What The Heck Is Going On In Asbury Park Today?
December 21, 2023
CIATTARELLI: This Is Why NJ Needs Education Reform
December 21, 2023Roxbury Board of Ed Gives Thumbs Up to State Transgender Policy
Fred Snowflack is a columnist for InsiderNJ.
For the second time in a few weeks, a board of education has reaffirmed a state policy that protects transgender students.
The Monday night vote in this Morris County town followed a similar action late last month in Old Bridge in Middlesex County.
Republicans made public schools a major issue in last month’s legislative elections. There were complaints about “pornographic” books in school, a “woke” curriculum, and an agenda that encourages a gay and/or transgender lifestyle.
That sentiment prompted – or at least it did nothing to deter – a reported nine New Jersey school boards to scrap policy 5657, which says teachers and staff must respect a student’s gender identity. Moreover, they are not required to tell parents about it.
Eliminating that policy does not change state laws against discrimination, but it was seen by some as a symbolic protest against a left-leaning school policy.
The November election, however, was not good for Republicans; the GOP lost six seats in the Assembly and the Senate remained as is.
In the wake of that election, two boards have endorsed, or technically refused to scrap, the state policy on transgender students.
It’s hazardous to read too much into one election, but last month’s results tell us state voters are not nearly as unhappy with New Jersey public schools as the GOP’s campaign rhetoric suggested.
In Roxbury, the board agreed to get rid of the policy at an earlier meeting, but when it came to a final vote on Monday – it backed keeping the policy intact in a 6-3 vote.
The makeup of the school board will change next year, so there may be another vote on the issue. But as of now, it’s status quo.
One thing about the so-called culture wars as they relate to gender: the arguments tend to be the same. That doesn’t mean they’re insincere, just that opinions are well established.
Right in step with that view, Greg Quinlan of the Center for Garden State Families reminded the board that he had been there before,
He said “there is something severe and dangerous” about a policy that prevents parents from knowing about their child’s gender-related activities.
Then again … suppose parents are not supportive?
That was a central argument of those asking for the policy to stay in place. As one speaker put it, “Maybe home is not a safe place for them,” – meaning trans-children.
Do away with the policy and you put transgender students in danger, said another speaker.
When board members discussed the issue, Anne Colucci said the policy encourages the keeping of secrets from parents. She added that the policy was “totally unnecessary,” noting state law banning discrimination.
But Board Member Carol Scheneck said the policy is needed, because it offers guidance to teachers and staff.
In the end, that view prevailed – at least for the moment.
2 Comments
I would encourage everyone to read the UK’s newly released guidance on social transitioning and gender identity questions in schools. To prepare yourself for it, first, if you haven’t yet, please read Abigail Schrier’s (of the Wall Street Journal) Irreversible Damage; Hannah Barnes’ Time to Think; Helen Joyce’s (of The Economist) Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. Then read more about the Tavistock and the Cass Report from the UK. Why are we seeing such a large increased in girls identifying as males, when the traditional gender dysphoric cohort was overwhelmingly male?
The UK guidance:
“Schools are facing requests to take actions such as changing names, uniforms, or using different facilities to help a child appear more like the opposite sex, with the expectation that they will be treated as if they are. This is often referred to as social transitioning. This guidance is based on a set of five general principles that schools and colleges can use to frame their response to such requests:
1. Schools and colleges have statutory duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children.
2. Schools and colleges should be respectful and tolerant places where bullying is never tolerated.
3. Parents should not be excluded from decisions taken by a school or college relating to requests for a child to ‘socially transition’.
4. Schools and colleges have specific legal duties that are framed by a child’s biological sex.
5. There is no general duty to allow a child to ‘social transition’.
The Cass Review is clear that social transition is not a neutral act, and that better information is needed about the outcomes for children who undertake degrees of social transition. This means that schools and colleges should take a cautious approach and that decisions should never be taken in haste or without the involvement of parents. Schools and colleges should consider how best to fulfill their safeguarding duties towards the child who is making such a request and their peers, ensuring that any agreed course of action is in all of their best interests.There will be some requests for a type of social transition that will not be compatible with a schools legal duties, schools must abide by this.”
Concerned Mom raises considerate, measured concerns. The problem here is that people like Greg Quinlan of the Center for Garden State Families mischaracterize the policy in question (for his own purposes) when he says “there is something severe and dangerous” about a policy that prevents parents from knowing about their child’s gender-related activities.
The truth is, there is nothing “preventing” parents from knowing. First, the only parents who would have a concern are those whose kids don’t trust them to confide in them. But beyond that, the policy, while policy places a high value on student privacy, it does not prohibit parental notification, and it allows for notification when the student is faces harm or danger.
Go ahead – remove the policy; that won’t prevent these issues and circumstances from arising. Administrators will still need to deal with these situations, and when you remove (as opposed to modify) the policy you, as a board, are irresponsibly leaving related decisions to their own judgment on a case-by-case basis.