Edison Board of Education votes to abolish transgender students policy

By Alvin Wu
Domestic Affairs
Edison Board of Education votes to abolish transgender students policy

Board member Vishal Patel explains his reasoning for motioning to abolish Policy 5756 during board member comment during the Edison Board of Education's Sept. 30 action meeting. EDISON BOARD OF EDUCATION/Livestream

EDISON, N.J., Oct. 19 (ZFJ) — The Edison Board of Education voted 5-3 to abolish Policy 5756, which concerns transgender students, at their action meeting on Monday, Sept. 30. Since they didn’t properly follow the procedure to abolish a policy, it is still in effect.

The abolishment was not on the publicly posted agenda for the night and arose from a motion made from the floor.

This move follows the abolishment of Policy 5756 by many other school districts in N.J., including Colts Neck, Freehold, Franklin Lakes, Holmdel, Howell, Lacey, Lafayette, Millstone, Old Bridge, Plumsted, Ramapo Indian Hills, Roxbury, Sparta, Sussex-Wantage, Union Township (Hunterdon County), Vineland, and Washington Township (Morris County).

Edison is New Jersey’s fifth largest school district, with 16,807 students in the 2022-2023 school year, according to the federal National Center for Education Statistics.

BACKGROUND

Policy 5756 was issued by the N.J. Department of Education and implemented by local boards of education statewide. It contains guidance to local school districts for complying with the N.J. Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), which prohibits discrimination based on, among other protected categories, “affectional or sexual orientation.”

Policy 5756 states that, to create a “safe and supportive learning environment” for transgender students, school districts must accept a student’s asserted gender identity (parental consent not required) and use the student’s preferred name and pronouns.

A particularly controversial provision requires that school personnel work to keep a student’s transgender status confidential. Supporters say that it protects students from parents unsupportive of the transition, while critics argue that parents have a right to know if their child has transitioned.

School staff members may not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status except as allowed by law.

— Policy 5756, “Confidentiality and Privacy,” as stated in Edison’s and the state’s model policies

SEPT. 30 BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

Video: Clips from the Monday, Sept. 30, action meeting of the Edison Board of Education. Includes Policy 5756 discussion and motion as well as public comments about the vote. EDISON BOARD OF EDUCATION/Livestream 　

During board member comment, board member Vishal Patel expressed his position that Policy 5756 infringes on parental rights. He said that abolishing the policy had been part of the campaigns of board members Anjana Patel and Christopher Lugo, who were elected last November.

“I believe it’s our responsibility to ensure that parents are informed about significant aspect of their children’s life,” said Vishal Patel. “Policy 5756 undermines that right. It makes it optional for administration to inform parent about the gender choices of their children, and it undermines the fundamental role the parents play in guiding their children.”

Vishal Patel then made a motion on the floor to abolish Policy 5756. Shannon Peng seconded the action, so the board members began discussing the motion.

Responding to Vishal Patel, Lugo said that he and Anjana Patel “were most definitely concerned with” the policy. Noting legal challenges, he mentioned that they are also “taking into consideration the legal gains and the legal pitfalls that other districts have actually experienced as well.”

“5756 does put us in a bind, in no fault of our own, I mean, it is put into state law, unfortunately, so we do need to find a way to navigate that,” Lugo said. “However, to your point, you’re absolutely correct. We stand in alignment with the parents and their rights to be informed with the decisions that their children are making, especially decisions that could have catastrophic consequences.”

Peng said that the issue is “not about whether children should change their identity” but that “parents need to know what’s happening to their children in order to provide the best support.”

“I mean, we all know, who loves their children the most? It’s the parent,” said Peng. “Who’s ultimately responsible for the children until they turn 18? It’s the parent, not the state government.”

She then criticized Brian Rivera, the policy committee chair, as she said that the issue of the policy had been entrusted to him, but she had not heard any updates from him for over a year.

“Every day this policy remained in effect is a day that parents are kept in dark,” said Peng.

Consulting with Superintendent Dr. Edward Aldarelli and the board attorney, Rivera clarified that he was unable to publicly share the contents of a legal brief provided to his committee on Policy 5756 by the law firm Inglesino Taylor due to attorney-client privilege, but that he could share his opinions on the brief.

Responding to Peng, Rivera said that a policy committee meeting had been held with Vishal Patel in attendance. He then said that the law firm had given the board members three options and made a recommendation on how to proceed with Policy 5756.

“The attorney provided an option, and it was an option that protects the district, protects the staff members, protects the child, so my opinion is, I’m for parental rights, but I’m also here to protect everybody, and that was the recommendation from the attorney,” said Rivera.

Peng asked Rivera for his reason for not sharing the legal brief with the other board members and expressed her frustration with a lack of communication from him. She then asked for when the issue would be resolved, saying, “I hope it’s not after the election,” to which Virginia White murmured, “I don’t think the election’s got anything to do with it.”

Rivera said, “People amaze me,” and then said that he’d be happy to share the legal brief with Peng. Peng challenged him for his timeline again, and the board briefly argued about who had the floor.

Board president Biral Patel, while consulting the board attorney for the appropriate parliamentary procedure for the situation, expressed his opposition to Policy 5756. He mentioned that he had been in the policy committee meeting.

“From I understand at this point, is we are talking about not informing the parents. I personally am absolutely opposed to that,” said Biral Patel. “The parent has to know what is going on with the child, absolutely.”

The board attorney advised that the vote on the motion had to proceed, and that debate on the motion needed to be done in public. He also clarified that there was no regulation corresponding with the motion.

ROLL CALL - MOTION TO ABOLISH POLICY 5756

YESNO
Christopher LugoBrian Rivera
Anjana PatelVirginia White
Vishal PatelJoseph Romano
Shannon Peng
Biral Patel

Rivera said that he was voting no “based on the attorney’s recommendation.”

White said that she was abstaining (a no vote) since she said that she needed to see the attorney’s recommendation to make “an honest, informed decision.” She noted that she doesn’t agree with Policy 5756, “even a little bit.”

Peng said that she was voting no since nothing had been heard about the policy since Rivera’s committee had last met in June.

Board vice president Joseph Romano asked the attorney if the board’s vote could be overruled in court or by the state government.

The attorney explained that the state Attorney General’s Office has conceded that the state policy was only guidance and could not be mandated. He observed that one legal theory is that the contents of the policy are already in place under the NJLAD, so a ruling would depend on the judge assigned to the case.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Matt Hrevnak, president of the Edison Township Education Association, the teachers union, expressed concern for his members because no replacement policy was implemented in the board’s vote.

“You’re putting our people, without having some board policy in place, in a very awkward position,” Hrevnak said. “If you were to repeal it and replace it with something, at least we can say, ‘well, we have to abide by board policy,’ but if there’s no policy in place, and we have to disclose this to parents, in theory, we are violating the law by doing so.”

He expressed that his concerns apply to not only Edison teachers but also school administrators and pressed for a policy “in the very near future” to keep district employees in the clear. In response, Biral Patel said that he’d ask Aldarelli to review the situation.

Charles Ross, principal of Edison High School, said that he shares Hrevnak’s concerns. He asserted that people who take issue with Policy 5756 should be “following the chain of command” and going to state legislators over the NJLAD, not the local board of education.

“I know that teacher-student-parent triangle, when that works best, that’s when people learn,” said Ross. “But we need to make sure that we’re helping our most vulnerable students and we’re keeping them safe.”

REACTIONS

On Thursday, Oct. 3, the N.J. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, with Garden State Equality, sent Edison’s school district a letter urging readoption of Policy 5756 on the grounds that it “helps to safeguard the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students.”

In a statement released on Tuesday, Oct. 8, Superintendent Aldarelli explained that the policy had not yet gone through the two readings and public vote required by board procedural policy to be abolished. As such, the policy is presently still in effect.

He said that his team is currently consulting with its attorneys to ensure that the school district remains in compliance with the NJLAD.

In a statement dated Wednesday, Oct. 9, board president Biral Patel echoed Aldarelli’s explanation and added that the Board had followed the attorney’s advice to continue with the vote at the meeting. He said that the Board wants to ensure that the “complete and correct process is followed” and that a “thorough review of the pros and cons” is necessary before a “final discussion.”

The board will next meet on Tuesday, Oct. 29, from 5:30 p.m. at Edison High School.

References