During today’s State Board of Education monthly public meeting, Board members tried to come to consensus about a hot-button issue: whether they should reconsider the DOE’s decision to require all school districts to divide students up by gender identity, not biological sex, during sex education classes.

It didn’t go well.

Here are the particulars:

Vice President Andrew Mulvihill suggested, given the blowback from both Democratic and Republican representatives, as well as local school districts and parents, that the Board ask Acting Commissioner Angelica Allen-McMillan to “reopen Chapter 7” for possible amendments. The agenda item says, 

“Request to Initiate Rulemaking: That the State Board consider requesting to the Commissioner that the Department commence or initiate the rulemaking process to amend Chapter 7, Managing for Equity in Education.”

Chapter 7 is the heap of regulations that requires districts, during classes about human sexuality, to divide students by gender identity. A presentation last December explained, “Portions of classes that deal exclusively with human sexuality may be conducted in separate developmentally appropriate sessions  based on gender identity, provided the course content for such separately conducted sessions is the same.” Mulvihill also wanted to amend the 60-day deadline for schools to make necessary changes to 180 days, which is the typical time allotted. Many administrators regard 60 days as unrealistic.

Once the motion was seconded, Mulvihill argued that local districts should have the right to divide students up for sex education in order to best fit their communities.

Mulvihill: “We would word it in such a way that we protect all classes [students of color, students with disabilities, English Language Learners, LGBTQ students]. That’s the law, isn’t it? Why are we dictating to districts which students they should protect? What about girls?  [By teaching cis-gender girls with transgender girls about sexuality] we may end up picking one group and discriminating against another. Why does Big Brother get to decide? We’re thirteen unelected people–why do we decide which group school districts should discriminate against? 

Jack Fornaro asked, “is there an appeals process for families in that law? “

Allan-McMillan: “We have always had an opt-out provision [for sex education]. We’ve had it for decades. 

Joseph Ricca commented, “I don’t like this new motion but I don’t think we should be afraid to revisit decisions we made in the past. There’s nothing more democratic than having a spirited conversation.

The final vote was 5-4 against the motion. The “no’s” were Arcelio Aponte, Ronald K. Butcher, Elaine Bobrove, and Sylvia Sylvia-Cioffi. The “yes’s” were Mulvihill, Ricca, Fornaro, and Mary Beth Berry. President Kathy Goldenberg abstained.

In other news, there was no news on state standardized test score results. The tests were given eight months ago. Last year New Jersey was one of the very last states to release the data.