Sayreville board votes down motion to rescind Policy 5756 after lengthy debate on parental notification

A motion to rescind Policy 5756 and send it to the governance committee for revision failed after extended debate at a Sayreville Board of Education meeting.

Board member Carrie moved to rescind Policy 5756, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent emergency stay in a California case demonstrates growing legal risk for districts that permit withholding information from parents. "The Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 in favor of the parents, in favor of putting a stay on the policy until the case settles completely," she said, urging the board to reduce exposure to settlements she described as substantial.

Supporters of keeping the policy said student safety and anti‑harassment protections would be undermined if the board removed the district’s guidance. A fellow board member said, "We do not live in that house. The child lives in that house," arguing staff must be able to safeguard students who fear harm at home. Other board members urged reliance on the district’s legal counsel and cited New Jersey’s existing anti‑harassment protections.

Board members also noted the motion was to replace the current policy, not to leave students without protections. "It's to replace it with something that . . . keeps the center of what we're protecting here — the student and their family," a board member said.

After discussion and a roll‑call vote the motion to rescind Policy 5756 failed, 3 yes, 6 no. The three yes votes recorded were Missus Hernandez, Missus Maldonado and Miss Tchaikowsky; six members voted no. The board did not adopt any immediate replacement policy at the meeting; Carrie asked that governance draft a revised policy that would “explicitly incorporate appropriate parental involvement and notification.”

The board’s discussion made repeated reference to the federal stay and to settlements in other states; members disagreed about how much weight to give a preliminary federal ruling versus New Jersey law. Several members urged that any revision be developed with the district’s legal advisers and careful attention to both student protections and fiscal risk.

The board did not take additional formal action on Policy 5756 at the meeting; the governance committee was asked to consider next steps.