Approximately 80 people attended a board of education meeting in Medford, N.J. on March 17. Over 50 of those who gathered were forced to stand in the small conference room, which lacked enough seats to accommodate the crowd, as they learned about budget updates and welcomed a new principal.
But most attendees weren’t especially concerned about the board’s agenda items. They’d come to discuss Policy 5756 — a statewide guideline that has been in place since 2018 to help schools better support trans students.
The guideline has become a point of debate following a recent clarification included in a New Jersey Court of Appeals ruling, which explained that the policy is not mandatory. Its stance as “mandated” — or required — seems to have come from a misinterpretation communicated by a contractor that partners with hundreds of New Jersey school districts.
A conversation about 5756 was first formally introduced at Medford’s February school board meeting when approximately 40 parents and community members showed up in response to a social media post made by Kristen Sinclair, a right-wing board member, who wanted opponents of the policy to come out in mass. Instead, just one opponent — who lives in another town — advocated to repeal the policy during the February meeting. Most of the speakers were there in support of the status quo.
A day after that February meeting, Sinclair — a “parental rights” activist — took to social media again, this time to bash the parent of a trans child. Sinclair was not present at the March meeting, but the parent who was targeted addressed the board during public comment.
“I view this as an abuse of power, and as a parent with children in this district, this board member’s presence seriously impacts my trust in this board’s ability to create safety for my children or for other Medford students and families,” the parent said before calling on board members to listen to the perspectives of trans kids and their parents rather than perpetuate harm.
Sinclair and other parental rights activists have been trying to repeal 5756 at schools across the state, claiming it overreaches. They misrepresent the policy as though it disregards their rights to access information and make medical decisions for their child — mislabeling school support during a social transition as a medical treatment by way of psychological intervention.
The recent ruling explains that the policy does not violate the rights of parents — as guardians maintain access to student files, including records that may reveal a student’s trans identity, requires staff to respond truthfully when asked about a student’s gender identity, and does not limit a parent’s ability to make medical decisions for their child.
“What should be understood fully here is that this policy already includes and affirms my rights as a parent while also prioritizing the safety of vulnerable kids,” a parent underlined during the March 17 meeting.
Less than ten opponents of the policy were present — and none of them chose to speak during public comment.
Speakers included a parent who explained the policy to ensure it could not be misrepresented, an LGBTQ+ youth who described the experience of a trans friend whose home life was negatively impacted after an accidental outing, and a parent who shared how her cis and trans children both benefited from the policy in the past. Others shared statistics that describe the risks trans kids face when they come out — including parental rejection and experiences of discrimination, which can lead to poor mental health and safety outcomes.
None of the board members gave the impression that Medford’s implementation of Policy 5756 is likely to change anytime soon. The policy has not been referred to any of the board’s committees and it has not been placed on an agenda for formal consideration — which is required should the board make changes to the policy or vote on repealing it.
About a dozen LGBTQ+ people and local supporters — including some who were present at the BOE meeting — joined Melissa Firstenberg, a trans activist, at a Medford town council meeting the following day to ask leaders to formally recognize Trans Day of Visibility via proclamation or resolution.
Medford Town Council issued a proclamation for Arbor Day during that same meeting, but Firstenberg was told in a private response (not on the public record) by the present council members — Mayor Erik Rebstock, Deputy Mayor Michael Czyzyk, and Councilmember Bethany Milk — that a proclamation for TDoV would not be issued.
“It’s still important to show up and speak because that’s what visibility is all about,” said Firstenberg, who hopes for a better outcome next year.
She was told one of the reasons Medford wouldn’t recognize TDoV is that the town has never done so before. It’s the first official “no” she and other advocates across South Jersey have received. They believe 10 local towns will issue proclamations or resolutions by TDoV (March 31) — including Medford’s close neighbors of Marlton, Voorhees, Mount Laurel and Moorestown, which have already made the commitment.
On the other side of Medford sits Tabernacle, New Jersey — where another discussion of trans inclusion emerged March 18. A dozen or less parents and community members gathered at the town’s board of education meeting for what they believed would be a lackluster meeting. The agenda focused almost entirely on a draft of the proposed budget.
But during a report from Lauren Fanti — who is vice president of Tabernacle’s BOE — about her work as the district’s liaison for the New Jersey School Board Association (NJSBA) and the Burlington County School Board Association (BCSBA), Fanti noted she received communications from one of the associations with a list of policies to review.
This list, she claimed, included Policy 5756 — which she explained during the meeting is not a mandatory policy. During an open discussion, Fanti advocated for rescinding it.
“A couple of other board members were commenting they don’t know much about the policy itself, but they don’t like the idea that a school would be getting in between children and their parents,” explained a Tabernacle resident who was present.
The topic was then assigned to the policy committee, of which Fanti is a member, for formal consideration. But Fanti continued to push the board to rescind the policy when new business was introduced later in the meeting. Erica Vining — another BOE member — seconded a motion proposed by Fanti to immediately repeal the policy that same night.
But other board members said they weren’t familiar enough with the policy to vote without reviewing it. The topic now awaits recommendations by the policy committee, and it will likely be discussed again at the next meeting on April 30. It can be brought to a vote if it is placed on the night’s agenda.
It’s unclear how many districts are currently discussing Policy 5756. Opponents of the policy have claimed numbers that are unproven and seem to be inflated. But some districts are quietly making changes with little or no news coverage and community awareness about their actions.
Toms River, a town that sits in the central part of the state near the shore, eliminated policy 5756 on March 19 while North Jersey’s Bridgewater-Raritan School District voted to keep it in place that same night.
Repealing the policy gives teachers and administrators more personal discretion in their approach to trans inclusion and affirmation, and a lack of clear guidelines places them at increased legal risk as they navigate these issues on their own. Schools and staff members must continue to comply with the state’s nondiscrimination and anti-bullying laws — even when no official policy about trans-inclusion exists. However, the lack of guidelines creates space for complications to emerge — often due to misinterpretation or personal beliefs.
Any changes must also comply with New Jersey’s nondiscrimination statutes. The ACLU previously described Policy 5756 as simply “reiterat[ing] the statutory and constitutional protections afforded to transgender students.” Because the guideline offers nothing new in the way of tangible legal protections for trans students, it’s not a necessary means of preserving student rights. These rights already exist — and will continue to.
What the policy does is offer a roadmap for schools so they aren’t trying to interpret laws on their own — and a reassurance for trans students and their families that schools know how to support them in times of need. Revoking or altering the policy leaves a lot of room on the table for mistakes.