Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedure JBP topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers praise Newport News School Board’s changes to transgender-student procedure as board weighs legal and parental issues
Summary
At its May 19 meeting, the Newport News School Board heard extended public comment praising recent revisions to procedure JBP that supporters say protect transgender and gender‑nonconforming students. Speakers from clergy, nonprofit groups, educators and students urged the board to prioritize student safety; some board members raised legal and parental‑rights questions.
The Newport News School Board on May 19 heard more than two hours of public comment after the division revised procedure JBP governing the treatment of transgender and gender‑nonconforming students.
Supporters — including clergy, teachers, nonprofit leaders and students — thanked the board for the change and urged it to stand firm. "You have taken a stand to protect the most vulnerable segment of the district's population," said Reverend Natalie Chamberlain, speaking for a coalition of churches and community organizations. Mel Howard, executive director and founder of Thrive and Trans Men of Color, told the board that inclusive practices "do not take anything away from anyone else" and urged investment in counselors, anti‑bullying efforts and community partnerships.
The changes to procedure JBP were repeatedly framed by public speakers as a reversal of guidance from former governor Glenn Youngkin; several commenters called the Youngkin rules harmful and said reinstating the previous standards reduces risk for vulnerable students. "Even one supportive adult in a gender nonconforming young person's life can literally save it," said David Brakman, who thanked the board for revisions that he and other speakers described as harm‑reduction measures.
Not all commenters agreed. Marcus Shaw read excerpts of procedure JBP and argued that the existing policy already prohibits discrimination and that parents should retain the right to object to counseling or school actions. During the public‑comment period a resident also raised a separate procedural concern: they said a discrimination complaint they filed on April 23 had not been acknowledged within the five‑business‑day window prescribed by policy and asked the board for an explanation.
Board members reflected the range of views during their remarks. Several members emphasized psychological safety and inclusivity as guiding priorities. One member cautioned about legal complications, referencing recent court decisions and the possibility of compelled‑speech claims for staff who may object to being required to use students' chosen pronouns.
The board did not take a formal policy vote on JBP at the meeting; several members said the revision process may need additional refinement and future rounds of review. Chair Best closed the meeting by thanking speakers for respectful public participation.
The board will continue work on procedures and is scheduled to consider other policy items at future meetings; members said staff would provide requested clarifications (for example, on complaint acknowledgements and legal implications) by email or at a subsequent public meeting.
