to teach morality in the broadestmeaning of the word, for the pur-pose of elevating and refining thecharacter of school children. . .that they may know how to con-duct themselves as social beingsin relation to each other. . .andthereby lessen wrong-doing andcrime.

The law mandated that one half houreach week be devoted to teaching“kindness to and humane treatmentand protection of dumb animals andbirds; their lives, habits and useful-ness, and the important part they areintended to fulfil in the economy ofnature” (Unti 2002).

In 1909 the compulsory humaneeducation movement achieved itsmost important benchmark—the pas-sage of legislation in Illinois that

Humane Education Past, Present, and Future 29

included sanctions for noncompli-ance and provisions for instruction inteacher-training schools. In Novem-ber 1915 AHA adopted a resolutionfavoring establishment of compulsoryhumane education in every state,selecting the 1909 Illinois law as itsmodel. However, of the twenty statesthat had humane education require-ments in place by 1920, only two oth-ers—New York and Oklahoma—fol-lowed the Illinois model in providingsanctions for non-compliance. In NewYork compliance was tied to publicfunds, and the commissioner of edu-cation was directed to publicize therequirement (Unti 2002).

The emergence of the professionalhumane educator was a natural out-growth of the compulsory humaneeducation movement. The AmericanSociety for the Prevention of Crueltyto Animals (ASPCA) created ahumane education department in1916. The stated goal of the divisionwas “not to do the humane educationwork in our schools, so much as tostimulate the work of the schoolsthemselves.” By the beginning of theacademic year in autumn 1921, theASPCA was promoting essay contestswithin the school system. That sum-mer, the humane education depart-ment cooperated with four LowerEast Side school districts in New YorkCity to measure the effectiveness ofhumane propaganda with the chil-dren of the foreign-born. The activitythe ASPCA chose to encourage wasthe rounding up of unwanted strays.During 1922 the department estimat-ed that it had reached 300 New YorkCity schools in the course of its work.Preston estimated that, in the sum-mer of 1923, New York schoolchildrenbrought in more than 28,000 smallanimals from the streets. As aninstrument of character develop-ment, the kindness ethic nicelyserved the goal of assimilation byexposing immigrant children to nor-mative values and expectations(Shultz 1924; Unti 2002).

Throughout most of the nineteenthcentury, humane educators relied oneclectic anthologies and an array ofdidactic stories and novels devoted to

kindness to animals. Many humaneperiodicals included selections forchildren, and some of these foundtheir way into published worksmarked for use by Bands of Mercy(Firth 1883; Timmins 1883). In the1890s, however, the first manuals andtextbooks with systematic humanelesson plans, question and answersets, and related offerings began toappear. In 1902 AHA formed a com-mittee to promote the publication oftextbooks that inculcated humaneideals and to draw up guidelines forpublishers of children’s textbooks. By1930 about a dozen humane educa-tion titles had appeared (Unti 2002).

Here and there, progress in institu-tionalizing humane educationensued. In Colorado the State Teach-ers College adopted a course of studyin ethical and humane education thatwas directed by the state’s Bureau ofChild and Animal Protection. For atime, humane advocates made effortsto canvass the meetings of theNational Education Association(NEA), and it seems that animal pro-tectionists were successful in theiroutreach to national and regionalteaching organizations, as well as toschool system administrators. In1924 the NEA president endorsedhumane education at the annualmeeting of AHA (Unti 2002).

Despite such progress, the push forcompulsory humane instruction wasnot necessarily instrumental in ensur-ing access or influence within theschools. The law was frequently adead letter in those states where itwas approved. Hostile and indifferentsuperintendents and teachers couldignore the statutes with little fear ofrecrimination, and effective texts andmaterials were not always readilyavailable. Chicago, with its traditionof progressive experimentation ineducation, promised to be one placein which humane education mightgain a significant foothold. But by1923 advocates were casting doubton the success of the movement forhumane education even in Illinois. Onthe basis of her own experience in asmall town outside New York City, aNew York reformer concluded in the

late 1930s that the law in her statewas “unevenly observed,” its enforce-ment usually contingent on “somesuperintendent, principal, or teacherwith a kind heart, who personally hascompelled action” (Shultz 1924;Krows 1938).

The Longevityand Impact of the Bands of MercyFor years, Our Dumb Animals (theMSPCA’s monthly magazine) report-ed extensively on the formation ofBands of Mercy. However, suchreports were better reflections ofspeaking engagements than of actualclubs or groups that went on to con-tinuous activity. Referring to the“sixty thousand branches of ourAmerican Bands of Mercy” in 1905,George Angell wrote, “What does thismean? It means that over sixty thou-sand audiences have been addressedon kindness both to human beingsand the lower animals” (in Unti 2002,588). Some years later AHES claimedthat more than 103,000 bands hadformed between 1882 and 1916. In1922 Angell’s successor, Francis Row-ley, estimated that in forty years ofactivity, the Bands of Mercy hadenrolled more than 4 million children(Unti 2002).

While admitting their positiveinfluence, social scientist WilliamShultz underscored the “transitorycharacter” of the bands. Where “noattempt is made to encourage them,they soon dissolve, leaving little or noeffect upon the children’s charac-ters.” AHA’s William Stillman conced-ed that the bands “were not as care-fully looked after or as rigorouslyfollowed up as they might be.” Rowleybelieved that, in many cases, interestwas sustained through the course ofone school year, and that in succes-sive years new bands would form atthe instigation of teachers or humaneeducators who visited the schoolsagain. In some cases, the bands


enjoyed great longevity (Shultz 1924;Unti 2002).

In fact under Rowley’s leadershipAHES launched an ambitious effort tohold the bands together by maintain-ing humane educators in the field.None of the organizational initiativesof the early twentieth centurymatched the accomplishments ofAHES in building and sustaining acadre of humane missionaries duringthe period from 1910 to 1925. Edu-cational outreach to the schools wasespecially robust in the pre-World WarI years.

The success of the AHES initiativesdepended heavily on its field repre-sentatives, at least some of whomwere paid (Unti 2002). The field rep-resentatives were armed with a broadselection of humane education mate-rials, including novels such as BlackBeauty. By 1913 AHES was theworld’s largest publisher and distribu-tor of humane literature by far. OurDumb Animals enjoyed a monthly cir-culation of 60,000. In December1916 931 new bands were reported,the largest figure ever for a one-month period, although one third ofthese formed in Massachusetts. Thatsame year AHES estimated that it hadspent more than $100,000 on litera-ture and its distribution since 1882(Unti 2002).

Once World War I began, the focusof many animal protection organiza-tions shifted to war concerns. Notsimply a distraction, however, the warthreatened humane ideals more fun-damentally as the United States pre-pared for battle. In the years beforeAmerica joined the war, humanitari-ans could point to humane educationas a powerful solution to the world’sills. With the war tearing Europeapart, American advocates cast it asan inoculant against the animositiesand prejudices bred by conflict, andthe guarantor of peace. But thewartime focus on preparedness alsoplaced on the defensive humanitari-ans who had so closely identifiedthemselves with anti-militarism.Humanitarians felt vulnerable to thecharge that their own educationalprogram would lead to the “soften-

ing” of American youth. Rowley metthe matter straight on in an editorial,writing:

Should anyone imagine thathumane education means a gen-eration of boys and girls with alliron sapped from their blood, ageneration of cowards and crav-ens, he only reveals his total igno-rance of what humane educationis. The spirit of chivalry toward allthe weak and defenseless, thehatred of injustice and cruelty. . .will make of the citizen, shouldthe time demand it, a far betterpatriot and soldier than the self-ish, bullying pugnacious spiritthat often proclaims not a possi-ble hero, but only an arrant cow-ard. (in Unti 2002, 590)

In any case, once America enteredthe conflict, war animal relief filteredstraight into Band of Mercy work andsuch other humane initiatives as BeKind to Animals Week. The messageof universal peace through humaneeducation was subordinated to patri-otic imperatives. The movement’smost vital activity—its outreach tochildren—was reconfigured dramati-cally to serve the interests of Ameri-can nationalism (Unti 2002).

The Failure ofInstitutionali-zationIt was not the war but the lack of suc-cess in institutionalizing humaneeducation that led to its decline dur-ing the middle decades of the twenti-eth century. Very few of the initiativeslaunched by humane organizationsgained the lasting attention ofteacher-training institutions, andhumane education certainly did notbecome a regular element of teacherpreparation. The fate of a $100,000donation to Columbia University in1907, specifically earmarked for pro-moting humane education, was per-haps the most conspicuous setbackon this front. Rather than direct themoney toward Teachers College forstudies and training in humane edu-

cation, university president NicholasMurray Butler used it to support afaculty position in social legislation.The funds disappeared into Colum-bia’s general accounts and, with theexception of several historical stud-ies, no progress toward the goal of thedonor was realized (Unti 2002).

The Columbia initiative was themost significant missed opportunityin the history of humane education.Had the gift been allocated different-ly, it might have supported the reviewand validation of teaching methodsand content; the resolution of differ-ences between humane education,nature study, and science education;the development of a training pro-gram for humane education special-ists; or the institutionalization of thekindness-to-animals ethic in the cur-riculum. However, the bias of Butlerand the professors he consulted madeit hard for them to take seriously suchacademic investigations of humaneeducation (Unti 2002).

At least a few researchers in thepre-World War II era believed thathumane education was a proper sub-ject for scholarly inquiry. In 1931concern for animals found its wayonto the agenda of the Conference ofEducational Associations, whosemembers came together annually todiscuss educational theory and prac-tice in Great Britain. That year SusanIsaacs, chair of the British Psycholog-ical Society’s Education Section,spoke about her research concerningchildhood socialization and attitudesconcerning animals. Her method,applied in a small Cambridge schoolduring the years 1924–1927, permit-ted children the greatest possiblefreedom to pursue their own inter-ests. In her research Isaacs paid spe-cial attention to the conflicting ten-dencies toward cruelty and kindnessto animals that she observed in chil-dren. She had proposed that educa-tors should strive “to make a positiveeducational use of the child’s impuls-es” so that children could be helpedto reach “a more satisfactory psycho-logical solution for their own internalconflicts.” This method of instruc-tion, she asserted, would become “an


active influence in the building up ofa positive morality of behavior to-wards animals, going beyond themere negative standard of not beingunkind to them, and expressed in aneager and intelligent interest in theirlife-histories, and a lively sympathywith their doings and happenings”(Isaacs 1930, 166).

Isaacs’s special focus was on chil-dren’s exposure to the death of ani-mals and on dissection. The childrenshe observed “showed greater sympa-thy with the living animals, and moreconsistent care, after they had‘looked inside’ the dead ones, andfewer lapses into experimental cruel-ty,” Isaacs reported. “In other words,the impulse to master and destroywas taken up into the aim of under-standing. The living animal becamemuch less of an object of power andpossession, and much more an inde-pendent creature to be learnt about,watched and known for its own sake.”Isaacs found that the children movedsteadily toward the non-interfering,observational attitude of many mod-ern naturalists, and developed ahumane outlook and sense of respon-sibility toward their pets and towardanimals in general (Isaacs 1930,165–166).

Obviously, these findings, gatheredin one school, could not be consid-ered broadly representative or conclu-sive. Nevertheless, the very singulari-ty of the approach taken by Isaacs andher colleagues makes one thing clear:fruitful research on children’s psycho-logical development and on the meth-ods by which an attitude of respectand interest in animals could beinculcated was a neglected pursuit formuch of the twentieth century.

The Mid-TwentiethCentury In the early twentieth century, argu-ments in favor of increased emphasison education as distinct from practi-cal relief work for animals surfacedregularly. If actively pursued, the

emphasis on humane educationpromised to shift the balance ofhumane work. As an Our Dumb Ani-mals editorialist, probably Rowley,optimistically predicted,

More and more societies orga-nized for the prevention of cruel-ty to animals will turn to the workof humane education. . .as theirwidest and most important fieldof service. Train the heart of thechild aright, and the cruelty fromwhich animals suffer will end farmore quickly than by punishingthe ignorant and cruel man. (Unti2002, 610)

As it happened humane educationdid not become more central to thework of SPCAs in the years that fol-lowed. By the era of the Depression ithad diminished greatly, as the practi-cal and financial burdens of shelterand hospital work, animal controlobligations, and law enforcement castother initiatives, including humaneeducation, to the margins of activity.What survived was the simple lessonof kindness to pets, carried into theschools by SPCA staff members andvolunteers who continued to enjoyaccess to the earliest grades of ele-mentary school. Changes (such as theadvent of motor vehicles) that elimi-nated from Americans’ daily experi-ence the abuse of horses and otherworking animals rendered obsoletemuch of the earlier practical educa-tion concerning animal welfare. Atthe same time, the movement’s edu-cational focus, normally centered onacts of individual cruelty, failed totouch upon newer and socially sanc-tioned forms of animal use. Both self-censorship and the constraintsimposed by educational institutionsprevented humane education fromreaching into the realm of the newcruelties—institutionalized uses ofanimals such as animal experimenta-tion and the mass production of ani-mals for food and fur that were wellbeyond the experience and influenceof most individuals. Undoubtedly, too,the disillusionment wrought by war,depression, and other events deflatedthe grand claims and expectationsexpressed by Gilded Age and Progres-

sive Era animal protectionists.These considerations render the

success of the campaign for compul-sory humane education legislationhighly ironic. Its clear relationship tomoral instruction and the inculcationof good citizenship was endorsed instate houses all across America. Para-doxically, however, the determinationto see such laws passed was notmatched by commensurate effort tosee them honored. In general, thecadre of SPCA activists committed tohumane education dwindled, andefforts to see its principles enshrinedin the curriculum of teachers’ insti-tutes and colleges failed (Unti 2002).

Ultimately, the difficulty of pene-trating local and regional school sys-tem bureaucracies proved insur-mountable for a movement withlimited resources and more urgentconcerns and responsibilities. Yet theblame for such failures should not belaid simply upon organized animalprotection itself; the impact of coun-tervailing forces was decisive. Theclassroom and the educational sys-tem were the subject of increasingstruggles during the twentieth centu-ry, and the question of how humansought to encounter and treat animalswas implicated in several of these.Humanitarians were not the only oneswith an interest in animals. Agricul-tural societies, industry associations,religionists, and science educationgroups also fought for a stake in shap-ing modern American education.Many of these interests promotedconsumptive uses of animals thatwere at odds with humane impera-tives (Unti 2002).

The fortunes of “nature-study,” acontemporaneous education move-ment, were very similar to those ofhumane education, as both declinedin the face of a professionalizing fieldof science instruction. The rise of aprofessional science education cadre,committed to the unification, ratio-nalization, and standardization ofAmerican science curricula, crowdedout both nature-study and humaneeducation, incorporating some oftheir elements but ridding those ele-ments of their romantic notions of


affinity with nature and non-humananimals. By the 1930s the term ele-mentary science had subsumednature-study, and humane educationas a discrete subject of instructionwas on the wane. As one scholar sug-gests, the “abstract rationalism” ofbiology instruction in the highergrades and in university courses alsoleft little room for the empathy-build-ing emphasis of nature-study andhumane education approaches (Pauly2002).

The anti-cruelty movement’s over-all loss of influence and lack of vitali-ty in the interwar period also had itseffect. Humane education suffered asmuch as any area of organized animalprotection from the absence ofenlightened and energetic leadership,and the loss of a receptive public. ByWorld War II, organizations wereusing badly dated humane educationmaterials, if any.

In some regions viable outreachprograms undertaken by regionalhumane societies survived andenjoyed good access to public schoolseven during the mid-twentieth centu-ry decades (Matthewson 1942; Whyte1948; Walter 1950; AmericanHumane Association 1952). Whilehumane education outreach nowtended to focus on the treatment ofcompanion animals and the benefitsof keeping pets, it nevertheless rein-forced the simple message of kind-ness to animals as an important stan-dard of individual conduct. Inaddition, the kindness-to-animalsethic continued to resonate throughchildren’s literature (Oswald 1994)and other cultural media (Cartmill1993). These influences certainlystrengthened decades of effort aimedat promoting personal rectitude indealings with animals.

After the post-World War II revivalof organized animal protection (Untiand Rowan 2001), humane educationgradually resurfaced as a priority ofboth national and local groups. In themid-1960s, The HSUS began to investserious attention and resources inhumane education, collaboratingwith university researchers to formu-late and test methods and techniques

of humane education. By the 1970ssuch efforts sparked the formation ofa separate division of The HSUS, pre-decessor of the National Associationfor Humane and Environmental Edu-cation (NAHEE). Founded in 1973NAHEE has become a preeminentsource for information, research, andanalysis in the field of humane educa-tion.

The Status QuoToday the locus of humane educationactivity in the United States contin-ues to be the animal care and controlcommunity, as elementary and sec-ondary schools and colleges of educa-tion have yet to accept and integratethe teaching of most humane con-cepts into their curricula. Many ani-mal care and control agencies(SPCAs, humane societies, animalrescue leagues, and the like) offereducation programs in some form,working primarily at the municipal orcounty level. Such programs fre-quently involve partnerships withschools or other youth-oriented insti-tutions.

What methodologies does humaneeducation employ? What is beingtaught and how effectively? How sig-nificant is the role of youth educationwithin the animal welfare movement?

A study conducted by Jaime Olin(2002), a graduate student at theTufts University Center for Animalsand Public Policy, provides someanswers. Olin surveyed 600 animalshelters, selected at random fromapproximately 2,800 in existencenationwide, about the scope andnature of their efforts to teach chil-dren humane values. The results ofher investigation paint a picture ofhumane education as a relativelywidespread enterprise, yet one thattypically is relegated to side issue sta-tus, addressed perfunctorily by mostanimal care and control organizationsand simply ignored by others.

Of the 203 animal care and controlagencies that responded to Olin’s 32-item questionnaire, 144—71 per-cent—were classified as having ahumane education program. Thoserespondents reported being involvedin humane education for a median often years, and 42 percent reportedrelevant activity for between elevenand fifty years (Figure 1). The majori-ty of shelters with humane educationprograms claimed reaching between100 and 500 children per year, mostof whom were of elementary schoolage (Figure 2). The vast majority ofrespondents—94 percent—indicatedthat they regard humane educationas either “essential” or “very impor-


tant” to their overall mission. If classroom visits and shelter tours

traditionally have been the educa-tional methods of choice employedby animal shelters since the mid-twentieth century, then it appearsfrom Olin’s investigation that littlehas changed (Figure 3). Eighty-eightpercent of respondents reported con-ducting classroom visits, and 77 per-cent included tours of their facilitiesin their programs. Fewer organiza-tions reported offering youth com-

munity service programs (44 per-cent), junior volunteer programs (30percent), after-school activities (23percent), and summer camps (15percent). Thirty-six percent reportedserving as a source of curriculum-blended materials for classroomteachers. Children saw live animals in86 percent of humane education pro-grams and were allowed to touch ananimal in 73 percent.

The content of humane educationprograms at the local level is domi-

nated by companion animal issues(Figure 4). Olin’s respondents indi-cated that responsible pet ownershipaccounted for an average of 49 per-cent of their programs’ subject mat-ter, safety around animals for 26 per-cent, and the role of animal sheltersfor 20 percent. On average, 8 percentof programming was devoted towildlife issues, and 2 percent to topicsrelated to farm animals. Obviously,this distribution of priority reflectsthe primacy of direct care and pro-tection of companion animals in themissions and day-to-day activities ofanimal shelters. In addition, omissionfrom youth education programs ofsuch topics as intensive farming, theuse of animals in research, and con-sumptive uses of wildlife may stemfrom other factors. These include thephilosophical orientation of shelteradministrators and boards of direc-tors; sensitivity to local politics; theinfluence of competing and some-times hostile interest groups; theview that such issues do not fall underthe purview of animal care and con-trol agencies; and the reluctance ofschool officials to accept specialinterest topics into the curriculum—especially those that may be consid-ered age-inappropriate, inflammato-ry, or inimical to a community’svalues, traditions, or economic base.

Olin’s investigation also revealsthat 88 percent of local animal careand control agencies obtain at least aportion of their youth educationmaterials from outside organizations.Materials were procured most oftenfrom national animal protectiongroups with a history of providingshelter-related services and dissemi-nating youth education resourceswith a strong emphasis on compan-ion-animal issues: The HSUS, theASPCA, and AHA. Thirty-five percentof the respondents reported usingKIND News, a classroom newspaperpublished by NAHEE. Sixty-four per-cent said they included their ownmaterials in their programs.

If, prima facie, the above datashows humane education to be avibrant enterprise, the deeper realityis that it remains a peripheral compo-

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

20

40

60

80

100


nent of animal welfare activity, as itwas throughout most of the last cen-tury. Despite the fact that a majorityof local animal care and control agen-cies report offering humane educa-tion programs, have been doing so forquite some time, and regard humaneeducation as mission-critical, com-mitment to youth education as measured by funding—perhaps themost salient measure—is anemic.Although the median annual budgetreported by Olin’s respondents was$200,000 (Figure 5), 63 percent oforganizations with humane educationprograms reported allocating lessthan $1,000 to those programs, andonly 21 percent reported having anannual humane education budget of$5,000 or more (Figure 6). Mostrespondents (74 percent) admittedthat the amount of money budgetedfor education was “not enough,”while 26 percent said the amounttheir organizations had allocated was“just about right.”

The animal care and control com-munity’s reluctance fully to embraceyouth education also can be inferredfrom staffing-related data. Organiza-tions responding to Olin’s studyreported a median of one paid educa-tion staff member (a significant num-ber given that the median number offull-time, paid staff overall was four)and one education volunteer (Figure

7). But personnel responsible foryouth education often are spreadthin, charged with handling a widevariety of disparate job duties. Forexample, when asked to give the titleof the person involved most directlywith humane education, 26 percentof respondents indicated “shelterdirector,” while only 12 percent cited“humane education director.” Thirty-eight percent indicated “other,” andin most cases, Olin found, that meant“animal control officer” (Figure 8).

When asked by Olin about otherservices performed by education staff,

57 percent of respondents said“media relations”; 51 percent said“adult education”; 33 percent said“animal behavior counseling”; 25 per-cent said “violence prevention”; and23 percent said “pet therapy.”Although some of those job duties arenot unrelated to children, it is clearthat youth education, per se, rarely isgiven the undivided attention of oneor more staff members. That educa-tion personnel are spread thin is alsoreflected in the fact that an averageof only 21 percent of children reachedby Olin’s respondents received morethan one humane education interven-tion, e.g., more than one classroomvisit or shelter tour, per year.

If youth education were a high pri-ority in the animal care and controlcommunity, one might expect thatformal education credentials would bea criterion in the hiring of staffassigned to teach children. Olinfound, however, that only 15 percentof respondents reported that the staffmember most directly involved withhumane education had classroomteaching certification, while 50 per-cent cited “on-the-job-training” inlieu of such credentials. Twenty-fourpercent indicated that their educationstaff had informal teaching or youthleadership experience (Figure 9).

One of the most telling signs ofgenerally tepid support for humane


education is that 29 percent of theorganizations answering Olin’s ques-tionnaire did not respond to the itemasking about the size of their educa-tion budget. Olin classified thoseorganizations as not having a humaneeducation program. While theassumption behind that classification(i.e., no education budget means noeducation program) may not beentirely valid, the fact remains that asignificant number of animal careand control organizations make noeffort to teach humane values to chil-dren, while most make a weakattempt at best. Why? Why would anundertaking that, at least intuitively,holds such promise for advancing thecause of animal protection and thatwas so energetically pursued duringthe early decades of the animal wel-fare movement be given such minimalattention nowadays by those mostdirectly engaged in solving their com-munities’ animal-related problems?

Answers from animal shelter profes-sionals typically hinge on pointsabout lack of time and/or funding—points raised, in fact, by some respon-dents to Olin’s survey. Such ratio-nales, however, beg the underlyingquestion, since if youth educationwere seen as crucial to achieving ani-mal protection objectives, time andfunds to support it would be allocated

or funds would be raised to augmentexisting budgets. Perhaps a more fun-damental answer lies in the dilemmafaced by animal care and control per-sonnel: how can they meet basic,short-term needs—such as a commu-nity’s need for adequate animal con-trol and sheltering—and also reachbroader, long-term goals, such aseliminating or significantly reducinganimal abuse, neglect, and the over-population of companion animals?Although youth education is seen asan important means of permanently

solving or preventing the problemsanimals face, it typically does not ren-der the same immediate, tangibleoutcomes or level of emotional fulfill-ment as, for example, uniting a fami-ly with a homeless pet or rescuing astray dog from the hardships of thestreet. In contrast its potentialrewards may seem distant andabstract. So, while animal care andcontrol professionals may view youtheducation as mission-critical in along-range sense, it often is treated inthe short term as a drain on resourcesthat might otherwise be applied tomore pressing, day-to-day concerns.

That seems to have been the pre-vailing reasoning for many years. In1922 Francis Rowley speculated thatthe promise of immediate results waswhat kept so many humane advocatesinvolved in direct relief of animalsrather than humane education of sub-sequent generations (Unti 2002). Itappears that similar forces are atwork now. As a result, youth educa-tion continues to be a marginal if notentirely dispensable facet of animalwelfare work in the United States.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Can HumaneValues BeTaught?If, as suggested, a lack of immedi-ate—or at least immediately visible—results is a disincentive for humaneorganizations to expend resources onyouth education, it would seem thatdefinitive empirical evidence demon-strating the effectiveness of humaneeducation programs would provide animportant incentive. That is, if theintended benefits of teachinghumane values to children (e.g., gainsin general knowledge about animalprotection issues and the develop-ment of positive attitudes and behav-ior toward animals) were consistentlybrought to light through programevaluation, perhaps humane educa-tion would come to be seen as moreof an urgent imperative than anabstract panacea. But there is anobvious Catch-22 here: an interest inspending time and money to assessthe effects of a humane education ini-tiative presupposes a relatively highlevel of interest in committingresources to humane education ingeneral, and such willingness hasbeen in short supply.

Consequently, relatively littleempirical evidence exists showingthat humane education programsincrease children’s knowledge aboutor improve their attitudes and behav-ior toward animals. None exists show-ing that such gains are carried intoadulthood. The issue is not that thereis proof to the contrary—indeed,intuition, anecdotal evidence, and ahandful of formal studies suggest thathumane education can work. Rather,

it is simply that humane educationinitiatives typically are not subjectedto formal evaluation to test their effi-cacy. Of the organizations respondingto Olin’s survey, for example, only 7percent reported formally evaluatingtheir programs. Given the relativelylow level of support for humane edu-cation, this assessment gap is not sur-prising. But it is significant, for tworeasons: first, a lack of formal evalua-tion limits understanding of whatmethodologies are most and leasteffective and how humane educationprograms can be improved; and, sec-ond, it deprives animal protectionadvocates of an important tool forconvincing school officials, collegesof education, and the public thathumane education is a worthwhilepursuit that deserves funding andrepresentation in standard curricula.

Empirical studies conducted overthe last twenty-five years have tendedto show that education programs canindeed generate gains in knowledgeof animal protection issues, improve-ment in attitudes toward animals,and improvements in projected behav-ior toward them. Positive results havebeen inconsistent, however, andinvestigations have not been under-taken to determine whether humaneeducation results in positive changesin actual behavior related to animals.


The special challenges associatedwith assessing actual behavior towardanimals—such as cost, difficulty ofobservation, and potential harm toanimals and children—have, nodoubt, hindered such inquiries.

Systematic research to test theeffects of general approaches tohumane education and specific pro-grams peaked during the 1980s. Sev-eral studies conducted early in thatdecade relied on the Fireman Tests,assessment tools that presented chil-dren with a story about a boy whosehouse is burning down and who isgiven the opportunity to ask a fire-fighter to save certain householditems (Vockell and Hodal 1980). A listof ten items is given, consisting ofseven inanimate objects, such as atelevision and a checkbook, and threeanimals: a dog, a cat, and a canary.The tests asked children to selectthree items from the list which theythink the boy in the story should tellthe firefighter to save, the rationalebeing that the more positive an indi-vidual’s attitudes toward animals, themore likely it is that he or she willchoose the dog, cat, and canary forrescue. The first investigationemploying the Fireman Tests soughtto evaluate the effects that a singleclassroom presentation conducted bya visiting humane educator had onattitudes of third through sixth-gradestudents, compared with simply giv-ing the children reading material(Vockell and Hodal 1980). Theresearchers found that the one-timepresentation had no more impact onattitudes than did distributing the lit-erature. The omission of a pretestfrom the study design, however, madeinterpreting those results problemat-ic (Ascione 1992).

A year later another Fireman Testsstudy analyzed the impact of threedifferent humane education treat-ments on the attitudes of fifth andsixth-grade students in JeffersonCounty, Colorado (Fitzgerald 1981).The three approaches tested were:light-treatment—reading materialwith no instruction; intensive treat-ment—reading material with oneinstruction session; and repeated

treatment—reading material withfour instruction sessions over a two-month period. (A control groupreceived no instruction or materials.)The lessons and reading materialfocused on responsible pet ownershipand related topics. In contrast to theearlier study, results showed that,although all three interventions ledto an increase in positive attitudestoward animals, the intensive, one-lesson treatment had a greater posi-tive impact on attitudes than did thereading material alone. Somewhatunexpectedly, however, the repeatedtreatment was not found to be moreeffective than the one-time presenta-tion. The researcher suggested thatthe more focused nature of the inten-sive treatment contributed to its suc-cess compared with the repeatedintervention, the content of whichwas only loosely connected. No differ-ences in test scores were foundbetween boys and girls or betweenfifth and sixth-graders.

Contradicting the results of thatinvestigation was a similar onedesigned by the Animal RescueLeague of Boston. Relying on theFireman Tests as the assessment tool,the Boston evaluation found that arepeated humane education treat-ment consisting of lessons and mate-rials presented over a period of sever-al days had a greater positive effect onthe attitudes of fourth and fifth-graders toward animals than either aone-time presentation or readingmaterials without instruction (Mal-carne 1983). The fact that the repeat-ed intervention in this case tookplace over a fairly concentrated peri-od of time may have contributed toits success compared with the morediluted, two-month repeated treat-ment employed in the JeffersonCounty study.

An innovative study during thesame period analyzed the effects ofrole-play as an empathy-building tech-nique. Malcarne (1981) found thatplaying the role of animals is an effec-tive means for children to increasetheir empathy with animals and thatplaying the role of children helps toincrease empathy with other chil-

dren. Children who had been inducedto empathize with animals, however,showed little tendency to extend thatincreased empathy to other children.That finding calls into question thevalidity of the transference theory,which holds that positive attitudestoward animals are transferable, orwill generalize, to humans—a tacitassumption in much humane litera-ture. Findings casting doubt on thetransference theory also have beenreported by Ray (1982) and Paul(2000), while Poresky (1990),Ascione (1992), and O’Hare andMontminy-Danna (2001) have foundevidence to support it.

In one of the few efforts during theearly 1980s to assess the impact ofhumane education on older children,Cameron (1983) compared theeffects of two intensive, classroom-based interventions on the attitudesof eighth-graders. One relied on printmaterial and media-based instruction(films and filmstrips), the other onprint material and lecture-methodinstruction. A control group receivedno materials or instruction. Studentsreceiving media-based treatmentshowed the greatest improvement inattitudes. The lecture treatmentgroup also improved but to a lesserextent, while the control groupshowed no positive change in atti-tudes.

The HumaneEducationEvaluationProject Perhaps the most ambitious attemptat program assessment was NAHEE’sHumane Education Evaluation Pro-ject. In that investigation, Ascione,Latham, and Worthen (1985) soughtto measure the impact of a curricu-lum-blended approach to teachinghumane values, using as the proto-type NAHEE’s People and Animals: AHumane Education CurriculumGuide. The guide consisted of morethan 400 classroom activities, each


designed to teach a humane conceptalong with a skill or concept in lan-guage arts, social studies, math, orscience. The study involved morethan 1,800 children in kindergartenthrough sixth grade and 77 teachersfrom various urban, suburban, andrural school districts in Connecticutand California. Using a battery ofinstruments developed by the West-ern (formerly Wasatch) Institute forResearch and Evaluation, the investi-gation was designed to test theeffects of a relatively weak treatment:teachers were required to lead onlytwenty activities (the equivalent ofabout ten hours of instruction) fromthe curriculum guide over the courseof an entire school year. The objectivewas to evaluate the materials as theyrealistically might be applied during atypical school year by teachers withmany other curriculum requirementsto meet. The instruments weredesigned to measure the curriculumguide’s effect on (1) children’s knowl-edge of animals; (2) their attitudestoward animals; (3) their projectedbehavior toward animals, i.e., theirperceptions of how they would behavein situations that allowed humane orinhumane behavior; and (4) whetherchildren’s attitudes toward animalstransferred, or generalized, to people.The assessment tools were adminis-tered as pretests and posttests to thestudy sample, which was divided intoan experimental and control group,the latter receiving no instructionfrom the NAHEE curriculum guide atany point in the school year.

Results showed statistically signifi-cant gains in knowledge as a result ofthe curriculum guide intervention atthe kindergarten and first-grade lev-els. Knowledge scores of secondthrough sixth-grade children in theexperimental group also improved,though not to a statistically signifi-cant degree. Attitudes toward ani-mals improved along similar lines:kindergarten and first-grade childrenin the experimental group showedsignificantly more humane attitudesthan their counterparts in the controlgroup. Although experimental-groupchildren at the higher grades also

showed improvement, generally theirattitude gains were not pronouncedenough to be statistically significant.The researchers suggested that thedisparity in the treatment effectsbetween the younger and older chil-dren may have been due to the possi-bility that conceptual knowledge andattitudes are more malleable at theearlier grades, or that baseline levelsof knowledge and attitudes are lowerat the earlier grades, leaving moreroom for improvement. They alsocited the weak treatment as a possi-ble factor in the inconsistency of ex-perimental-group gains.

The NAHEE study’s examination ofprojected behavior produced resultsthat were somewhat the reverse of theknowledge and attitude findings interms of age-group comparisons. Atthe kindergarten through third-gradelevel, the projected behavior scores ofexperimental-group children did notdiffer significantly from control groupscores. In contrast, at the fourththrough sixth-grade levels, the exper-imental group showed significantlymore humane attitudes than did thecontrol group. Why did older childrenrespond more humanely on this mea-sure, while younger students showedgreater gains on the knowledge andattitude tests? According to theresearchers, test format could havehad an influence. The knowledge andattitude scales were composed ofmultiple-choice or yes/no items,which gave children a choice fromwhich to select an answer. The instru-ment used to test projected behavior,on the other hand, required childrento describe verbally the scenariodepicted in a drawing, formulate aresponse to the situation, and explainwhy they responded as they did—tasks that the older children mayhave been developmentally more pre-pared to handle than were theyounger students. In addition theresearchers surmised that teachers atthe higher grades may have beenmore likely than those at the lowergrades to focus their instruction onthe intentions and rationale behindhumane behavior.

To determine if humane attitudes

toward animals would extend to peo-ple, the NAHEE project researchersdeveloped two instruments: the Atti-tude Transfer Scale (ATS), which usedphotos depicting situations involvingother children to which studentscould respond with varying degrees ofkindness and compassion; and theRevised Aggression Scale (AG), a mul-tiple-choice instrument that present-ed school and home situations towhich children might react with vary-ing degrees of aggression. (The AGwas administered only to children ingrade three and above.) Results of theATS and AG showed no statisticallysignificant differences between exper-imental and control group children atany grade except fourth. Surprisingly,fourth-grade boys in the experimentalgroup had lower interpersonal kind-ness scores on the ATS than did theircounterparts in the control group.Fourth-grade experimental-groupchildren (girls and boys) also scoredmore aggressively on the AG than didfourth graders in the control group.The researchers noted, however, thatthe fourth-grade experimental-groupscores were on the kind and non-aggressive ends of the continuum ofscores for the attitude transfer mea-sures.

Despite its somewhat ambiguousfindings, the Humane Education Evaluation Project produced some en-couraging—and intriguing—resultsoverall. The instruments that werecreated, the conclusions reached, andthe insights gained were valuable inproviding direction for subsequentresearch and can aid in developmentand refinement of humane educationmethodologies.

Recent ResearchHumane education program evalua-tion continued sporadically in theyears following NAHEE’s landmarkstudy. In 1988 the MSPCA completedan extensive investigation to examinethe impact of its statewide humaneeducation program on the animal-wel-fare-related knowledge and attitudesof second through fifth-graders. Third,fourth, and fifth-grade children


received three instruction sessions,and the investigation found gains intheir knowledge and attitudes. Thiswas not the case, however, among sec-ond-graders, who were exposed to asingle classroom presentation. Theresearchers concluded that resultswere positive but limited, and sug-gested that a more marked impactmight be achieved by consolidatingthe program, i.e., delivering a more in-tense intervention (Davis et al. 1988).

In a follow-up to the Humane Edu-cation Evaluation Project, Ascione(1992) assessed a treatment employ-ing NAHEE’s People and Animals cur-riculum guide and other materials inthirty-two first, second, fourth, andfifth-grade classrooms. Pretests andposttests were administered to assesschanges in children’s attitudes to-ward animals and human-directedempathy. (The attitude measure wasthe same as that used in the 1985study.) Results showed that the inter-vention enhanced fourth-graders’humane attitudes to a statisticallysignificant degree. In addition fourth-grade scores revealed a significantgeneralization, or transfer, effectfrom animal-related attitudes tohuman-directed empathy. Fifth-gradechildren in the experimental groupalso showed more humane attitudesthan did the control group, thoughthe difference was not statisticallysignificant. Ascione suggested themore modest gains among fifth-graders were due to the fact that fifthgrade control group teachers report-ed substantially more instructionrelated to humane education thantheir experimental group counter-parts. (Ascione noted that restrictingthe content of control group teach-ers’ instruction for purposes of thestudy would have been unacceptable.)No statistically significant effects onattitudes or human-directed empathywere found at the first and second-grade levels, although the first-gradeexperimental group children did showsome gain in humane attitudes overfirst-grade children in the controlgroup. In comparing those results tothe more pronounced gains from the1985 study, Ascione noted that the

mean attitude scores of the first andsecond-grade control and experimen-tal groups were higher (more hu-mane) than the mean attitude scoresfrom the 1985 investigation. One rea-son, the researcher suggested, wasthe possibility that the children par-ticipating in the 1992 study weremore aware of and better educated onhumane and environmental issuesthan were their 1985 counterparts. Ifthat was the case, by 1992 scores onthe instrument used to measure theyounger children’s attitudes may havebeen reaching a “ceiling,” whichwould make detecting differencesbetween control and experimentalgroups more difficult. Ascione notedthat the scale used to measure theolder children’s attitudes was less sus-ceptible to such ceiling effects.

As a follow-up to the 1992 investi-gation, Ascione and Weber (1996)tested fifth-grade students who hadparticipated a year earlier in theabove study to determine if theeffects found when they were fourth-graders were maintained. Resultsshowed that fourth-graders who hadreceived the People and Animalsintervention the previous year scoredhigher on humane attitudes scalesthan did those who had not. Onceagain a generalization effect fromattitudes toward animals to human-directed empathy was found. Theresearchers interpreted their findingsas evidence that classroom-based,curriculum-blended humane educa-tion can be an effective means ofdeveloping sensitivity in childrentoward animals and people.

Positive results also were found byO’Hare and Montminy-Danna (2001)in a comprehensive evaluation of ahumane education program for thirdand seventh-grade students. The pro-gram was offered by the PotterLeague for Animals, an animal careand control organization servingsoutheastern Rhode Island. The Pot-ter League study was unique in that itemployed qualitative research meth-ods as well as more typical, quantita-tive techniques. It included the fol-lowing components: (1) theadministration of a true/false pretest

and posttest to determine the PotterLeague program’s effect on animal-welfare-related knowledge, attitudes,and projected behavior; (2) a measureof attitude transference obtained bycomparing pretest results with scoresfrom instruments designed to gaugechildren’s human-directed empathyand quality of peer relations; and (3)an examination of the intellectual,affective, and behavioral responses ofchildren to the program through theuse of student and teacher focusgroups and classroom observation.The study sample consisted of 181third-graders, who took part in eightweekly forty-five-minute classroomlessons, and 152 seventh graders, whoparticipated in five weekly forty-five-minute lessons. The third-gradelessons covered such areas as basicpet care, the role of animal shelters,and safety around animals; the sev-enth-grade lessons covered animals inentertainment, endangered species,pet overpopulation, and animal-relat-ed moral dilemmas.

The Potter League investigationrevealed statistically significant gainsin knowledge, attitudes, and intendedbehavior at both the third and sev-enth-grade levels. In addition theexamination of attitude transferenceindicated that children who weremore knowledgeable about and favor-ably disposed toward animals alsowere more likely to respond withgreater empathy to people and havebetter relationships with peers. Qual-itative analysis yielded a wide range ofinformation, most of which reflectedpositively on the Potter League pro-gram. Conclusions regarding thethird-grade intervention includedthat the children enjoy the program(especially the opportunity to relatestories about their pets), that con-cepts are presented in a clear, age-appropriate manner, and that positivebehavior toward animals is constantlyreinforced throughout the program.During focus groups third-gradersrelated evidence of behavior change,some stating that they had begun tospend more time with their pets, hadstopped hitting or teasing them, orhad shared their new knowledge with


friends and family members. At the seventh-grade level, class-

room observations revealed that thePotter League material was presentedin a way that allowed students to seeboth sides of controversial issues, thatthe program stressed the positiveimpact a single individual can have,and that it appeared to have an imme-diate effect on some students. (Oneboy, for example, said he would nolonger shoot birds.) The researchersalso noted that some seventh-gradestudents appeared somber after dis-cussions of particularly hard-hittingissues. During focus groups severalseventh graders, like their third-gradecounterparts, suggested that theirbehavior had changed or wouldchange as a result of the PotterLeague program. Some, for example,indicated that they had becomekinder toward their pets and would bemore willing to speak up about mis-treatment of companion animals.Most seventh-grade students ex-pressed concern about the uses of ani-mals in entertainment and stated thatthey would curtail participation inactivities that involved the mistreat-ment of animals. A few, however,thought the program’s emphasis onthe cruelty of circuses and otherforms of entertainment was overstat-ed. The findings of the Potter Leagueevaluation were overwhelmingly posi-tive, though the investigators notedseveral limitations of the study (i.e.,that it lacked a control group; it didnot measure the retention of cogni-tive or attitudinal gains over time; andits outcomes were based on the pre-sentation of a program by only oneinstructor), and thus advised cautionin interpreting its results. Neverthe-less, the project generated a host ofrecommendations useful to the PotterLeague’s education personnel—andpotentially to others in the field—andrepresents an important contributionto the body of knowledge concerningthe effectiveness of school-focusedhumane education programs.

Although the above survey ofhumane education program evalua-tion is not exhaustive, existing re-search still is too limited to tell us

definitively whether children can betaught to think and behave kindlytoward animals or what the bestinstructional methods might be. Theempirical evidence compiled thus far,however, suggests that humane edu-cation has promise. Moreover, investi-gations such as those reviewed hereare significant not just for what theymay prove or disprove, but also forthe questions they raise and thedirections they provide for futureinquiry. Do gains resulting from ele-mentary-level humane education ini-tiatives extend into the teen years andbeyond? Do improvements in project-ed behavior translate into morehumane behavior in fact? At whatages is humane education most effec-tive? What impact, if any, do instruc-tor enthusiasm and teaching stylehave on the efficacy of humane edu-cation interventions? Such are just afew of the questions waiting to beaddressed in a field that is ripe forstudy, not only because of the paucityof existing research, but also becausehumane education seems especiallyrelevant at a time when the connec-tion between childhood cruelty toanimals and interpersonal violence inadulthood is widely known, and theperceived moral decline of ournation’s youth is a common andincreasingly fervent lament.

The Road AheadVitalizing humane education researchwould create a solid foundation onwhich to build a more prominent,influential humane education move-ment. A substantial body of empiricalevidence not only would providehumane educators with the knowl-edge necessary to develop effectivepedagogical strategies, it also wouldlend much-needed credibility andrecognition to humane education as aserious discipline. Animal care andcontrol organizations can becomeinvolved in humane education pro-gram evaluation in a variety of waysthat need not be prohibitively elabo-rate, expensive, or time-consuming.Assessment can be as basic as inter-viewing teachers to ascertain whether

and how they are using humane edu-cation materials provided to them. Itcan entail simply identifying programobjectives, and administering briefsurveys to students or teachers todetermine whether those objectives,e.g., positive changes in attitudestoward animals, are being met. Evenevaluation efforts as limited as thesecan provide valuable information thatultimately can help an agency makethe most effective, efficient use of itshumane education resources. Severalnational organizations, such asNAHEE and the Character EducationPartnership, offer guides to basic pro-gram assessment. In addition, copiesof the instruments used to assess theimpact of the People and Animals cur-riculum guide in the 1985 HumaneEducation Evaluation Project areavailable from NAHEE and can beadapted for use in assessing otherhumane education initiatives.

Certainly, conducting rigorousexperimental investigations of theimpact of humane education pro-grams requires expertise andresources beyond the reach of mostanimal shelters. But providing theimpetus for such investigations andfacilitating them does not. By part-nering with college and universityacademic departments (includingeducation, child development, socialwork, and psychology), animal pro-tection organizations engaged inyouth education can provide the sub-ject matter for study and access toteachers, children, and classrooms. Inreturn, academic institutions canoffer expertise in instrument develop-ment, study design, and data analysis,as well as a pool of graduate andundergraduate students in search oftopics for senior projects, master’stheses, and doctoral internships anddissertations. In addition, since bothuniversities and animal-protectionagencies typically are skilled in theart of fundraising—and often haveestablished relationships with philan-thropic institutions—partnershipsbetween the two can be mutually ben-eficial when it comes to obtaininggrants to fund humane education re-search.


Back-to-BasicsRevisitedClosing the assessment gap will not,by itself, ensure the advancement ofhumane education. Insofar as givingthe teaching of humane values a moreprominent, permanent place in Amer-ican schools remains a goal, the chiefobstacle continues to be humane edu-cation’s identity as a special interest.Traditionally, special interests havebeen objectionable to school adminis-trators, and low priorities for teachers(Underhill 1941; Westerlund 1982).The back-to-basics movement of the1970s and 1980s rendered humaneeducation and other special interestsall the more superfluous to educatorsfacing declining test scores and gen-eral complaints that children wereadvancing to higher grades with sub-standard reading, writing, and mathskills. Today, back-to-basics thinkingis reflected in the adoption of statecurriculum standards by all statesexcept Iowa, where directives regard-ing curriculum content are generatedat the district level (Topics EducationGroup 2001). Curriculum standardsenforced by state departments of edu-cation or school districts, combinedwith a growing emphasis on standard-ized testing (teacher career advance-ment is often directly tied to testscores now) has made schools andteachers more accountable—andmore pressed for time. Consequently,winning representation in the class-room for the issues of special interestgroups, including animal protectionorganizations, has become an increas-ingly formidable challenge.

Meeting that challenge will requirethat animal protection professionalskeep the needs of teachers andschools paramount—a simple butsometimes overlooked precept. Fail-ure to convince school officials of theimportance of teaching humane val-ues often has resulted from an inabil-ity or unwillingness on the part ofhumane education advocates to artic-ulate the benefits of their programswithin the framework of teachers’ andadministrators’ priorities (Wester-

lund 1982). For humane educators,recognizing school priorities typicallyhas meant creating lessons and mate-rials that are “curriculum-blended,”i.e., provide instruction in core sub-ject areas—math, English, science,and social studies—as well as conveya humane message. A prerequisite forthe success of school-focused humaneeducation initiatives in the future willbe the addition of another dimensionto curriculum blending: the align-ment of humane education programswith state curriculum standards.Indeed, in their report to the PotterLeague, O’Hare and Montminy-Danna(2001) recommend that the leaguecollaborate with school officials to tieits programs to curriculum standards.Teachers and administrators are like-ly to be more receptive to the teach-ing of humane values if they knowspecifically which curriculum stan-dards a particular humane educationprogram or lesson plan will help themmeet. The task of linking lessons tocurriculum standards need not beburdensome for humane educators.On the contrary, various Web re-sources, e.g., www.explorasource.com,provide ready access to all state cur-riculum standards, and the standardsthemselves can serve as valuableguideposts in developing pedagogicalobjectives and humane educationprogram content.

The CharacterConnectionAn obvious but not yet thoroughlyexploited strategy for ensuring futurerepresentation for humane content inschool curricula—and for invigorat-ing humane education in general—isalignment with character education,an incarnation of the back-to-basicstrend in the moral education realm.Today character education typicallyrefers to the teaching of “core” or“consensus” values, basic principlesof right and wrong, which, propo-nents argue, transcend political, cul-tural, and religious differences. In areturn to a more traditional, virtues-centered moral education model, and

in response to the widespread publicperception that our youth have falleninto a state of moral decline, themodern character education move-ment departs sharply from the values-clarification trend of the 1960s and1970s. While recognizing that debateabout moral issues has an importantplace in the classroom, character ed-ucation seeks not to assist children inclarifying their own personal valuesbut to train them to develop certainfundamental character traits. Typical-ly those traits include respect, re-sponsibility, caring, fairness, and citi-zenship—principles that have formedthe conceptual underpinnings of hu-mane education since its inception.Over the last twenty years, the char-acter education movement has bene-fited from growing public and legisla-tive support and significantgovernment funding (DeRosa 2001).In 2002 $25 million in federal grantswas made available to state depart-ments of education for the develop-ment and implementation of charac-ter education programs (Grenadier2002). Such programs already havebeen incorporated into the curriculaof thousands of schools nationwide,and the movement shows no signs ofweakening.

The rise of character education andits conceptual symmetry with humaneeducation present animal protectionorganizations with a clear opportunityfor blending the teaching of humanevalues into school curricula. Relyingon the widely recognized effectivenessof animal-related content for captur-ing children’s attention and imagina-tion, humane education has greatpotential for enriching and enliveninglessons in core values, makingabstract concepts such as respect andresponsibility more accessible andengaging for children. By providingprograms that focus on the ways inwhich treating animals humanely is anessential part of good character,humane educators can serve as valu-able resources to classroom teacherswho increasingly are being required toincorporate formal character educa-tion lessons into their classroom activ-ities (DeRosa 2001).



AlternativeMethodologiesAligning humane education programcontent with state standards andcharacter education curricula willhelp ensure that proposals to intro-duce the teaching of humane valuesin schools will be well received byteachers and administrators. Actuallyinstitutionalizing humane educationin schools—i.e., making the schoolsthemselves a primary source ofinstruction in humane values—andproviding teachers with the necessarytraining, tools, and motivation willrequire a reexamination of traditionalhumane education methodology.Standard practices such as classroomvisits and shelter tours typically rele-gate the classroom teacher to therole of bystander, involved marginallyat most in the presentation ofhumane concepts and lessons. Suchapproaches can reinforce the notionof humane education as a novelty orspecial interest, exclusively thepurview of the animal protectionorganization, and both separate fromand subordinate to core curricula.Making schools partners in the propa-gation of a humane ethic will involve,at the very least, cultivating ongoingworking relationships with teachersand administrators. Creating humaneeducation committees, composed ofteachers representing target schools,to assist in the development of cur-riculum-blended interventions maybe an effective first step in fosteringsuch collaboration. Inevitably, howev-er, integrating humane education inschool curricula will require that ani-mal protection professionals divert atleast some of their attention frominstructing children directly. Con-ducting professional-developmentworkshops for teachers and providingthem with instructional materials(aligned, ideally, with state standardsand character education curricula),for example, will help transfer thelocus of humane education from theanimal protection organization to theschools themselves. Such anapproach will enable humane educa-

tors to reach, albeit indirectly, morechildren more consistently thanwould be possible through classroomvisits or shelter tours.

In addition to teacher training andsupport, other school-focused strate-gies may provide animal protectionorganizations with opportunities tomaximize their impact while limitingthe expenditure of time and money.These include the use of technology-based methodologies, such as chatrooms and videoconferencing, to linkelementary and secondary teachersand their students to animal care andcontrol professionals and to providevirtual field trips (Finch 2001). Bypositioning themselves as servicelearning sites, organizations with aparticular interest in reaching teens—an audience traditionally neglected byhumane education— also will benefitfrom the growth of service learning asan educational model in Americanhigh schools (Winiarskyj 2002). Work-ing with education departments incolleges and universities to introducethe teaching of humane values in rele-vant courses will ensure that newteachers are familiar with humaneeducation and that they understandits connection to character educationand other curriculum areas. In shift-ing their primary role from practition-er to trainer and facilitator, humaneeducation professionals can benefitfrom assistance offered by variousnational animal protection organiza-tions—some of which offer supple-mentary classroom materials for theelementary and secondary levels—aswell as training in such areas as thecreation and implementation ofteacher in-service workshops andstrategies for reaching teens.

Exploring potentially more effec-tive, efficient alternatives to tradi-tional humane education practicesmay also take animal protection orga-nizations away from the schoolhouseentirely. Savesky (2002) has arguedthat obstacles to classroom access,such as increased emphasis on stan-dards and testing, have made school-focused approaches inefficient orunfeasible for many organizations.While access to classrooms and gen-

eral receptiveness to humane educa-tion will vary among school districts,animal care and control agencies mayindeed find that non-school optionsprovide an expedient use of limitedresources. Such options may also pro-vide a means of broadening program-ming beyond companion animalissues in cases where school officialsare resistant to accepting potentiallycontroversial subject matter into thecurriculum. Strategies employed byorganizations either as supplementsto or replacements for school pro-grams have included summer youthcamps; family humane education pro-grams; interactive shelter-basedexhibits; programs designed to instillempathy in youth at risk for violent orantisocial behavior; Web-basedinstructional material on a broadrange of animal issues; and the cre-ation of partnerships with social ser-vice agencies, law enforcement, andpet product retailers. Other poten-tially productive non-school strate-gies include reaching out to faith-based youth organizations, home-schooled children, and after-schoolprograms, especially those servingcommunities where children and fam-ilies and their animals may be at highrisk for abuse or neglect (D.McCauley, personal communicationwith B.U., July 3, 2002).

Ultimately, the success of anymethodology, whether school-based,shelter-based, or dependent on collab-oration with some other agency, willbe measured primarily by a singlestandard: its effectiveness in improv-ing children’s attitudes and, most im-portant, behavior toward animals. As aresult commitment to a particularstrategy must be accompanied by theresolve continually to evaluate it and,if necessary, improve or abandon it.

ConclusionsVirtually unlimited faith in the influ-ence of humane education has longbeen a hallmark of organized animalprotection in the United States. Froman early stage, the humane move-ment pinned its hopes on educationas the remedy to cruel treatment of

animals by future generations. How-ever, the movement has not support-ed humane education with practicaland financial resources commensu-rate with this expressed interest.Moreover, the effects of humane edu-cation outreach remain unclear, and,for a variety of reasons, the work ofpromoting kindness to animalsthrough school programs proceedswith limited prospect for measuringresults and outcome. The move-ment’s inability to institutionalize theteaching of humane education inteacher-training schools and relatedinstitutions has restricted its influ-ence, and the penetration of humaneeducation programs run by humanesocieties has proceeded unevenlywhere it has proceeded at all.

Nevertheless, there is no questionthat the diffusion of humane valuesthroughout American culture hasadvanced in the years since theadvent of organized animal protec-tion in 1866. Whatever the level ofsuccess on other fronts of humanework, wanton acts of individual cruel-ty against animal pets are now usual-ly seen as the signs of a maladjustedand sick personality. Conversely akind disposition toward such animalsis considered an important attributeof the well-adjusted individual (Lock-wood and Ascione 1998). Humaneeducation undoubtedly has reinforcedsuch ideas about healthy social andpsychological development. Indeed, itis unlikely that such awareness couldhave coalesced in the absence of amovement that accepted this per-spective as a commonplace and pur-sued extensive measures to carry thelessons of kindness to generations ofAmerican youth.

Now, as at other times in the past,heightened interest in character edu-cation promises to increase opportu-nities for promoting humane educa-tion programs. Teaching kindness-to-animals is highly compatible withthe focus of contemporary charactereducation, concerned as it is with theinculcation of compassion, caring,responsibility, respect, and sociality.Animal welfare organizations may beable to take advantage of the growing

consensus about the importance ofcharacter education, by offering theirservices to schools and school sys-tems, and by asserting the value ofhumane education to the objectivesof the character education movement(DeRosa 2001). They may furtherenlarge their opportunities by provid-ing humane education lessons thatcan be correlated with conventionalsubject matter.

For the most part, organized ani-mal protection has been unable tosecure the introduction and perpetu-ation of humane education programsand philosophy within institutions ofhigher learning and teacher training.This remains the great unrealizedgoal, and perhaps the most promisingobjective, in the field. Yet it presup-poses an increased commitment tohumane education strategies on thepart of humane societies. Expandedlevels of activity on this front canbroaden possibilities for collaborationwith institutions of higher learningand teacher training and generateopportunities for program evaluationand ongoing curriculum develop-ment.

One limiting factor undoubtedlywill be the tenuousness of programstied to humane societies and theirbudgets. American animal protectionis highly decentralized, and theresponsibilities of municipal animalcontrol; fluctuations in donor sup-port; and the press of other prioritieshave all had an impact on commit-ment to humane education by localsocieties. Without a steady invest-ment of resources in this arena, thespread and impact of humane educa-tion efforts are likely to remainuneven and uncertain.

Humane education would seem tobe an especially fruitful channel forfoundation support. Historically, phil-anthropic foundations have played acrucial role in helping to shape thecourse of social change throughstrategic investments and subsidies.During the civil rights era, for exam-ple, foundations underwrote votingrights campaigns in an effort to directthe freedom movement’s energiestoward the creation of viable and last-

ing structures to enhance representa-tive democracy. A similar approachmight be taken for subsidizing thehiring and placement of humane edu-cation specialists within humane soci-eties, or for the endowment of rele-vant positions and proper trainingprograms within institutions of high-er learning. Such an investmentmight serve to free humane educa-tion from subordinate status withinorganizations that otherwise are wellequipped to promote the lessons ofkindness to animals. Higher levels ofactivity, expanded levels of research,and more rigorous evaluation pro-grams all will help to bring greatercredibility to humane education andvalidate the hopes that advocateshave attached to it in the several cen-turies since appreciation for the valueof kindness to animals as a didacticinstrument first surfaced.

Literature CitedAmerican Humane Association

(AHA). 1952. National surveyreveals vast humane education pro-gram. National Humane Review.March.

Angell, G.T. n.d. Autobiographicalsketches and personal recollections.Boston: American Humane Educa-tion Society.

Anonymous [G.S. Porter]. 1893. Thestrike at Shane’s: A prize story ofIndiana. Boston: American Hu-mane Education Society.

Ascione, F.R. 1992. Enhancing chil-dren’s attitudes about the humanetreatment of animals: Generaliza-tion to human-directed empathy.Anthrozoös 5(3): 176—191.

Ascione, F.R., and C.V. Weber. 1996.Children’s attitudes about thehumane treatment of animals andempathy: One-year follow-up of aschool-based intervention. Anthro-zoös 9(4): 188-–195.

Ascione, F.R., G.I. Latham, and B.R.Worthen. 1985. Final report, year 2:An experimental study. Evaluationof the humane education curricu-lum guides. Report to the NationalAssociation for Humane and Envi-ronmental Education.



Barrows, E.A. 1894. Four months inNew Hampshire. Boston: AmericanHumane Education Society.

Bray, M.M. 1893. Our gold mine atHollyhurst. Boston: AmericanHumane Education Society.

Button, H.W., and E.F. Provenzo, Jr.1983. History of education and cul-ture in America. Englewood: Pren-tice-Hall.

Butts, R.F., and L. Cremin. 1953. Ahistory of education in Americanculture. New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.

Cameron, L. 1983. The effects of twoinstructional treatments on eighth-grade students’ attitudes towardanimal life. Ph.D. diss., Purdue Uni-versity.

Carter, S.N. 1897. For pity’s sake: Astory for the times, being reminis-cences of a guest at a country inn.Boston: American Humane Educa-tion Society.

Cartmill, M. 1993. A view to a deathin the morning: Hunting and naturethrough history. Cambridge: Har-vard University Press.

Cremin, L. 1969. The transformationof the school: Progressivism inAmerican education, 1876–1957.New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Davis, F.A., G.E. Hein, B. Starnes, andS. Price. 1988. Evaluation report:Massachusetts Society for the Pre-vention of Cruelty to Animals schooloutreach program, grades 2–5.Unpublished.

DeRosa, B. 2001. The character con-nection. Animal Sheltering 24(4):12-–21.

Finch, P. 2001. Humane education’sradical new era. The Latham Letter22(4): 6-–9.

Firth, A., comp. 1883. Voices for thespeechless: Selections for schoolsand private reading. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.

Fitzgerald, T.A. 1981. Evaluatinghumane education: The JeffersonCounty study. Humane Education5(3): 21-–22.

Grenadier, A., ed. 2002. Charactereducation program grantannouncement from U.S. Depart-ment of Education. Essential Char-

acter (e-mail newsletter of theCharacter Education Partnership).April.

Grier, K.C. 1999. Childhood socializa-tion and companion animals: Unit-ed States, 1820–1920. Society andAnimals 7(2): 95–120.

Isaacs, S. 1930. Intellectual growth inyoung children. London: GeorgeRoutledge and Sons.

Kerber, L. 1980. Women of the repub-lic: Intellect and ideology in Revolu-tionary America. Chapel Hill: Uni-versity of North Carolina Press.

Krows, M. 1938. The hounds of Hast-ings. New York: Columbia Universi-ty Press.

Locke, J. 1989. Some thoughts oneducation. eds. J.W. and J.S. Yolton.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lockwood, R., and F. Ascione, eds.1998. Cruelty to animals and inter-personal violence. West Lafayette,Ind.: Purdue University Press.

Malcarne, V. 1981. What can humaneeducation research do for you?Humane Education 5(4): 18–19.

———. 1983. Evaluating humaneeducation: The Boston study.Humane Education 7(1): 12–13.

Mann, H. 1861. Twelve sermonsdelivered at Antioch College.Boston: Ticknor and Fields.

Mathewson, L.M. 1942. Humane edu-cation. Master’s thesis, Brown Uni-versity.

O’Hare, T., and M. Montminy-Danna.2001. Evaluation report: Effective-ness of the Potter League humaneeducation program.

Olin, J. 2002. Humane education inthe 21st century: A survey of ani-mal shelters in the United States.Master’s thesis, Tufts University.

Oswald, L.J. 1994. Environmentaland animal rights ethics in chil-dren’s realistic animal novels oftwentieth century North America.Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon.

Paul, E.S. 2000. Empathy with ani-mals and with humans: Are theylinked? Anthrozoös 13(4): 194–200.

Pauly, P.J. 2000. Biologists and thepromise of American life: FromMeriwether Lewis to Alfred Kinsey.

Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Pickering, S.F. 1981. John Locke andchildren’s books in eighteenth-centu-ry England. Knoxville: University ofTennessee Press.

Pivar, D. 1973. Purity crusade: Sexualmorality and social control1868–1900. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press.

Poresky, R.H. 1990. The young chil-dren’s empathy measure: Reliabili-ty, validity, and effects of companionanimal bonding. PsychologicalReports 66: 931–936.

Ray, J.J. 1982. Love of animals andlove of people. The Journal of SocialPsychology 116: 229-–300.

Rowley, F.H. 1916. Preparedness andhumane education. Our Dumb Ani-mals 48: 152.

Saunders, M.M. 1893. Beautiful Joe.Philadelphia: American Baptist Pub-lication Society.

Savesky, K. 2002. Presentation deliv-ered at The HSUS Animal CareExpo. Miami, Florida, April 3.

Sewell, A. 1890. Black Beauty. Boston:American Humane Education Soci-ety.

Sheldon, E.A. 1862. Manual of ele-mentary instruction for the use ofpublic and private schools and nor-mal classes. New York: CharlesScribner.

Shultz, W.J. 1924. The humane move-ment in the United States. New York:Columbia University Press.

Timmins, T. 1883. The History of thefounding, aims, and growth of theAmerican Bands of Mercy. Boston:P. H. Foster.

Topics Education Group. 2001. Cur-riculum standards: The new K–12mandate. www.topicseducation.com/download/Topics_Research_Brief_v1n2.pdf.

Underhill, O.E. 1941. The origins anddevelopment of elementary-schoolscience. Chicago: Scott, Foresman,and Co.

Unti, B. 2002. The quality of mercy:Organized animal protection in theUnited States, 1866–1930. Ph.D.diss., American University.

Unti, B., and A. Rowan. 2001. A social

history of animal protection in thepost-World War II period. In Thestate of the animals: 2001, ed. D.Salem and A. Rowan, 21–37. Wash-ington: Humane Society Press.

Vockell, E., and E.F. Hodal. 1980.Developing humane attitudes: Whatdoes research tell us?, Humane Edu-cation 4(2): 19–21.

Walter, M.R. 1950. The humane edu-cation program in the publicschools of Ohio and Wisconsin. Mas-ter’s thesis, Kent State University.

Westerlund, S.R. 1982. Spreading theword: Promoting humane educationwith administrators and fellow edu-cators. Humane Education 6(1):7–8.

Whyte, M.L. 1948. A study in humaneeducation. Master’s thesis, Universi-ty of Dayton.

Winiarskyj, L. 2002. Why generationY? How service learning programsfor teens can work for you. AnimalSheltering 26(2): 11–17.



AppendixMilestones in Humane Education: A Pre-World War II Chronology

Publications Released Organizations Legislation OtherFounded Passed

1693 John Locke, Some Thoughts on Educationpublished

1765 Goody Two-Shoes published

1780 Jeremy Bentham,Principles of Morals and Legislation published

1783 Dorothy Kilner,The Life and Perambulations of a Mouse published

1785 Sarah Trimmer,Fabulous Histories published

1792 Herman Daggett,The Rights of Animals published

1794 American edition of Fabulous Histories published

1794 American edition of Arnaud BerquinLooking Glass for the Mindpublished

1802 American edition of The Hare, or Hunting Incompatible with Humanitypublished

1824 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) founded

1828 American Tract Society edition of Louisa’s Tenderness to the Little Birds published

1829 New York State anti-cruelty statute passed

1835 The Spirit of Humanity published

1845 American Sunday School Union edition of Charlotte Elizabeth’s Kindness to Animals; or The Sin of Cruelty Exposed and Rebukedpublished

1850 American Vegetarian Society Fugitive Slave Act passed Flogging in the U.S. founded in the U.S. Navy

abolished

1851 Grace Greenwood,History of My Pets published

1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe, Massachusetts compulsoryUncle Tom’s Cabin published school attendance

legislation passed


1866 Anson Randolph, American Society for theAutobiography of Prevention of Cruelty to a Canary Bird Animals (ASPCA) foundedpublished

1867 Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) founded

1868 Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) founded

1874 Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) founded

1875 New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children launched by Henry Bergh and Elbridge T. Gerry

1877 Anna Sewell, American HumaneBlack Beauty published Association (AHA) founded

1882 Band of Mercy concept introduced to United States

1883 Abraham Firth, American Anti-VivisectionVoices of the Speechless Society foundedpublished

Thomas Timmins, The History of the Founding, Aims, and Growth of the American Bands of Mercy published

1886 Humane education mandate in Massachusetts spurred by MSPCA

1889 American Humane Education Society (AHES) founded

1890 AHES edition of Black Beautypublished

1891 WCTU Department of Mercy formed by Mary F. Lovell

1892 AHA campaign against classroomvivisection spurred by Albert Leffingwell

1893 Marshall Saunders, Beautiful Joe published

(continued from previous page)




1893 ASPCA, Kindness to Animals: A Manual for Use in Schools and Families published

1894 American edition of Henry Ban on classroom Salt’s Animals’ Rights vivisection in Considered in Relation to Massachusetts Social Progress published secured by MSPCA

1895 New England Anti-Vivisection Society founded

1897 Sarah J. Eddy, Songs of Happy Life published

Emma Page, Heart Culturepublished

1899 Ralph Waldo Trine, Every Living Creature published

1902 AHA TextbookCommittee formed

1904 Nora Finch, Colliery Jim: William O. StillmanAutobiography of a Mine Mule assumes presidencypublished of AHA

1905 Humane Education Committee Oklahoma and in New York State formed by Pennsylvania pass Stillman and Stella Preston compulsory humane

education laws

1906 J. Howard Moore, The Universal Kinship published

Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualisdiscusses sadistic behavior toward non-human animals

1907 Henry Bergh Foundation for the Promotion of Humane Education established at Columbia University

1909 Compulsory humane education legislation passed in Illinois

1910 Flora Helm Krause, Manual of Moral and Humane Educationpublished

1911 Millennium Guild founded

1913 S. Louise Patteson, Pussy Meow published








1915 Be Kind to AnimalsWeek launched

AHA votes to seek compulsoryhumane education in every state

1916 Sandor Ferenczi, AHES produces “A Little Chanticleer” the first humane (case study of a boy’s cruelty education film, toward humans and non- “The Bell of Atri”human animals) published

ASPCA createshumane educationdepartment

1917 Compulsory humane education laws passed in Maine, Wisconsin, and New York

1919 Harriet C.C. Reynolds, Thoughts on Human Education: Suggestions on Kindness to Animals published

1920 Kentucky approves compulsory humane education law

1923 Florida approves compulsory humane education law

1924 William J. Schultz, The Humane Movement in the United States, judges humane education the most important development of the previous decade

Frances E. Clarke, Lessons for Teaching Humane Education in the Schools published

1925 Alexander Ernest Frederick, The Humane Guide: A Manual for Teachers and Humane Workers published

1931 Susan Isaacs, Intellectual Growth in Young Childrenpublished

humane education past, present, and future · humane education past, present, and future bernard...

Documents