Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Therapy Dogs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears evidence for therapy‑dog pilot in elementary schools
Summary
Lawmakers and witnesses told the Assembly Education Committee that a three‑year pilot using certified therapy dogs could boost students' social‑emotional learning, reading confidence and behavior—testifiers urged strict consent, allergy safeguards and data collection before wider rollout.
A three‑year pilot to test therapy dogs in public elementary school wellness programs drew detailed testimony Wednesday as the New Jersey Assembly Education Committee discussed Assembly bill A1165.
Supporters led by Scott Woodside, Rowan University’s associate vice president for community health and well‑being, and Michelle Pick, founding head of Rowan’s pet therapy program, told the committee the university has five years of experience operating certified human‑animal interventions and offered to provide training, research and data support if the pilot is authorized. “We can prepare dogs and educators and handlers for working in school environments,” Pick said, urging consent‑based protocols, allergy tracking, canine stress recognition and spatial/time limits to protect students and animals.
Dan Dooley, superintendent of the Absecon School District, described classroom and reading interventions from a program he runs in South Jersey and presented district performance figures. He said the district’s small sample showed that 83% of students who reached end‑of‑year benchmark in one cohort had participated in a therapy‑dog literacy program, and said operational controls—scheduled visits, dry‑mouth breeds, no treats and immediate hand hygiene—help manage allergy and hygiene concerns.
Why it matters: Committee members framed the bill as part of broader efforts to address student mental health following the COVID‑era disruptions. Several members praised Rowan’s emphasis on training, data collection and partnership with certifying bodies (Pet Partners, Alliance of Therapy Dogs), but pressed for clarity on program scope—where dogs operate, whether they may ride school buses or enter cafeterias, and how districts would handle allergies and phobias.
Committee reaction and next steps: Chairwoman Pam Lampitt asked proponents to return with clearer implementation details before a potential vote, and multiple members suggested district‑level pilot designs, consent forms for parents, and metrics to measure academic and behavioral effects. The committee did not vote on A1165 at the hearing; it remained a discussion item pending further implementation details.
Quotes: Michelle Pick, Rowan University: “Research and practice have shown significant measurable benefits to students in educational environments who have interactions with animals incorporated into their curriculum…When done properly and with appropriate protocols in place, these interactions should be positive experiences for the students involved as well as for the animals.”
Dan Dooley, superintendent: “For less than $5,000 a year, we have trained 30 certified staff members to work with our children throughout the district…our sample size is only 50, and of those 83% participated in the program that reached benchmark.”
Context and limitations: Witnesses repeatedly cautioned that evidence presented came from modest, district‑level samples and emphasized the need for controlled pilot evaluation. Several members asked the sponsors to return with concrete, grade‑level proposals and data collection plans before the committee considers advancing the bill.
