Sayreville public speakers press board to change Policy 5756; motion to send policy to governance fails

At a regular meeting of the Sayreville Board of Education, residents urged the board to revise or rescind Policy 5756 — the district’s policy tied to the New Jersey Department of Education’s 2018 transgender‑student guidance — and a board motion to send a replacement to the governance committee failed on a roll‑call vote.

During public comment, Teresa Focarelli (Sayreville resident) told the board, “The NJDOE transgender student guidance of 2018 is non binding and explicitly states that it is not a regulation,” and urged the district to draft a local policy that balances parental rights, liability concerns and local values. Jessica Vant, another resident, criticized what she described as unprofessional online remarks by a board member and asked the board’s legal counsel to evaluate whether similar reasoning would violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Atif Ghaly, a recent board candidate, said many parents had not heard of Policy 5756 and called for greater transparency; Mickey Fisher, a former teacher, asked whether staff are trained to handle situations such as locker‑room use.

Board discussion followed. One board member moved to refer development of a replacement to Policy 5756 to the governance committee for formal review. The motion was put to a roll‑call vote and did not carry; the transcript records mixed yes and no responses and the chair announced the motion failed. The meeting record does not show a subsequent formal direction or an adopted replacement policy.

Why it matters: Policy 5756 governs how schools handle gender‑identity matters and concerns about parental notification and access to student records have driven sustained public attention. Speakers at the meeting emphasized both student safety and parental partnership; board members responding during the meeting repeatedly said they sought common ground — protecting students while involving families.

What the board did and did not do: The board heard multiple public comments urging action, discussed options, and voted on a motion to send a proposed replacement to the governance committee; the motion failed and no binding change to the policy was adopted that night. Several parents asked the board to take a legal look at whether specific conduct or reasoning would violate state anti‑discrimination law.

Statements and sources: The article quotes residents who spoke during the meeting and summarizes board discussion recorded in the public transcript. The district discussed but did not adopt a motion to rewrite Policy 5756; the vote failed and next steps were not finalized. The meeting also included committee reports and other agenda items.

Next steps: The board did not adopt a replacement policy during the meeting. The transcript indicates the matter will continue to be discussed in future meetings or committee work; no formal timeline was set in the public record.