Dear Dr. Bedell:
We are writing to share our concerns about AACPS Policies JV and JV-RA, adopted by the Board of Education on May 6, 2026, after guidance provided by the Maryland State Department of Education. The stated purpose for MSDE’s guidance is to prevent the exclusion from school students who need assistance with personal care, most notably toileting.
We embrace the inclusive aspiration of this policy, but we—like you and the Board of Education members who spoke from the dais while the policy was being discussed—have grave concerns about how this policy will be executed.
TAAAC’s position on personal care and toileting of students is clear and has not changed. Unless these activities are in the specific job description of a given Unit 1 educator, and their particular student has an IEP that requires such support, they do not properly belong within that educator’s work expectations.
There are several factors—now undergirded by a formal Board policy—placing pressure on educators to do this work anyway. The first, as you know, is that there has been a substantial increase in the number of students—with and without IEPs—who require toileting assistance. We have heard about the extent of this increase from many Unit 1 educators. The students with these needs are more numerous than in prior years and have continued needs for toileting assistance through older ages than has previously been typical. Additionally, we are hearing that toileting is being more frequently added to the IEPs of students who are not in our special centers and ACC classes. Toileting should be part of an IEP based only on true developmental and medical necessity. This should not become the default for any child who comes to school without toilet training.
Of course, no educator—no person with a heart—wants a child to sit in wet or soiled clothing at school. When a student is in these circumstances, there is tremendous pressure on Unit 1 educators to provide direct assistance, even when this requires that they stop providing instruction to the other students in their class to do so.
Now that the district has implemented this policy, it is essential that school buildings be staffed in a way that supports it. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations for child bodily safety urge that—for both primary prevention of sexual abuse and to assist children in learning appropriate body boundaries—“Any interaction a child has with an adult who is not a parent should be visible to others.”1 This cannot be accomplished when an adult has been pressed into providing toileting assistance to a student without adequate preparation.
We understand that the district policy requires parents to sign a form stating that they accept that their child will receive toileting assistance from staff (or that the child will go without that assistance). The form, however well-intentioned, does not adequately protect either the children or the adults in this situation. An adult providing 1:1 toileting assistance to a student outside the presence of another adult is eroding body boundaries that we, as educators, should be supporting our students in learning and protecting.
We also want to raise a refrain we have heard repeatedly, and that is of great concern to us as people who care for and educate children. Recently, Unit 1 educators have shared that the parents of their student have reported given up on home instruction in toileting because they were finding it too challenging, explicitly stating that they expect that the school system will provide this instruction instead.
This is why we appreciated your “Thursday Thoughts” video release to the AACPS community on this topic, which has received 266 views as we write to you today.
We wholeheartedly agree, as you stated, that the primary responsibility for assisting students with toilet learning lies with families and caregivers. We want to work with you to continue to make this message clear to families before their young children enter our school system.
In circumstances where families and/or caregivers are either unwilling or unable to meet this responsibility, school social workers and pupil personnel workers should be recruited to help connect these adults with the resources they need to be able to provide this instruction at home. Refusal to engage in this foundational task of caregiving is a form of child neglect and must be addressed as such.
Request for Action
We urge you to direct the development and implementation of a clear plan as to how our county will address this issue moving forward.
Most importantly, families need to get the toilet training support they need, so that their students come to school toilet-trained—and so that students who are not toilet trained achieve this critical developmental milestone as soon as possible.
It must be clear to staff that IEPs should only include toilet training in limited circumstances when it is a developmental and medical necessity—not as workaround to have educators do this work for families who have abdicated their responsibilities in this regard.
Additionally, for general education students who do need toileting assistance, staff must be identified and properly trained to do so. There can be no compromises with respect to our students’ body safety and privacy.
Finally, it cannot be Unit 1 educators who take this on. They are already significantly overworked. Our classroom teachers’ ability to provide the highest possible level of instruction must be their focus.
Yours truly,
Kristina Korona
President
Alyssa Picard
Executive Director
