Exploring the Ethics of Using Live Animals in Primary Schools
In recent years, many primary schools have introduced live animals into classrooms as a way of enriching children’s learning experiences. From class guinea pigs and rabbit hutches to visiting zoos, mobile farms, and even hatching chicks, the presence of animals in schools is often framed as a means of fostering empathy, curiosity and responsibility in young learners. But beneath these seemingly wholesome interactions lie complex ethical questions: Should animals be kept in classrooms? Is it moral to use them for educational purposes? How do we balance the developmental benefits to children with the rights and welfare of the animals themselves?
The Question of Respect and Welfare
At the heart of the ethical debate is the question of respect for animals. While most schools that include animals in their curriculum aim to teach kindness and care, critics argue that the very act of confining a living creature—especially in an unnatural or overstimulating environment—can contradict that message. For example, small mammals like hamsters or guinea pigs are often kept in cages within noisy, busy classrooms. While some children may learn to handle them gently and clean out their cages responsibly, others may see the animal as an object or novelty, rather than a sentient being with needs of its own.
This raises questions about whether the setting of a primary school, with its inevitable noise, unpredictability and rotation of caregivers can truly meet the welfare needs of animals. Unlike in a home, where a pet can form stable attachments and routines, school animals may experience stress from handling by multiple children, inconsistent care, and potential periods alone overnight.
Animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA have expressed concerns about keeping animals in classrooms. Their guidance clearly states that children should not be the primary carers and that animals must not be used in ways that risk their well-being, including exposure to stress or inadequate housing (RSPCA, 2021).
The Morality of Keeping Animals
Another key ethical concern centres on the idea of captivity. Is it morally justifiable to cage an animal for the purpose of human education, however well-meaning that purpose may be?
Many children are naturally drawn to animals and may express great affection for a class pet. Yet the presence of the animal in a cage can subtly reinforce the idea that humans have the right to control and contain other living beings. Critics argue that this could lead to a distorted understanding of human-animal relationships, particularly if children do not see animals in more natural settings or understand their wild behaviours.
Animal welfare education specialists argue that a respectful relationship with animals should involve seeing them as autonomous beings, not classroom ornaments (British Veterinary Association, 2022). Without guidance, children may form limited ideas about what animals need and deserve. However, when educators take the time to build structured learning around an animal’s needs – such as diet, behaviour, and habitat – the experience can nurture respect rather than domination.
Animals as Entertainment?
A particularly sensitive issue arises when animals are brought into schools primarily for entertainment. Mobile petting zoos, animal encounter sessions, or egg-hatching projects are popular because they provide children with novel and memorable experiences. But such experiences can risk turning animals into little more than teaching tools or temporary spectacles.
For example, some hatching projects send fertilised eggs into schools, allowing children to watch chicks emerge from their shells. While educational, these projects have faced criticism for what happens after the chicks are returned – sometimes to farms, sometimes euthanised if there are surplus males or poorly handled (Humane Education Coalition, 2020).
Critics argue that such initiatives often prioritise the emotional experience of the child over the long-term welfare of the animal. They suggest that children can develop empathy through observing wildlife in natural habitats or using modern alternatives such as live nature webcams and virtual reality experiences, and without placing animals in artificial or temporary captivity (PETA UK, 2021).
Supporters, however, point to the profound effect that physical proximity to animals can have on a child’s emotional and moral development. A child who gently holds a chick or watches a rabbit hop around a classroom may feel a deeper connection to living things than one who simply sees animals in books or on screens.
Educational Benefits and the Montessori Perspective
There is no denying that interacting with animals can have significant benefits for children’s development. The Montessori philosophy certainly advocates that hands-on experiences are vital for young learners. Maria Montessori believed that real, sensory-rich experiences help children connect abstract concepts with the world around them. Animals, in this view, are not simply objects of interest—they are fellow beings that children can come to know through care, observation, and relationship (Montessori, The Discovery of the Child, 1948).
For some children, especially those with social or emotional difficulties, animals can offer a unique form of comfort and connection. Studies have shown that animals in the classroom can reduce stress, improve attention and foster nurturing behaviours (O’Haire, 2013). In a world where many children are increasingly disconnected from nature, a classroom animal may be the first living creature they form a bond with outside their family.
Yet even within Montessori education, there is an emphasis on the dignity of all living things. Animals should not be used as props or rewards, and their care must be grounded in respect. Rather than asking what animals can do for children, Montessori philosophy encourages us to consider what responsibilities children have toward animals.
A Balancing Act
Ultimately, the presence of live animals in primary schools raises difficult but important questions. How do we ensure that animals are treated ethically while still allowing children to benefit from their presence? Can we teach compassion without inadvertently promoting control or objectification? Should the emotional development of a child ever outweigh the needs of another living being?
There may be no single answer, but the ongoing conversation around animals in education is a vital one, especially for parents who want to raise children who are both curious and compassionate citizens of the natural world.
References
- RSPCA (2021). Guidance on the Use of Animals in Schools. https://www.rspca.org.uk
- British Veterinary Association (2022). Position Statement: Animals in Education.
- Humane Education Coalition (2020). Ethics of Chick-Hatching in Classrooms.
- PETA UK (2021). Why Schools Should Avoid Using Live Animals in Lessons. https://www.peta.org.uk
- Montessori, M. (1948). The Discovery of the Child. Oxford: Clio Press.
- O’Haire, M.E. (2013). Animal-Assisted Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(7), 1606–1622.
Click here for more information about the Montessori approach