California has a humane education law on the books under the Education Code. It was passed in 1965 and reads:

"Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, patriotism, and a true comprehension of the rights, duties, and dignity of American citizenship, and the meaning of equality and human dignity, including the promotion of harmonious relations, kindness toward domestic pets and the humane treatment of living creatures, to teach them to avoid idleness, profanity, and falsehood, and to instruct them in manners and morals and the principles of a free government. Each teacher is also encouraged to create and foster an environment that encourages pupils to realize their full potential and that is free from discriminatory attitudes, practices, events, or activities, in order to prevent acts of hate violence, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 33032.5."

The Californian law is not nearly as specific as the NY law .

In the late 1800's Henry Bergh (ASPCA) was very aware of the need for humane education. In 1947 NYS legislated for humane education to be included in the curriculum or schools weren't supposed to get public funding. This law was never implemented but the schools get funding.
This is what the law says:
Section 809. (Consolidated Laws of New York-Education Law)
Instruction in the humane treatment of Animals and Birds.
The officer, board or commission authorized or required to prescribe courses of instruction shall cause instruction to be given in every elementary school under state control or supported wholly or partly by public money of the state, in the humane treatment and protection of animals and birds and the importance of the part they play in the economy of nature as well as the necessity of controlling the proliferation of animals which are subsequently abandoned and caused to suffer extreme cruelty. Such instruction shall be for such period of  time during each school year as the board of regents may prescribe and may be joined with work in literature, reading, language, nature study or ethnology. Such weekly instruction may be divided into two or more periods. A school district shall not be entitled to participate in the public school money on account of any school or the attendance at any school subject to the provisions of this section, if the instruction required hereby is not given therein.

As amended L 1976, c. 138, Section 1  1976 Amendment. L 1976, c. 138. Section 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1976.
In the sentence beginning “The officer ” added as well as the necessity of controlling the proliferation of animals which are subsequently abandoned and caused to suffer extreme cruelty.”

A separate (undated) hand written note mentions an additional amendment that included junior high and high school (in addition to elementary school).

The following article appears in English Today, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2003),  Cambridge University Press

English and Speciesism

Joan Dunayer

Standard English  usage perpetuates speciesism, which is the failure to
accord nonhuman  animals equal consideration and respect. Like racism or
sexism,  speciesism is a form of prejudice sustained in part by biased,
misleading  words. However, whereas racist slurs rightly elicit censure,
people  regularly use, and fail to notice, speciesist language. Unlike
sexist  language, speciesist language remains socially acceptable even to
people  who view themselves as progressive. Speciesism pervades our
language,  from scholarly jargon to street slang. Considered in relation
to the  plight of nonhuman beings, the words of feminist poet Adrienne
Rich  express a terrible absolute: "This is the oppressor's  language."

Speciesist usage denigrates or discounts nonhuman  animals. For example,
terming nonhumans "it" erases their gender and  groups them with
inanimate things. Referring to them as "something"  (rather than
"someone") obliterates their sentience and individuality.  Pure
speciesism leads people to call a brain-dead human "who" but a  conscious
pig "that" or "which."

Current usage promotes a  false dichotomy between humans and nonhumans.
Separate lexicons suggest  opposite behaviours and attributes. We eat, but
other animals feed. A  woman is pregnant or nurses her babies; a nonhuman
mammal gestates or  lactates. A dead human is a corpse, a dead nonhuman a
carcass or  meat.

Everyday speech denies human-nonhuman kinship. We aren't  animals,
primates, or apes. When we do admit to being animals, we label  other
animals "lower" or "subhuman." Dictionary definitions of man  exaggerate
human uniqueness and present characteristics typical of humans  (such as
verbal ability) as marks of superiority, especially  superior intelligence.

Nonhuman-animal epithets insult  humans by invoking contempt for other
species: rat, worm, viper, goose.  The very word animal conveys
opprobrium. Human, in contrast, signifies  everything worthy. Like the
remark that a woman has "the mind of a man,"  the comment that a nonhuman
is "almost human" is assumed to be praise.  Both condescend.

While boasting of "human kindness," our species  treats nonhumans with
extreme injustice and cruelty. Directly or  indirectly, most humans
routinely participate in needless harm to other  animals, especially
their captivity and slaughter. Whereas true  vegetarianism (veganism)
promotes human health and longevity, consumption  of animal-derived food
correlates with life-threatening conditions such  as heart disease,
cancer, and hardening of the arteries. Still, our  language suggests that
humans must eat products from nonhuman bodies. As if we possessed a
carnivore's teeth and digestive tract, thoughtless  cliché places us "at
the top of the food chain."

To  speciesists, needless killing is murder only if the victim is human.
In  animal "farming" and numerous other forms of  institutionalized
speciesism, nonhuman animals literally are slaves:  they're held in
servitude as property. But few people speak of nonhuman  "enslavement."
Many who readily condemn human victimization as "heinous"  or "evil"
regard moralistic language as sensational or overly emotional  when it is
applied to atrocities against nonhumans. They prefer to couch  nonhuman
exploitation and murder in culinary, recreational, or  other
nonmoralistic terms. That way they avoid acknowledging immorality.  Among
others, Nazi vivisectors used the quantitative language  of
experimentation for human, as well as nonhuman,  vivisection.
Slaveholders have used the economic language of farming for  nonhuman and
human enslavement. Why is such morally detached language  considered
offensive and grotesque only with regard to the human  victims?

The media rarely acknowledge nonhuman suffering. Only  human misfortune
garners strong words like tragic and terrible. When  thousands of U.S.
cattle, left in the blazing sun on parched land, die  from heat and lack
of water, reporters note the losses "suffered" by  their enslavers.

Belittling words minimize nonhuman suffering and  death. As expressed in
a New York magazine caption, antivivisectionists  "oppose testing on any
creature-even a mouse." The word even ranks a  mouse below humans in
sensitivity and importance. There's no reason to  believe that mice
experience deprivation and pain less sharply than we do  or value their
lives less, but our language removes them from moral  consideration. Who
cares if millions of mice and rats are vivisected each  year? They're
"only rodents." What does it matter if billions of chickens  live in
misery until they die in pain and fear? They're "just  chickens."

In speciesism's fictitious world, nonhumans willingly  participate in
their own victimization. They "give" their lives in  vivisection and the
food industry.

Further belying  victimization, the language of speciesist exploitation
renders living  animals mindless and lifeless. They're "crops," "stock,"
hunting  "trophies," and vivisection "tools."

Category labels born of  exploitation imply that nonhuman beings exist
for our use. Furbearer tags  a nonhuman person a potential pelt. Circus
animal suggests some natural  category containing hoop-jumping tigers and
dancing bears, nonhumans of a  "circus" type. The verbal trick makes
deprivation and coercion  disappear.

Evil gathers euphemisms. Over millennia, speciesism  has compiled a hefty
volume. Wildlife management sanctions the  bureaucratized killing of
free-living nonhumans. Leather and pork serve  as comfortable code for
skin and flesh. Domestication softens captivity,  subjugation, and forced
breeding.

Positive words glamorize  humans' ruthless genetic manipulation of other
species. Horses inbred for  racing are "thoroughbreds." However afflicted
with disabilities, dogs  inbred for human pleasure and use are
"purebreds," while the fittest  mixed-breed dogs are "mongrels" and
"mutts."

With  complimentary self-description, humans exonerate themselves  of
wrongdoing. Food-industry enslavement and slaughter cause suffering  and
death of colossal magnitude. Yet, consumers of flesh, eggs, and  nonhuman
milk count themselves among "animal  lovers."

Currently, misleading language legitimizes and conceals  the
institutionalized abuse of nonhuman animals. With honest,  unbiased
words, we can grant them the freedom and respect that are  rightfully
theirs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joan  Dunayer is a writer whose publications include articles on language
and  animal rights. Her work has appeared in journals, magazines,  college
English textbooks, and anthologies. A former college English  instructor,
she has master's degrees in English education, English  literature, and
psychology. She is the author of Animal Equality:  Language and
Liberation (Derwood, Maryland: Ryce Publishing, 2001), the  first book on
speciesism and language.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE ON WRONG LANGUAGE
In the bad old days reference to Blacks/women/Jews/others were in negative language which perpetuated poor treatment/ abuse/ exploitation of these people. Animals have suffered more from negative language stereotyping than all the others, and demeans them so constantly that they created an environment that allows all sorts of cruelties, many too horrendous to describe! An animal is "it" instead of  he or she. "Which" or "that" instead of  who, etc. this perpetuates our view of them as "things" rather than individuals and is a major first step towards cutting them  up for meat and leather, testing drugs/cosmetics/ household products on their  bodies, and tearing off their coats for furs!!! Those who have pets are referred  to as "owners" rather than guardians, reinforcing the idea that  they are property much as slaves were considered property. Let's avoid these references: Dirty rat; filthy pig; acting like an ass; dirty dog; she's  a bitch; ugly duckling; more than one way to skin a cat; you're an animal;  making a monkey out of someone; killing 2 birds with one stone; working like a  horse, you're chicken, treat someone like a dog, it should happen to a  dog ... Many more! Please think before uttering them and tell others.  Thank you! Arthur Goldberg (Veggie Singles  News) 



Back to Humane Education