Paul Breda has been engaged as a school board member and leader, consultant, and statewide presenter in support of public education in New Jersey for over 20 years. Professionally, he helps organizations launch and expand new services and resources for educators that bring value to teaching and learning.

As a 20-year school board member on three different Morris County boards of education and an advocate statewide for effective public school governance, I’m disappointed to see many school boards consider removing a policy that offers guidance in providing a safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environment to transgender students. Commonly referred to by its Strauss Esmay-designated number, Policy 5756 has been widely mischaracterized, and boards are reacting to the mischaracterization by irresponsibly removing it entirely from their policy books. My concerns are for the affected students, but also for the violation of sound governance practices.

Policy 5756 originated in early 2017 with identical bills passed with bipartisan support in the New Jersey Legislature and signed by then-Governor Chris Christie. This legislation directed the Department of Education to provide guidance on a host of issues intended to maintain “a safe and supportive learning environment that is free from discrimination and harassment for transgender students.” The matter of parental notification of a student’s expressed gender preference is only one of many challenges that school leaders face and are addressed in the resulting policy.

Education knowledge and expertise does not reside with the board of education — it resides within the collective administrative leadership that the board hires to run its schools. The board of education is responsible for the overall experience shared by students, staff, and parents in that school community. Legally, board members have an obligation to “meet the individual needs of all children regardless of their ability, race, creed, sex, or social standing.” Most boards have further committed themselves to living up to a mission statement, and those statements invariably invoke their dedication to the achievement and protection of all students. Notwithstanding the protections offered by myriad other laws, I would question these boards on their understanding of the meaning of all, given the vulnerability and complexities of this particular population of students.

Putting that aside, setting district policy is the primary means by which boards of education create that collective community experience in their schools. Good policy informs difficult decisions that leaders have to make, while giving them appropriate latitude to exercise judgment on a case-by-case basis. Removing, abolishing, or rescinding Policy 5756 does not make the challenges associated with gender expression go away; it does leave school administrators without lawful board guidance in dealing with these matters. Without policy guidance, responses to these challenges will either be left to individual school leaders, or administrators will, by necessity, come up with their own plan behind closed doors. As the Freehold Township superintendent said when that board rescinded this policy, “The absence of any policy or regulation does not remove the responsibility that we as educators have to make decisions based upon what is in the best interest of each and every student in our care.”

Since when do boards of education simply wash their hands of challenging issues? It is irresponsible of a board of education to put its administrative team in this position.

Finally: it is true that as written, Policy 5756 places a high value on students’ right to privacy — but it is not true that the policy prohibits parental notification. It does assert that there is “no affirmative duty for any school district staff member to notify a student’s parent of the student’s gender identity or expression,” but that is not prohibitive. Further, it acknowledges situations where the district may be obligated to disclose a student’s status “due to a specific and compelling need, such as the health and safety of a student.”

So, where exactly is the problem?

Policy can, and should, be modified to reflect the values of the school community while staying within New Jersey’s laws against discrimination. But boards are irresponsibly over-reacting to the cry of parents who don’t have the trusting home relationship with their child that would accept their gender expression. Perhaps that’s why the policy is needed in the first place.