Existing law authorizes a pupil with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying an animal to refrain from participation in an educational project that involves the harmful or destructive use of animals. Existing law authorizes, if the pupil chooses to refrain and a teacher believes that an adequate alternative education project is possible, the teacher to work with the pupil to develop and agree upon an alternative education project in order to obtain the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study in question. Existing law requires each teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts to inform the pupils of their rights pursuant to these provisions. Existing law applies these provisions to all levels of instruction in all public schools operating programs in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish and implement a system of complaint processing, known as the Uniform Complaint Procedures, for specified educational programs.

This bill, if a pupil chooses to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals, would require a teacher to provide an alternative assessment, education project, or test. The bill would prohibit a pupils grades from being impacted as a means of penalizing the pupil for exercising their rights concerning dissection of animals. The bill would require a teacher to provide, at a pupils request, any sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals and information about the chemicals used to preserve the animals for dissection to which the pupil may be exposed. The bill would require a teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, to provide written notice of the pupils rights that includes specified information, including, among other things, any animal sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals the above-described rights and the complaint procedures described below. The bill would require, by November 1, 2025, the State Department of Education to develop a template that a teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, would be authorized to use to provide this written notice and to make the template available on its internet website. The bill would strongly encourage, by July 1, 2028, public schools to explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, except as provided. The bill would require the Uniform Complaint Procedures to apply to pupils rights to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals and to choose an alternative assessment, education project, or test. By imposing additional duties on public schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law authorizes a pupil with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying an animal to refrain from participation in an educational project that involves the harmful or destructive use of animals. Existing law authorizes, if the pupil chooses to refrain and a teacher believes that an adequate alternative education project is possible, the teacher to work with the pupil to develop and agree upon an alternative education project in order to obtain the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study in question. Existing law requires each teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts to inform the pupils of their rights pursuant to these provisions. Existing law applies these provisions to all levels of instruction in all public schools operating programs in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish and implement a system of complaint processing, known as the Uniform Complaint Procedures, for specified educational programs.

This bill, if a pupil chooses to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals, would require a teacher to provide an alternative assessment, education project, or test. The bill would prohibit a pupils grades from being impacted as a means of penalizing the pupil for exercising their rights concerning dissection of animals. The bill would require a teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, to provide written notice of the pupils rights that includes specified information, including, among other things, where the animals are sourced from any animal sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals and the complaint procedures described below. The bill would require, by November 1, 2025, the State Department of Education to develop a template that a teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, would be authorized to use to provide this written notice and to make the template available on its internet website. The bill would strongly encourage, by July 1, 2028, public schools to explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, except as provided. The bill would require the Uniform Complaint Procedures to apply to pupils rights to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals and to choose an alternative assessment, education project, or test. By imposing additional duties on public schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law authorizes a pupil with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying an animal to refrain from participation in an educational project that involves the harmful or destructive use of animals. Existing law authorizes, if the pupil chooses to refrain and a teacher believes that an adequate alternative education project is possible, the teacher to work with the pupil to develop and agree upon an alternative education project in order to obtain the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study in question. Existing law requires each teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts to inform the pupils of their rights pursuant to these provisions. Existing law applies these provisions to all levels of instruction in all public schools operating programs in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish and implement a system of complaint processing, known as the Uniform Complaint Procedures, for specified educational programs.

This bill, if a pupil chooses to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals, would require a teacher to provide an alternative assessment, education project, or test. The bill would prohibit a pupils grades from being impacted as a means of penalizing the pupil for exercising their rights. rights concerning dissection of animals. The bill would require require a teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, to provide written notice of the pupils rights that includes specified information, including, among other things, where the animals are sourced from and the complaint procedures described below. The bill would require, by November 1, 2025, the State Department of Education to develop a template that a teacher teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, would be required authorized to use to provide this written notice that includes specified information, including, among other things, where the animals are sourced from and the environmental impacts of sourcing and dissecting the animals. and to make the template available on its internet website. The bill would strongly encourage, by July 1, 2028, public schools to phase out explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, except as provided, and to use alternative methods to deliver the same instructional material. provided. The bill would require the Uniform Complaint Procedures to apply to pupils rights to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals and to choose an alternative assessment, education project, or test. By imposing additional duties on public schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law authorizes the administrator of a high school, or the administrators designee, to appoint one or more pupils who are enrolled at that high school to be voter outreach coordinators, as provided.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2640 (Kalra) - Pupil instruction: animal dissection

Bill Summary:

This bill requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide notifications related to the dissection of animals in schools, and also provides that the California Department of Education (CDE) shall develop a template for students to use to opt-out.

Fiscal Impact:

• The CDE indicates that it would likely incur additional costs allocating staff time to develop the template teachers may use to provide notice to students, and to potentially respond to additional Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) complaints regarding students’ rights to refrain from participation in the dissection of animals. However, the extent of these General Fund costs is unknown.
• By expanding the UCP process to include complaints related to pupil’s rights to refrain from participation in an activity involving the dissection of animal, this bill could increase the Proposition 98 General Fund costs associated with the existing UCP mandate. The extent of these costs is unknown and would depend on the number of complaints each year. The UCP mandate has an adopted statewide cost estimate of $209,613 and a prospective cost of $34,751 each year.
• This bill could result in additional, unknown Proposition 98 General Fund costs for LEAs to provide additional notifications and alternative assignments for students to complete in place of dissections.

Background:

Existing law requires each teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts to inform students of their rights to refrain from animal dissection. It also requires that a student’s objection to participating in an educational project pursuant to this section be substantiated by a note from his or her parent or guardian.

Existing law requires a student with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying animals, or any parts thereof, to notify his or her teacher regarding this objection, upon notification by the school of his or her rights. It states that if the student chooses to refrain from participation in an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals, and if the teacher believes that an adequate alternative education project is possible, the teacher may work with the student to develop and agree upon an alternate education project for the purpose of providing the student an alternate avenue for obtaining the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study.

Existing law requires that the alternative education project require a comparable time and effort investment by the student, and prohibits it from being more arduous than the original education project as a means of penalizing a student and for students choosing an alternative educational project to pass all examinations of the respective course of study in order to receive credit for that course of study. If such tests require the harmful or destructive use of animals, permits a student to seek alternative tests.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires each teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts for purposes of dissection, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, to provide written notice to each pupil and the pupil’s parent or guardian of the pupil’s rights that include all of the following information as part of the written notification:

• 1. A pupil’s right to refrain from participating in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals.
  2. How non-participation will not affect a pupil’s grades for exercising their rights.
  3. Any animal sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals.
  4. The chemicals used to preserve the animals to which the pupil will be exposed.
  5. The complaint procedures.

This bill requires the CDE to develop a template that a teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, may use to provide written notice to students and make the template available on its internet website.

This bill allows a pupil to request information about the chemicals used for dissection.

This bill encourages public schools, except for classes and activities, conducted as part of a program in agricultural education that provide instruction on the care, management, and evaluation of domestic animals, to explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, by July 1, 2028. This bill also encourages schools to explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, by July 1, 2028.

This bill expands the UCP process to include complaints related to pupil’s rights to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals and to choose an alternative assessment, education project, or test.

Related Legislation:

AB 1586 (Kalra, 2019) would have prohibited students enrolled in public or private schools from dissecting, or viewing the dissection of, animals in the study of biological sciences. This bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee.

Staff Comments:

Many teachers and education professionals maintain that there is no substitute for the hands-on learning experience of dissection. To understand the current use of animal dissection and alternatives and attitudes toward the practices, a nationwide survey of middle and high school biology teachers and students was conducted in Evaluation of Educator & Student Use of & Attitudes toward Dissection & Dissection Alternatives. Most teachers (84%) and students (76%) reported using dissection in their classrooms, although nearly half of educators indicated that dissection is decreasing at their school.

According to the author, “The lessons of anatomy are an important scientific teaching in a student's academic career. However, with the advancements in educational technology, alternative methods can still reach the same educational outcome without having to rely on costly animal dissection kits. California law allows students to opt-out of animal dissection and request an alternative assignment but they are not made aware of their right and feel obligated to participate.”

This bill would reinforce pupils’ existing right to opt-out of animal dissection projects by requiring, as a part of the written notification to students and parents or guardian of the pupil’s, information about pupil’s right to refrain from participating in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2640 Hearing Date: June 19, 2024

Subject: Pupil instruction: animal dissection.

SUMMARY

This bill strengthens the process for students to opt-out of the dissection of animals in schools, requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop a template for students to use to opt-out, and makes compliance with opt-out requirements subject to the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP).

BACKGROUND

Existing Law:

Education Code (EC)

1. Requires each teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts to inform students of their rights to refrain from animal dissection (EC § 33225.4)
2. Requires that a student’s objection to participating in an educational project pursuant to this section be substantiated by a note from his or her parent or guardian. (EC § 32255.1 (f))
3. Requires a student with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying animals, or any parts thereof, to notify his or her teacher regarding this objection, upon notification by the school of his or her rights. (EC § 33225.1 (a))
4. States that if the student chooses to refrain from participation in an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals, and if the teacher believes that an adequate alternative education project is possible, the teacher may work with the student to develop and agree upon an alternate education project for the purpose of providing the student an alternate avenue for obtaining the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study. (EC § 32255.1 (b))
5. Requires that the alternative education project require a comparable time and effort investment by the student, and prohibits it from being more arduous than the original education project as a means of penalizing a student and for students choosing an alternative educational project to pass all examinations of the respective course of study in order to receive credit for that course of study. If such tests require the harmful or destructive use of animals, permits a student to seek alternative tests. (EC 32255.1 (c) & (e))
6. Prohibits discrimination against a student based upon his or her decision to exercise his or her rights to object to refrain from dissection. (EC 32255.1(d))
7. Defines “animal” to mean any living organism of the kingdom Animalia, beings that typically differ from plants in capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor response to stimulation by a usually greater mobility with some degree of voluntary locomotor ability and by greater irritability commonly mediated through a more or less centralized nervous system, beings that are characterized by a requirement for complex organic nutrients including proteins or their constituents that are usually digested in an internal cavity before assimilation into the body proper, and beings that are distinguished from typical plants by lack of chlorophyll, by an inability to perform photosynthesis, by cells that lack cellulose walls, and by the frequent presence of discrete complex sense organs. (EC § 32255 (a))
8. Defines “alternative education project” to include the use of video recordings, models, films, books, and computers, which would provide an alternate avenue for obtaining the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study in question. Defines “alternative education project” to include “alternative test.” (EC § 32255 (b))
9. Defines “pupil” to mean a person under 18 years of age who is matriculated in a course of instruction in an educational institution. For the purpose of asserting the student’s rights and receiving any notice or response, defines “student” to include the parents of a matriculated minor. (EC § 32255 (c))

ANALYSIS

This bill:

Definitions

1. Redefines “Alternative education project” to “Alternative assessment,” “alternative education project,” or “alternative test” to mean and include, but is not limited to, the use of video recordings, three-dimensional models, films, books, interactive simulation software and computers, and assessments of knowledge that would provide an alternate avenue for obtaining the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study in question.
2. Defines “Dissection” to mean the viewing of the, or act of, dismembering or otherwise harmful or destructive use of an animal, in part or in whole, preserved or freshly killed, in the study of biological sciences. “Dissection” does not include fixed histological samples of any species, including, but not limited to, plain or stained microscope slides, owl pellets, human autopsy viewing, and plastinated human organs.
3. Includes in the existing definition of “Pupil”, with regard to a pupil’s right to participate in animal dissection, matriculated minor’s parent or guardian. 
4. Makes modifications to pupils existing rights related to animal dissection to align with the new definition proposed by this bill.

Requires Written Notification to Pupils, Parents, and Guardians

1. Requires each teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts for purposes of dissection, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, shall provide written notice to each pupil and the pupil’s parent or guardian of the pupil’s rights that include all of the following information as part of the written notification:
   1. A pupil’s right to refrain from participating in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals.
   2. How non-participation will not affect a pupil’s grades for exercising their rights.
   3. Any animal sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals.
   4. The chemicals used to preserve the animals to which the pupil will be exposed.
   5. The complaint procedures.
2. Requires the CDE to develop a template that a teacher, or a public school on behalf of the teacher, may use to provide written notice to students and make the template available on its internet website.

Encourages Schools to Transition to Alternative Methods

1. Strongly encourages public schools, except for classes and activities, conducted as part of a program in agricultural education that provide instruction on the care, management, and evaluation of domestic animals, to explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, by July 1, 2028.

Allows Complaints To Be Filed Under the UCP

1. Expands the UCP process to include complaints related to pupil’s rights to refrain from participation in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals and to choose an alternative assessment, education project, or test.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “The lessons of anatomy are an important scientific teaching in a student's academic career. However, with the advancements in educational technology, alternative methods can still reach the same educational outcome without having to rely on costly animal dissection kits. California law allows students to opt-out of animal dissection and request an alternative assignment but they are not made aware of their right and feel obligated to participate. AB 2640, the CLASS Act will require teachers to provide students with a written notice informing them of their right to opt-out and still receive a comparable assignment to get the same educational outcome. In addition to being informed about their student right to opt-out, students will also be informed about what chemicals they will be exposed to with this assignment, and vendor information for the animal dissection kit. The CLASS Act will empower students to be informed and make decisions best suited for their academic careers.”
2. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). In 2013, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted the NGSS as the state's science content standards. Unlike California's previous science standards, NGSS shifts the focus of instruction from rote memorization of scientific information to the cultivation of critical thinking skills. It emphasizes core scientific ideas (disciplinary core ideas), the correlation of critical concepts across disciplines (cross-cutting concepts), and the implementation of processes used by professional scientists (science and engineering practices), such as formulating questions, constructing and utilizing models, and planning and executing investigations. The accompanying graphic visually represents this "three-dimensional" approach to science education.

The NGSS standards and the state's science curriculum framework do not specifically direct teachers on teaching science content, nor do they mention animal dissection. However, activities such as dissection align well with some of the critical instructional features of the state's new standards:

1. Learning is intended to be hands-on, collaborative, and in an integrated environment rooted in inquiry and discovery.
2. Instruction is grounded in student-centered learning, which enables students to think on their own, problem-solve, communicate, and collaborate, in addition to learning important scientific concepts.
3. The goal of instruction is for students to engage with and explain real-world phenomena and to design solutions using this understanding of the disciplinary core ideas.

For example, under NGSS, the traditional goal of using dissection to teach anatomy shifts to a goal of learning concepts, connections, and practices of science. Dissection is one way that students can learn about the cross-cutting concept of Structure and Function in studying life science.

1. Animal Dissection. Many teachers and education professionals maintain that there is no substitute for the hands-on learning experience of dissection. To understand the current use of animal dissection and alternatives and attitudes toward the practices, a nationwide survey of middle and high school biology teachers (n = 1178) and students (n = 500) was conducted in Evaluation of Educator & Student Use of & Attitudes toward Dissection & Dissection Alternatives. Most teachers (84%) and students (76%) reported using dissection in their classrooms, although nearly half of educators indicated that dissection is decreasing at their school.

The benefits of learning through dissection differ significantly from those gained through a lecture or textbook lesson. By combining the topics students have learned about, dissection provides students with firsthand experience of the subject matter.

Many individuals find learning easier when they can engage in physical activities. The hands-on dissection approach enables students to see, touch, and explore various organs, leading to a better understanding of biological systems. This understanding can translate to a greater comprehension of human biology when applied to their bodies. Although there are differences between the intricacies of the human body and those of other animals, many internal systems can work similarly. The internal structure of a small animal can be compared to a simplified human body, providing insights into the human body's internal workings. Dissections of frogs, for example, can demonstrate the organ systems of complex organisms, as the frogs' organs are similar enough to those of humans to provide valuable insights.

1. Objections To Animal Dissection. Animal dissection in schools raises numerous concerns, including education, society, animal welfare, health, the environment, money, equity, access, local control, and the state's role. Proponents argue that instructors should be free to choose teaching strategies that best support teaching and learning. They believe using natural objects for science instruction has an intrinsic educational value that cannot be duplicated through other methods. It aligns with the NGSS core concepts of inquiry, exploration, and use of phenomena.

Students who object to dissection may feel uncomfortable on an ethical or moral level and believe that they have not been given adequate alternatives or have faced consequences from their schools. However, proponents of dissection argue that when done ethically, it can provide respect for life and an understanding of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things. They support students' freedom to choose not to participate in dissection lessons and be given a superior substitute activity.

Animal welfare opponents point out that the procedure is linked to the agony, suffering, and demise of animals and to inhumane practices. They also express concern about using some threatened species in dissection, sourcing some animals from animal shelters or their natural habitats, and breeding some animals at facilities that serve companies that use animals in laboratories and educational experiments.

Proponents of dissection agree that students' dissection experiences shouldn't harm ecosystems and contend that less- or non-toxic alternatives can be used to preserve specimens. They argue that local educators should decide whether or not to employ dissection to teach their pupils rather than the state making this decision.

Opponents of dissection point out that certain teacher activities in the classroom are already covered by state legislation, which mandates that teachers educate students "on kindness toward pets and the humane treatment of living creatures."

Lastly, issues with access, equity, and finances arise. Dissection proponents express concern about the expense of offering alternatives to dissection and believe that access and equity issues may occur at certain schools due to inadequate hardware and connectivity. Dissection opponent’s counter that although obtaining alternatives, including software licenses, has upfront costs, these eventually pale compared to the yearly expense of obtaining animals and other supplies, and some free or inexpensive items are readily available.

Current Rights Afforded to Students With Regard to Animal Dissection

In 1988, Governor Deukmejian signed AB 2507 (Speier, Chapter 65, Statutes of 1988) which established a right of students to opt-out of animal dissection – the statutes proposed to be amended by this bill. California is one of 21 states that have passed measures giving K-12 students the right to opt for an alternative instead of participating in animal dissection.

Despite this right, many students are not aware of their right to opt out of animal dissection. In Evaluation of Educator &Student Use of &Attitudes toward Dissection &Dissection Alternatives, a national study of 1,178 teachers revealed that only 53% of teachers in states with opt-out laws reported that their schools had such policies. Additionally, 29% reported that their school did not have such a policy, and 18% were unsure. The study also found that 90% of teachers indicated that less than 5% of students requested alternatives to dissection, while 14% of students reported that they had refused to dissect or requested an alternative. Research suggests that although only a small number of students will object to dissection, many other students may not want to participate but are afraid to voice their opposition due to fear of a failing grade, embarrassment, or challenging the authority of their teacher.

This bill reinforces pupils existing right to opt-out of animal dissection projects by requiring, as a part of the written notification to students and parents or guardian of the pupil’s, information about pupil’s right to refrain from participating in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals The prohibition of impact on a pupil’s grades as a means of penalizing the pupil for exercising their rights; Any animal sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals. the chemicals used to preserve the animals to which the pupil will be exposed and the UCP process.

1. Do Alternatives to Dissection Exist? Several alternatives to traditional dissection instruction exist, such as interactive software, tablet applications, videos, lifelike models, and virtual reality applications. Some specific examples of alternative programs include Expandable Mind Software, Froggipedia, and Biosphera. In addition, there are loan programs and databases that provide alternative materials, such as Animalearn’s Science Bank, the National Anti-Vivisection Society’s BioLEAP Lending Program, the Ethical Science Education Coalition’s Alternatives Loan Library, the International Network for Humane Education (InterNICHE), and the Norwegian Inventory of Audiovisuals (NORINA).

Numerous studies have compared the effects of dissection versus alternative methods, and a review of studies published between 2005 and 2020 showed that students using non-animal models performed at least as well as, if not better, those using animal dissection.

1. Committee Amendments. Committee staff recommends the following amendments:
   1. Redefine “Dissection” means the viewing of the, or act of, cutting, rather than dismembering, into the body of an animal cadaver to study its anatomical structure.
   2. Allows a pupil to request sourcing information, be upon request of the students.
   3. Allows a pupil to request information about the chemicals used for dissection be upon request.
   4. Encourages schools to explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, by July 1, 2028.
   5. Adds a coauthor.
2. Related Legislation

AB 1586 (Kalra, 2019) would have prohibited students enrolled in public or private schools from dissecting, or viewing the dissection of, animals in the study of biological sciences. This bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee.

HR 28 (Dababneh, 2019) encourages the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to ensure the incorporation of humane education in the core curriculum, and resolves that compliance with existing law regarding humane education should include educating students on principles of kindness and respect for animals.

AB 2507 (Speier, Chapter 65, Statutes of 1988) establishes a right of students to opt-out of animal dissection and authorizes a teacher to work with the student to develop and agree upon an alternate education project for the purpose of providing the student an alternate avenue for obtaining the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study.

SUPPORT

People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (Co-Sponsor)

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (Co-Sponsor)

Social Compassion in Legislation (Co-Sponsor)

A Passion for Paws - Akita Rescue

Animal Rescue Mission

Animal Solutions

Animal Wellness Action

Barks of Love Animal Rescue

Better Together Forever

Buddy's Angels

Catmosphere Laguna Foundation

Cultivate Empathy for All

Foods by Jude

Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative

Gurrs and Purrs Rescue

Hanaeleh

Humboldt Humane

Kesar and Cardi

Kindred Spirits Care Farm

Latino Alliance for Animal Care Coalition

Los Angeles Democrats for The Protection of Animals

Love Leo Rescue

Motherlode Feral Cat Alliance

NY 4 Whales

Only Sunshine Sanctuary

Outta the Cage

People for Animal Advocacy & Welfare - Contra Costa

Poison Free Malibu

Preetirang Sanctuary

Project Minnie

Sacramento Vegan Society

Saving Imperial Rescue

Start Rescue

Take Me Home

Terra Advocate

The Animal Coalition Group

The Canine Condition

The German Shepherd Rescue of Orange County

Tippedears

UnchainedTV

Westside German Shepherd Rescue

Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION

Hands on Science Partnership

National Science Teaching Association

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2640

Author:(Kalra)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Strengthens the process for students to opt-out of the dissection of animals in schools, requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop a template for students to use to opt-out, and makes compliance with opt-out requirements subject to the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP).

Major Provisions

1. Defines "dissection" to mean the viewing of, or the act of, dismembering or otherwise harmful or destructive use of an animal, in part or in whole, preserved or freshly killed, in the study of biological sciences. States that "dissection" does not include fixed histological samples of any species, including, but not limited to, plain or stained microscope slides, owl pellets, human autopsy viewing, or plastinated human organs.
2. Defines "alternative assessment," "alternative education project," or "alternative test" to include the use of video recordings, three-dimensional models, films, books, interactive simulation software and computers, and assessments of knowledge, that would provide an alternate avenue for obtaining the knowledge, information, or experience required by the course of study in question.

Makes the following changes to the existing opt-out provisions for students who morally object to participating in animal dissection:

Adds "assessment," "test" and three-dimensional models and interactive simulation software to the alternatives to be granted a student who morally objects to dissection;

Defines the moral objection to include the viewing of the dissection or destroying of an animal, including those preserved or freshly killed;

1. Requires, rather than authorizes, teachers to provide an alternative assignment when a student chooses to refrain from dissection;
2. Removes the requirement that a teacher believes that an adequate alternative education project is possible as a condition of providing an alternative assignment, and authorizes an assessment or test to be provided in lieu of an assignment;
3. Requires that an alternative assessment or test require a comparable time and effort investment by the student;
4. Requires that a student's grades not be impacted as a means of penalizing the student for exercising their rights to opt-out of dissection;
5. Requires a teacher teaching a course that utilizes animals for purposes of dissection to provide written notice (instead of "inform" students) and their parents or guardians (instead of just the student) of their rights regarding dissection.
6. Requires the CDE, by November 1, 2025, to develop a template that a teacher, or a public school on behalf of a teacher, may use to provide written notice about students' rights, and to post it on the CDE's website. Requires the form to include all of the following information:
7. A student's right to refrain from participating in an assessment, education project, or test involving the dissection of animals;
8. The prohibition of impact on a student's grades as a means of penalizing the student for exercising their rights;
9. Any animal sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals;
10. The chemicals used to preserve the animals to which the student will be exposed; and
11. The UCP, as specified in the measure.

Strongly encourages public schools, with the exception of agricultural education programs, to explore using effective alternative methods in lieu of utilizing live or dead animals or animal parts for dissection in a course of study, by July 1, 2028.

Adds the rights of students to refrain from dissection, and related rights, to the statutes subject to the UCP.

Specifies that the measure applies to public schools operated by school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and the state special schools.

COMMENTS

Frog Girl: The history of animal dissection in California schools. According to Why Dissection? (Hart, 2008), nonhuman animals have historically been used as surrogates for the purpose of learning human anatomy. In the 19^th century, the discoveries of Charles Darwin and the emergence of educational theory which emphasized both discovery and instruction in practical subjects led to increasing emphasis on science in school curricula. It was at this time that biology became part of the school curriculum. In the 1920s, during the progressive education era, frog dissection became common in university courses and subsequently in pre-college instruction, and by the 1960's it was a widespread practice. (Orlans, 1993)

Beginning in the 1980s some high school students began to refuse to dissect animals, and in 1987 a Victor Valley, California tenth grade student named Jennifer Graham refused to dissect a frog while enrolled in a course required for graduation, citing her moral beliefs and her mother's religious beliefs. The school refused to let her abstain from the activity, and her family sued. The court dismissed the case in 1988 with a stipulation that the school provide the student with a frog that had died of natural causes. No such frog was provided. The case was eventually settled.

In 1988, Governor Deukmejian signed AB 2507 (Speier), Chapter 65, Statutes of 1988, which established a right of students to opt-out of animal dissection – the statutes proposed to be amended by this bill. Jennifer Graham's story was dramatized in the CBS Schoolbreak Special, Frog Girl: The Jennifer Graham Story, in 1989, which included a reenactment of the hearing on AB 2507 in this Committee.

According to materials provided by the author's office, 22 other states and Washington, D.C. have enacted dissection opt-out policies. The Miami-Dade County Public Schools has prohibited the use of cats for dissection in that district. No state has enacted a prohibition on animal dissection.

Are alternatives to dissection an effective means of teaching the state's science standards? There are numerous products that can be used as alternatives to, or in conjunction with, dissection instruction. These include interactive software programs, tablet applications, videos, life-like models and other realia, and virtual reality applications.

Numerous studies have investigated the effects of dissection versus alternative methods, but it is difficult to apply much of it to the question raised by this bill. Much of the literature involves postsecondary students (who have a different curriculum and who are voluntarily engaged in life science study), and not all of the literature is peer-reviewed. Most importantly, the literature has not reflected the current science standards (which, as noted above, shift the focus of instruction), newer technology, or the measures of performance used on the current science assessment.

A recent systematic review (Ormandy, 2022) of studies published between 2005 and 2020 (years during which the Next General Science Standards (NGSS) was beginning to be implemented), evaluated the pedagogical value of non-animal models versus animal dissection. Most of the studies included measured growth in anatomy knowledge. Results from 20 published studies showed that in 19 of the 20 studies included, students at all education levels (secondary, postsecondary, and medical school) performed at least as well, and in 14 of the 19 better, when they used non-animal models compared to animal dissection. While these findings do not directly address the implications for the teaching of NGSS concepts, they do show that alternatives may be as effective as dissection in teaching anatomy.

According to the Author

"The lessons of anatomy are an important scientific teaching in a student's academic career. However, with the advancements in educational technology, alternative methods can still reach the same educational outcome without having to rely on costly animal dissection kits. California law allows students to opt-out of animal dissection and request an alternative assignment but they are not made aware of their right and feel obligated to participate.

AB 2640, the CLASS Act, will require teachers to provide students with a written notice informing them of their right to opt-out and still receive a comparable assignment to get the same educational outcome. In addition to being informed about their student right to opt-out, students will also be informed on what chemicals they will be exposed to with this assignment, where the animals are being sourced from, and the environmental impacts of sourcing these animals. The CLASS Act will empower students to be informed and make decisions best suited for their academic careers."

Arguments in Support

Social Compassion in Legislation writes, "Animal dissection has no place in modern classrooms. Students, educators, administrators, and legislators are increasingly seeking modern ways to accomplish the goals of anatomy education, including by using interactive computer software programs or hands-on realistic models. The ethical benefits of replacing animal dissection include reducing suffering, which is at the heart of most students' objections to using animals in science classes.

California law currently places the burden on students to speak up about their concerns regarding animal dissection, even though young people often face peer pressure, are frequently bullied for being different from their classmates, and typically don't want to experience confrontation with a teacher or school leadership. PETA hears from young people who are upset by dissecting animals and, as a result, are distracted and unable to learn the requisite material. Reluctant students participate out of fear of real or perceived retaliation or ostracism from their teachers and peers. Studies show that some students, especially girls, are even dissuaded from pursuing careers in science because they're so traumatized by the experience of dissecting animals in the classroom. Using non-animal methods creates a more inclusive, trauma-informed learning environment that doesn't risk alienating those who might be uncomfortable participating in classroom experiments on animals."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time and ongoing General Fund costs, of an unknown amount, to CDE for staff to develop the template teachers may use to provide notice to students, and potentially respond to additional complaints regarding students' rights to refrain from participation in the dissection of animals.
2. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown but potentially significant amount, to local education agencies for teachers to provide additional notifications and alternative assignments for students to complete in place of dissections.
3. While the bill's requirement that CDE develop a template for notifications will reduce the cost of producing notifications for some required elements of notifications, teachers will still need to provide any animal sourcing information provided by the vendor or provider of the animals and the chemicals used to preserve the animals when they assign dissections.
4. In the 2021-22 school year, the state had about 17,000 full-time equivalent science teachers. Assuming 44% of science teachers are biology teachers, as national data from a 2015 "BioScience" publication indicates, the state has about 7,500 full-time equivalent biology teachers.

VOTES

ASM EDUCATION: 7-0-0

YES: Muratsuchi, Addis, Alvarez, Bonta, Flora, Hoover, McCarty

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: May 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003204

Date of Hearing: May 1, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2640

Author:(Kalra) – As Amended Ver:April 15, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires local education agencies to provide notifications related to animal dissection to students and parents or guardians. The bill requires the CDE to develop a template a teacher may use to provide this notice and add it to their website. The bill also requires, if a student chooses to refrain from participation in the dissection of animals for educational purposes, a teacher to provide an alternative assignment.

Specifically, this bill, requires a teacher to provide an alternative assignment if a student refrains from participating in animal dissection. This differs from current law, which requires a teacher to provide an alternative assignment only if the teacher believes that an adequate alternative education project is possible. The bill also requires that a student who refrains from participating in animal dissection not have their grades negatively impacted as a result.

This bill also requires a teacher teaching a course that utilizes live or dead animals or animal parts to provide written notice to each student and their parent or guardian of (a) a student’s rights to refrain from participating in animal dissection, (b) the prohibition of negative impact on a student’s grades for not participating in animal dissection, (c) where the animals are sourced from, (d) the chemicals used to preserve the animals to which the student will be exposed, and (e) information about the about the state’s complaint procedures for schools.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time and ongoing General Fund costs, of an unknown amount, to CDE for staff to develop the template teachers may use to provide notice to students, and potentially respond to additional complaints regarding students’ rights to refrain from participation in the dissection of animals.
2. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown but potentially significant amount, to local education agencies for teachers to provide additional notifications and alternative assignments for students to complete in place of dissections.

While the bill’s requirement that CDE develop a template for notifications will reduce the cost of producing notifications for some required elements of notifications, teachers will still need to provide information in the notifications related to where animals are sourced from and the chemicals used to preserve the animals when they assign dissections.

In the 2021-22 school year, the state had about 17,000 full-time equivalent science teachers. Assuming 44% of science teachers are biology teachers, as national data from a 2015 “BioScience” publication indicates, the state has about 7,500 full-time equivalent biology teachers.

If the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to local educational agencies or provide funding through the K-12 Mandate Block Grant.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

The lessons of anatomy are an important scientific teaching in a student's academic career. However, with the advancements in educational technology, alternative methods can still reach the same educational outcome without having to rely on costly animal dissection kits. California law allows students to opt-out of animal dissection and request an alternative assignment but they are not made aware of their right and feel obligated to participate.

1. Background. Nationally, between 75% and 84% of biology teachers use animal dissection in the classroom. A national survey of biology teachers indicates that the most commonly dissected animals are frogs, fetal pigs, earthworms, crayfish, and bony fish.

Schools often purchase dissection kits that include both the animal specimen and dissection equipment. As of 2019, a class set of 15 frog dissection kits from Carolina Biological Supply cost $193 per year. Schools also may purchase virtual alternatives to dissection kits or specimens and several companies produce this technology. As of 2019, the one-time cost of one such alternative, Digital Frog 2.5 software, was $253 for an annual subscription for 30 students.

AB 2507 (Speier), Chapter 65, Statutes of 1988, established a right of students to opt-out of animal dissection. This bill amends these statutes to require certain written notifications and other requirements.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 1586 (Kalra), of the 2019-20 Legislative Session, would have prohibited students enrolled in public or private schools from dissecting, or viewing the dissection of, animals in the study of biological sciences. This bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081