The Watchung Hills Regional High School District Board of Education discussed Policy 5756, the district’s transgender-student policy, at length during its June meeting and agreed to keep the policy in place while working on clarifying revisions.

The discussion drew board members’ concerns about wording described as “contradictory” and confusion over whether the policy could be amended in parts or only rescinded whole. Superintendent Dr. Michael Jewett reiterated that the district’s anti-bullying self-assessment scored 78 out of 78 and emphasized legal constraints; he also noted the district’s membership in the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA).

Why it matters: commenters and staff said the policy provides essential guidance for school employees on privacy and student safety; some board members said the policy’s language could create uncertainty about parental notification, records access and how athletic eligibility is handled. The board stopped short of rescinding the policy and directed a revision process to resolve ambiguities.

Board discussion centered on two separate issues, board members and staff said: the district’s nondiscrimination and student-support policy (Policy 5756) and separate rules governing athletic eligibility enforced by the NJSIAA. "57‑56 as a policy is very clear and direct on what it's related to as it relates to the anti‑discrimination laws of the state," Superintendent Dr. Michael Jewett said, adding that participation in interscholastic sports is governed by the NJSIAA, not the district policy.

Several board members raised concerns that portions of the policy read as mandatory "shall" language and said that wording had been read by some community members as preventing school staff from notifying parents in cases where staff believed notification was appropriate. One board member said, "We don't want language that says faculty must tell parents," and urged clarifying that there is no affirmative duty but also no prohibition on staff informing parents when appropriate.

Public comment was extensive and nearly universally in favor of keeping the policy. Deborah Eddy, representing the Somerset County LGBTQ Advisory Board, said the policy helps protect a population she described as especially vulnerable: "If you take that away from the students ... it puts a target on their back." Several students, teachers and community groups urged the board to preserve the policy and to refine its wording. GSA president Shiva Bushon, a Watchung Hills student, said the policy gives students a safe place: "Do you want that safety ... to be removed?" Bushon added that outing a student to unsupportive parents can put that student at risk.

Some board members pushed for more aggressive options, including outright rescission of the policy and writing a new one. Others argued that removing the policy would send a negative message to transgender and LGBTQ students and staff. Opinion among board members was divided during the discussion; there was no roll-call vote to rescind or amend the policy that night.

Instead the board reached procedural directions: the board president said he would remove an “M” (mandate) marker on the district website to avoid suggesting the policy is a state-mandated policy, collect board members’ suggested edits and produce a revised draft for review. He offered to circulate a redraft incorporating concerns raised — on parental notification language, the policy’s “shall/must” phrasing and the records provisions — and said any revised policy would return for formal consideration under the district’s policy-adoption rules.

Supporters of keeping the policy cited national and state data showing elevated risks for transgender youth and the protective effect of supportive adults. Teacher Greg O’Reilly said removing the policy would "remove publicly stated commitments" to students and staff and would harm the school climate. Several speakers pointed to research and national surveys about LGBTQ youth mental health and to studies they said show transgender athletes do not, as a group, hold a universal competitive advantage after transition; those studies were cited by public speakers, not introduced as district evidence.

What’s next: The existing Policy 5756 will remain in force while the board president circulates a revised draft for comment. Board members discussed forming or using a policy committee to refine language; the board president said he would begin drafting and accept input from other board members and counsel. Any substantive change will follow the district's normal policy-read and vote process.

Community context and finance: Board members repeatedly warned that legal challenges to district policy changes can be expensive. Several said jurisdictional conflicts — between state law, federal law, and NJSIAA rules — make careful drafting and legal review essential before any formal policy change.

Ending: The board then moved on to the rest of its agenda, including routine motions and an appointment to fill a vacant board seat.