I wholeheartedly support this guidance. In the past, the parent (and advocate) bore the burden of bringing a child's traumatic experience to the IEP team along with recommendations they would like to see implemented to support the child in the school. This opens the door for parents who have not considered, or do not understand, the impact that trauma can have on students.

The IEP team must be willing to work with parents on the agreed upon strategies that support and provide a safe environment for the traumatized student to ensure FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION by administration and staff!

I believe it is essential that sexual education is taught in IEP; we need to teach the disabled things like understanding their own boundaries, consent, and sex. For one, not teaching sexual education dehumanizes the disabled—disabled adults are humans who are sexual beings, so disabled children need to learn the same types of things the abled bodied children are taught, like it’s okay to say no, and how to have safe sex. Secondly, and maybe most importantly, the current statistics of crime against the disabled are staggering. According to The Autism Society, the disabled are at the highest risk of sexual violence, and are victimized ten times as often as someone without a disability. Could sexual education in IEP lower those statistics? Let’s find out.

Children and adults should proactively be taught about personal boundaries, respect for private body areas, the need to consent, how to protect themselves from unwanted touch, and what to do in cases of assault or coercion.

All students should be provided the opportunity to access comprehensive educational resources so they can make informed decisions about romantic and sexual relationships. Medically accurate information on the following should be provided: identity, healthy relationships, affirmative consent, healthcare, STI prevention, pregnancy prevention, and methods of protection.

Additionally, language in the guidelines should be revised so they do not imply that sexual health education is primarily needed to prevent abuse. Education on harm reduction and prevention alone will not prevent abuse and harm. 

All students deserve access to comprehensive sex education, especially students with disabilities who are at much greater risk for exploitation. In order to foster healthy romantic relationships and promote truly inclusive communities, I  support additional guidelines for choosing comprehensive educational resources for students with disabilities. 

TO:                  Dr. Samantha Hollins

Assistant Superintendent for Special Education and Student Services

Virginia Department of Education

samantha.hollins@doe.virginia.gov

FROM:            Teri Morgan

RE:                  Comment on proposed Virginia Department of Education Guidelines for the Consideration of the Need for Age and Developmentally Appropriate Instruction

Dear Dr. Hollins,

The Virginia Board for People with Disabilities offers the following public comment in response to the proposed Virginia Department of Education Guidelines for the Consideration of the Need for Age and Developmentally Appropriate Instruction. The Board fully supports the intent of House Bill (HB) 134 to provide students with disabilities developmentally appropriate instruction in sexual health, self-restraint, self-protection, respect for personal privacy, and personal boundaries of others. To ensure students receive an appropriate education in these areas, it is essential that the Guidelines support a proactive consideration of what IEP goals will help a student succeed.

As written, the proposed Guidelines place too much weight on identifying negative or atypical behaviors as part of the IEP considerations process. The “Guiding Questions” focus extensively on identifying negative behaviors and potential deficits, as well as responding to previous incidents by listing nine questions related to negative observations. These questions suggest that learning about sexual health should be a reactive, rather than proactive goal for students. The focus on behavior also appears intended for older students, rather than students at all grade levels.  Only two questions can be considered proactive:  1) “Does the student have goals/objectives that relate to social emotional learning related to sexual health, self-restraint, self-protection, respect for personal privacy, and personal boundaries of others?” and 2) “Do parents have concerns related to sexual health, self-restraint, self-protection, respect for personal privacy, and personal boundaries of others?” As written, IEP teams may feel the “Guiding Questions” are intended only for students with observed negative behaviors.  Additionally, parents may not engage proactively in developing related IEP goals to ensure their child is receiving appropriate education to help him or her succeed into adulthood.

All students, regardless of ability, benefit from education in personal boundaries, self-protection, and sexual health. The Guidelines must take a proactive approach to ensuring students receive appropriate instruction in these areas, beginning in elementary school. For students with developmental disabilities, positive, proactive sexual health education supports development of safe and respectful behavior and is a key part of abuse prevention. The Board encourages a reframing of the Considerations section and “Guiding Questions” to encourage a proactive, positive approach to developing IEP goals in these areas.

Thank you for allowing us to provide public comment.

Much of the current language used in the guidelines imply that sexual health education is primarily needed to prevent abuse both of and by young people with disabilities. While consent and boundaries are important aspects of sexual health education for all people, harm reduction and prevention is not the only need. Alone it will not prevent abuse and harm and may actively perpetuate harmful stereotypes of the individuals it is meant to inform. 

All students deserve access to comprehensive sex education. The Disability-inclusive Sexual Health Network (DSHN) staff at SexEdVA highly recommend additional guidelines for choosing comprehensive educational resources so that students can access information to make informed decisions about healthy and fulfilling romantic and sexual relationships. Students should be able to access information on identity, healthy relationships, affirmative consent, healthcare, STI prevention, pregnancy prevention, and methods of protection that are medically-accurate and non-judgmental. 

In the current guidelines, a student or parent may opt out of this discussion entirely. We encourage instead that IEP team members be directed to resources for conducting these conversations in safe and inviting ways rather than allowing the first step to be to opt out. We recognize that talking about sexual health can be uncomfortable or unfamiliar and that is all the more reason to talk about it.

As the parent of a child with an IEP, now in high school, I am extremely appreciative of the efforts being made to include sexual education in student's IEPs. Our own experience with this subject of education was, like many other students in self-contained classrooms...never considered until questions were raised about including sexual education in the curriculum, and then addressed with ableist responses, and instruction provided through a hidden curriculum. Aligned with the basic rights of being human outlined in the guidance, sexual education is a proactive strategy to experiencing healthy relationships, understanding personal and social boundaries, being self-determined in caring for oneself and others, and building prevention of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

Therefore, I emphasize the guidance that IEP teams and sexual education instructors be culturally sensitive, trauma approach focused, and family-centered in proactively including sexual education and any accommodations necessary in students' IEPs. Additionally, I appreciate how sexual education is described as more inclusive of self and relational care than just reproductive biology.

I'd like to see guidance for family-centered sexual education that includes open access options for shared resources and discussion prompts for reinforced learning at home aligned with instruction at school. 

Additionally, the guidance for sexual education included in IEPs should be open to all students as a proactive strategy, not just limited to those exhibiting negative behaviors to which this instruction is solely a reactive response. We don't need to wait for a reason to provide sexual education to people with disabilities. We already know that people with disabilities are 7-12 times more at risk of sexual abuse than those without depending on gender, disability type, etc. We need to be proactive!

The Arc of Virginia strongly supports the creation of Guidelines to ensure that IEP teams consider the student’s need for specialized instruction regarding sexual health, self-restraint, self-protection, respect for personal privacy, and/or personal boundaries of others.  We appreciate the Department’s time and attention to this important issue. Far too often, students with Intellectual and other Developmental Disabilities(IDD) are categorized as “Other” when it comes to sexual health and wellness instruction. These students are often harmed by the false assumption that they do not experience puberty and sexual development like their peers without disabilities, or are incapable of experiencing fulfilling romantic and/or sexual relationships (at any stage of their life), and that appropriate and accessible education in these areas is therefore “less important” than it is for their non-disabled peers. We affirm the Underlying Assumptions that VDOE has included in their draft, because all individuals have the right to A Life Like Yours.

While we fully support the intent of the Guidelines, we believe that a few important changes are needed in order to make them the practical tool for IEP teams that the legislation envisioned.  

As one of the primary stakeholders, The Arc of Virginia advocated for the legislation to establish these guidelines - House Bill 134/Senate Bill 186 (2020) -  for three essential reasons:

1) To ensure that all students with IDD have access to age appropriate and developmentally appropriate family life education, that takes into account their full range of sexual, social, and interpersonal health needs.  Students with IDD are frequently excluded from receiving any family life education due to lack of modified curriculum and the belief by many educators that these issues are not relevant to students with IDD;

2) To reduce the likelihood of a student with disabilities becoming the victim of inappropriate sexual behavior or abuse, and to prevent inadvertent or direct inappropriate behavior of students with IDD that could result in their involvement in the criminal justice system; and 

3) To require IEP teams to consider whether the individual student requires modifications or accommodations in instruction in any of these areas, and to provide resources to assist school divisions in implementing specialized instruction deemed appropriate by IEP teams.  

During the legislative process, including preliminary meetings with the Department of Education, stakeholders discussed the overarching need for guidelines as part of a multi-faceted preparatory and preventative process for protecting individuals with disabilities, which is desperately needed in our Commonwealth.  Ensuring that each child’s IEP team fully considers the student’s needs in this area is the crucial first step in this process. 

The Arc of Virginia recommends the following changes to the proposed Guidelines for the reasons outlined below:   

Recommendation #1:  Clarify “IEP Team Requirements” vs. Background Information and Resources

As written, the Guidelines are far too lengthy and complex to be considered in their entirety during a typical IEP meeting. While the entire document could be very valuable as an additional resource, the planned implementation and approach needs to allow adequate time for IEP teams to ensure that thoughtful consideration takes place, including appropriate modifications and accommodations for accessibility. All IEP teams are required to consider the Guidelines; however, the vast majority of students with IEPs can access standards-based Family Life Education and do not have modification or accommodation needs in these areas.  In order to appropriately focus and streamline the process, we recommend that the team be required to discuss and answer the following question:

Does the student require modifications or accomodations in order to access age and developmentally appropriate instruction related to sexual health, self-restraint, self-protection, respect for personal privacy, and/or personal boundaries of others?

If the IEP Team determines that the student requires modification or accommodations in one or more of these areas, the IEP team should then be required to address those needs in the IEP.   

Recommendation #2:  Eliminate Inappropriate Focus on Student Behavior

The current draft contains a pervasively negative emphasis on potentially inappropriate behavior and/or existing behavioral challenges on the part of the student. In particular, the section on Guiding Questions/Indicators focuses heavily on “concerns,”and could be interpreted as asking the IEP team to anticipate potential criminal behavior.  The Arc believes that asking these negative questions when there are not specific behaviors to justify them, poses a real risk of stigmatizing students and alienating parents.  Parents should not be dissuaded from having their student engage in an accessible family life curriculum out of fear that it will mostly be used as a critical examination of present or potential behavior.  

Recommendation #3: Provide Resources for Accessibility and Modification of Curriculum

The current draft provides helpful background information for IEP teams regarding the value of family life education; however, there is very little in the document to help school divisions develop and implement developmentally appropriate modifications. Stakeholder discussions throughout the legislative process envisioned the guidelines including not simply the “why,” but also the “how.” Providing recommended teaching tools and strategies would help equip school divisions to meet the instructional needs being identified as a result of the new Guidelines.

Recommendation #4: Ensure the Full Inclusion of Parents as IEP Team Members

Throughout the current draft, there are places where language and framing could suggest that parents are not equal members of the IEP team.  Under no circumstances should the Guidelines imply that parents are anything other than full members of the IEP team.  This is another example of the value of separating IEP Team Guidelines from Resources and Background Information that could include a section addressed to school division staff. 

Recommendation #5: Address Intended Age Groups/Audience

Most of the substance in this document appears geared toward older children and students, even though the statute includes all children with disabilities.  Resources should address the needs of younger students as well as those in middle and high school.  The student’s team should be given adequate tools to facilitate discussion about age-appropriate instruction starting in elementary school. 

Recommendation #6: Consider the New VDOE Social Emotional Learning (SEL) Standards

VDOE is in the process of adopting Social Emotional Learning (SEL) Standards which overlap with some of the content covered by this legislation and guidelines.  It is likely that these standards will address the instructional needs of some students in areas addressed by these guidelines.  At the same time, new gaps may be created which, once again, may result in students with disabilities being excluded from exposure to content due to lack of age and developmentally appropriate instruction. Wherever possible, VDOE should consider the areas of crossover between the pending SEL Standards and these guidelines, when finalizing the document.

Thank you again for allowing us to provide public comment. The Arc of Virginia remains available to answer any questions or give further input if requested, and we welcome the opportunity to assist the Department in developing materials and training resources that will best serve our students and support their team members and caregivers.

• Much of the current language used in the guidelines imply that sexual health education is primarily needed to prevent abuse both of and by young people with disabilities. While consent and boundaries are important aspects of sexual health education for all people, harm reduction and prevention is not the only need. Alone it will not prevent abuse and harm and may actively perpetuate harmful stereotypes of the individuals it is meant to inform. 

• All students deserve access to comprehensive sex education. The DSHN staff at SexEdVA highly recommend additional guidelines for choosing comprehensive educational resources so that students can access information to make informed decisions about healthy and fulfilling romantic and sexual relationships. Students should be able to access information on identity, healthy relationships, affirmative consent, healthcare, STI prevention, pregnancy prevention, and methods of protection that are medically-accurate and non-judgmental. 

• In the current guidelines, a student or parent may opt out of this discussion entirely. We encourage instead that young people and their families be directed to resources for conducting these conversations in safe and inviting ways rather than allowing the first step to be to opt out. We recognize that talking about sexual health can be uncomfortable or unfamiliar and that is all the more reason to talk about it.

The Arc of Northern Virginia is a non-profit organization focused on ensuring all people with developmental disabilities are living a full life in their homes and communities.  Our organization serves many thousands of Northern Virginians with developmental disabilities (DD) and their loved ones.  On a frequent basis, we all field inquiries from families navigating the challenges unfolding when a loved one with a disability is either arrested or victimized.  As a result, we have spent a great deal of time developing resources and other tools to support people navigating these challenging situations, and we see the need for more resources, especially school-aged, developmentally appropriate sexual education.  We were pleased to strongly support HB 134 and are grateful for the work of VDOE in furthering this legislation’s intent.

We have conferred with The Arc of Virginia and other advocacy partners on the proposed policies.  We concur with The Arc of Virginia’s suggestions for editing the policies as proposed in order to ensure they best meet the needs of all students with disabilities and hope their suggestions are taken into account and incorporated into final decisions. 

Thank you to the Department of Education for your work on this critical matter.

(DSHN) at SexEdVA.  I also commend to the attention of the VADOE the comments submitted by the Parent Educational Advocacy Training Center (PEATC) by letter dated April 27, 2021.   We agree that the proposed VADOE Guidelines are too lengthy and complex when applied in the typical IEP Team meeting, and may inadvertently discourage meaningful and inclusive discussion with parents and students.

Although there is no express “opt out” provision in HB 134, the Guidance correctly states that “due to the sensitive nature of the topics” the parents and/or student “may choose not to address any portion of these considerations.”  It is at this point that the IEP Team should be provided with strategies to address these concerns in a sensitive and culturally aware manner, and identify resources that encourage further discussion by the IEP Team (which includes parents and student). The issuance of a “Prior Written Notice” to document the refusal, without more, fails to meet the intent and spirit of the laws: “to ensure that IEP Teams consider the need for age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate instruction” on these topics.

It is beyond dispute that access to appropriate sexual health information for youth and adolescents is a challenge in our society at large, and that lack of access poses significant risk to individuals with disabilities.  The Guidelines should be strengthened to support and encourage the goals of HB 134.