Hello readers, today we will be discussing the update on legal challenges brought by NJ Attorney General, against districts who implemented mandatory parental notification policies (forced outing of students).
Policy 5756 (Transgender student guidance) was created in 2018, after Governor Chris Christie signed a law that directed the NJ Commission of Education to create guidelines for school districts. The NJ Department of Education created the policy after consulting with educators, counselors, school psychologists, advocates and parents with the intention of creating an inclusive environment for all students. The policy recommended that schools have confidential discussions with transgender students about their preferred names, pronouns, and parental communications.
First let’s summarize the policy and lawsuit-
Policy 5756 provides guidelines to support transgender students. These guidelines include:
- Supporting students in communicating with their family
- Development of a support plan
- Ensuring equal educational opportunities
- Prevention of harassment, intimidation and bullying
This policy protects students whose gender identity may post a safety risk in their own home. Sadly, some children are put at risk by their own parents/guardians This is something that public schools must consider
Policy 5767 ensures that school districts are in compliance with state and federal laws and provides legal protection for the district.
Parental notification is only 1 of 10 circumstances and conditions in the policy.
Policy 5767 does NOT prohibit parental notification, it just does not require it, since that would put some students in danger.
In May 2023, Hanover BOE passed policy 8463, that required parental notification regarding students’ gender identity or expression.
Other school districts (Middletown, Malrboro, and Manalapan-Englishtown) also tried to pass policies that required parental notification. Hanover created a new policy (8463), whereas the three Ocean county districts rewrote policy 5756.
The state Attorney General’s office filed civil rights complaints against them to prevent them from enforcing these policies. Since then, many districts (including Roxbury) have rescinded this policy altogether, oftentimes suggesting that rescinding this policy would allow districts to out students against their will or otherwise ignore NJ laws against discrimination.
To be clear, the absence of any policy does not remove responsibility on staff to make decisions in the best interest of each student. With or without policy 5767, districts must comply with NJ laws against discrimination. Removing the policy does NOT require the district to notify parents of a student’s gender identity. Removing the policy DOES leave staff without guidance on how to avoid lawsuits.
This week, the NJ Superior Court upheld the injunction that prevented three schools boards in Monmouth County from implementing policies that would forcibly out transgender students. The court agreed that those policies violated NJ State Law Against Discrimination. The court agreed that these policies forcing students to be outed, would cause irreparable harm, putting their safety and well-being at risk.
The court clarified that no students should face a different set of rules because they are transgender or non-binary. The Superior Court clarified that the injunction does not violate parents rights or student record laws and clarified that current policies do NOT prevent staff from communicating with parents or parents from accessing student records. Districts are free to rescind policy 5756, but must comply with all state laws.
Here is what New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin had to say about the court outcome:
“We are pleased that the Appellate Division has affirmed the Superior Court’s finding that the challenged school board policies likely violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and would result in irreparable harm to some of our state’s most vulnerable students,” he said in a statement released by his office. “As all courts to have considered these cases have recognized, the state agrees that parents should be involved in making important decisions about their children. And as a parent, I certainly share that concern — which is why the state has never and will never seek a ‘ban’ on schools informing parents about their children. But what the courts have said is that is that schools cannot have a blanket policy that unfairly forces educators to choose between a vulnerable child’s safety and well-being and losing their job.”
Middletown BOE members have also commented and seem to be also claiming victory in this ruling. They report they plan to rescind policy 5756 now that they are able. The lawsuit previously prevented them from changing or rescinding the policy.
BOE Member Tobacco from Middletown said, “we filed the appeal to get the injunction lifted. And we will vote to rescind it Thursday night at the Board of Ed. meeting. The Middletown school board was told by Strauss Esmay it was required to have such a policy. We were being treated differently than every other district in the state. We filed the appeal because we were being held captive.”
“The court has made a significant ruling, finding that the Attorney General overstepped its bounds by having the court prohibit us from rescinding policy 5756,” said BOE member Capone. “This is an incredible victory for the children, parents, residents of Middletown and the entire state.”
The injunction that was implemented was in regard to the district rewriting policy 5767 to require parental notification. As previously discussed, rescinding the policy does not change the fact that school districts must follow all state laws, and as was made clear in the ruling. Schools are prevented from enforcing mandatory parental notification due to the irreparable harm it could cause students. It is a shame that certain BOE members and activists continue to misrepresent the repeal of this policy as being anything but what it is, a hollow move, that does not change state laws, or how schools implement those laws, that simply leaves school staff without policy and guidelines to protect themselves, their students, and the school district from possible discrimination and litigation.
Please read our other posts on the topic, including posts about prior meetings and what our BOE members had to say about this policy.
Roxbury November 2023 BOE meeting
Roxbury December 2023 BOE meeting
Roxbury April 2024 BOE meeting
Roxbury April 2024 BOE meeting – repeal of 5756
Roxbury BOE Watch 
Leave a comment