Board hears competing views on transgender-student policy as member cites Appellate Division opinion

The Galloway Township Public School District Board of Education discussed Policy 5756 on transgender and gender-nonconforming students during its public meeting and heard multiple public comments both supporting and opposing the policy. Board member Mr. Gentile said an Appellate Division opinion released that day found the kind of policy does not violate parental rights.

The policy committee had presented Policy 5756 for review during the meeting and recommended no changes pending outside litigation and guidance from the New Jersey Attorney General or the New Jersey Department of Education. The committee’s report, presented to the full board, noted the board had previously asked for review of the policy at the Jan. 9 meeting.

Why it matters: Policy 5756 determines how staff should support transgender and gender-nonconforming students, including how and whether family members are informed. Supporters told the board the policy protects vulnerable students; critics said it risks undermining parental rights.

Speakers at the microphone included Jenna Smith, president of the Galloway Township Education Association, who urged the board to focus on students and teacher–school relationships. "We're teachers, we're counselors, speech therapists. We are the people who greet your children each morning with a smile," Smith said, arguing that educators' advocacy is rooted in student welfare. Johanna Durazzi, a licensed social worker and representative of the Atlantic County Queer Alliance, told the board Policy 5756 "is a vital part of that commitment," saying it provides a framework to keep students safe and does not promote secrecy. Dr. G. Marie Mason, a higher-education instructor and public-school advocate, also urged the board to keep schools "safe, inclusive, and welcoming."

Board member Mrs. Hermano expressed the concerns voiced by some parents at the meeting, saying opponents believe the policy reduces parental notification. In response, Mr. Gentile read from the Appellate Division opinion he said was issued that day and summarized its holding: "the policy does not interfere with parental rights" and "places no duty on teachers different than the federal and state regulation governing student records," rejecting arguments that the policy denies parental rights. He added that the appellate ruling leaves in place other proceedings and injunctions in separate cases as applicable.

The policy committee, as presented to the board, recommended no substantive revisions to Policy 5756 until pending litigation or further state guidance is resolved. No final change to Policy 5756 was adopted at the meeting.

The board did not take final action on Policy 5756 at the session; the committee’s position and the Appellate Division opinion were recorded and will inform any future board consideration.