What Happened to East Brunswick’s Redistricting Discussion?

Last September, nine candidates for the East Brunswick Board of Education sat in front of a public forum and were asked what they thought about elementary school redistricting. Every one of them answered. They talked about a map that had stopped making sense, about a school of 201 students and a school of 408, about bus routes, about what it costs a child to be moved. Four of them won seats.

They were working, at the time, from memory and a map. The district’s redistricting study was not finished.

It is finished now. Delivered publicly on February 5, it counted the problems — island attendance zones in all eight elementary schools, about 854 children who would change schools under a full realignment, a school closure examined and ruled out — and left one question open, because the administration told the Board that the transportation, staffing and financial modeling would come next. The Board added a condition of its own: a strategic plan had to come first. That plan was adopted unanimously in July.

So East Brunswick knows a great deal more today than it did the last time its candidates were asked about this. And East Brunswick is in another Board of Education election — six candidates for three seats, three of them sitting Board members who watched the study land, heard the follow-up analysis promised, and voted to adopt the plan that was supposed to clear the way.

When East Brunswick knew less, its candidates were talking about redistricting. Now that it knows considerably more, they largely are not.

Elementary redistricting has not been substantively discussed at a Board meeting since February 19 — ten consecutive meetings, through an entire budget season.

And so far, it has barely surfaced in this year’s Board of Education race. Last year, redistricting was already part of the public conversation before the candidates gathered for their September forum, where every candidate was eventually asked about it. This year’s forum has not happened yet, and there is still plenty of campaign left. But to date, none of the six candidates has made elementary redistricting a visible part of the campaign, as candidates were already doing by this point last year.

That makes the contrast worth examining. A year ago, candidates were discussing the issue before East Brunswick had the completed study. Today the district knows considerably more, yet the subject has largely gone quiet.

Understanding what is at stake means going back to the night the study arrived.

On the evening of February 5, demographer Ross Haber put a map of Central Elementary School’s attendance zone on the screen in front of the Board and said something consultants being paid to be diplomatic do not usually say.

“I’ve been doing this for a lot of years,” he told the board. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

He was not being unkind. He was describing a map drawn when Richard Nixon was president and quietly drifting ever since — a map in which pockets of houses send their children to one elementary school while the street around them sends to another, and in which eighty-six children in one corner of the Lawrence Brook area are put on a bus and driven to Memorial.

That presentation was the culmination of more than a year of work. It generated a burst of parent concern, a rare pre-emptive statement from the Board two weeks later, and a promise that more information was coming.

Why East Brunswick started looking at this

It is worth remembering how this began, because it was not a tidy-up-the-map exercise.

In January 2025, facing a shortfall the administration then put at five to seven million dollars, the district put closing an elementary school on its list of budget options. The school named was Bowne-Munro. The following month, the business administrator attached a number to it: repurposing the building as an expanded Early Learning Academy site would be worth roughly $1.1 million a year — and that figure, he noted, excluded any savings from K-4 teaching staff.

The analysis that would tell the Board whether that was even possible was a redistricting study, already underway, examining elementary boundaries — in the administration’s words that January — “both with and without Bowne-Munro.”

By March, the closure option was gone. Board member Timothy Cummings asked why it had been “entirely removed from the proposal,” carefully adding that he was not saying he favored it. The answer he received was that the district wanted to protect the Bowne-Munro cohort, and that closing the building “for the sake of closing” it was not prudent without a revenue-generating use for it.

The study, though, kept going.

When it became public, everyone had something to say

By the fall of 2025, redistricting was an election issue in East Brunswick — and not a marginal one.

At the East Brunswick Education Association’s candidates’ forum on September 29, every candidate in the room was asked what they thought about elementary redistricting. All nine answered. Four of those nine now sit on the Board.

What is striking, reading the transcript a year later, is that almost none of them treated it as a budget question.

Marianne Tanious, now the Board president, said she had asked how the current assignments were originally decided and was told that the person responsible had “literally took out a map” and said these children go here and those go there. “There were no actual numbers that were looked at,” she said. “We need to have actual numbers. We can’t make decisions that aren’t data driven.” Her concern, she said, was equity: not every elementary school even has a gym.

Liwu Hong said the issue “has been talked for a long long time,” that small pockets of students end up at remote elementary schools, and that it “must be addressed” — but only after the district could guarantee resources at every school and safe, efficient transportation.

Antoinette Evola, then running for a one-year seat and now an incumbent seeking a full term, described children who could not have playdates with their own classmates because those classmates lived across town. “When you look at the map, the way it’s set up,” she said, “it does not make sense at all.” She read out the 2024 enrollment figures — Lawrence Brook 362, Memorial 408, Bowne-Munro 201, Frost 383 — and said the schools were not evenly distributed. Then she asked the question the whole thing turns on:

Jeff Winston, who did not win, warned it was “roughly a five-year problem before it straightens itself out.” Anna Braun, who did, recalled the 1983 attempt to close three elementary schools, the parents who rose up against it, the closure of Irwin, and the fact that the district needed the building back three years later. “What a waste of money and time,” she said.

Maria Mueller was the only one of the nine who raised savings at all, and she raised it as a possibility: if routes were replanned, “we can save money.”

Four of these people won. In November, the voters put Braun, Tanious, Hong and Evola on the Board.

What the study actually found

Haber delivered it on February 5. The full thirty-three-slide presentation is reproduced in the Board’s approved minutes for that meeting, pages 33 through 65. Anyone can read it.

THE FINDINGS, IN BRIEF

• Enrollment is essentially flat. 8,077 students this year, projected to be 8,174 by 2030-31 — fewer than a hundred additional children over five years.
• The buildings can absorb that growth as they are. “Our conclusion is that they can.”
• Every one of the eight elementary schools has non-contiguous “island” zones. The Lawrence Brook-to-Memorial pocket alone is 86 children.
• A full realignment would move about 854 students — roughly a third of elementary enrollment — and, in Haber’s words, “there’s no way to really do this peace meal.”
• Memorial would be most affected, sending out the largest number of students of any school.
• It would eliminate nearly all crossing of Route 18, shorten ride times, and produce boundaries that look like neighborhoods.
• Closing a school is not feasible. “Based on this analysis, consolidating facilities was determined not to be feasible given projected capacity needs.” After realignment the eight schools would hold a net surplus of five classrooms districtwide — and two schools would each be one classroom short.

That last finding deserves a moment, because it closed the door the study had originally been commissioned to open. The Bowne-Munro question — the $1.1 million question — was answered, and the answer was no.

What the study did not answer

Here is where the story turns, and it turns on a question a board member asked from the dais.

Timothy Cummings asked Haber whether the study would provide “any sort of financial measures that we could take into consideration in terms of what may actually be saved as a result of these efforts.”

It would not.

That cuts both ways, and it should be said plainly. The completed study does not establish that redistricting would save East Brunswick money. It also does not establish that it would not. The strongest financial sentence in the entire thirty-three slides is that transportation impacts “would appear to be positive.” No dollar figure exists in public, in either direction.

And redistricting was never primarily a money proposal anyway. The reasons the district and its own candidates gave are the ones you have already read: boundaries that follow the neighborhoods children actually live in, an end to island zones, enrollment and class sizes that are not lopsided from one school to the next, and buses that do not carry children past a closer school to a farther one. Whether it would also save money is a separate question.

It is also a fair one, given what was about to happen to the budget. So the district said it would answer it.

“Step one” of “like 20 more steps”

Minutes after Haber said finance was not in the study, the district’s business administrator, Joseph Crotchfelt, told the Board what would come next.

Seven months later, no route model, no staffing model and no dollar figure has been presented at any public Board meeting.

Districts do a great deal of ordinary administrative and committee work that never reaches a televised meeting, and it is possible the modeling exists somewhere. What can be reported is what the public record holds, and the public record holds no such analysis.

The one number that would tell East Brunswick whether this is worth doing is the one number nobody has produced.

Nine emails, and a very fast response

Something else happened on February 5 that is easy to miss.

Before a single parent had emailed anyone — before the public had seen the presentation, in the same breath as introducing it — Superintendent Dr. Evelyn Mamman told the room: “I think it’s important for the public to know that this is not anything that we want to make a decision for September this year, or anything like that. Not at all. I just save the emails, please.”

It was said lightly. But it tells you that everyone in that room understood exactly what this subject does in East Brunswick.

The reaction came, and by the standards of a district that had seen 120-plus emails over program cuts the previous spring, it was modest. Board President Tanious put the number on the record two weeks later: nine emails. Not two hundred. Nine. And some of them, she noted, were from parents upset that the district was not redistricting, on class-size grounds.

The Board’s response to those nine emails was not modest. On February 19, before the superintendent’s own report, five separate officials — the board president, a board member, the superintendent, and two more members — delivered a prepared statement on redistricting. Inside two minutes the community was told this was “a demography report… not a proposal,” that nothing would happen for the 2026-27 school year, that “every effort would be made to grandfather students in,” and that “it is not our intent to yank kids out.”

Six residents spoke that night. One asked the Board to publish its target year and was told it would be 2027-28. One, an accountant for a real-estate developer, argued the projections had left out the Brunswick Square Mall redevelopment entirely and that the exercise might therefore be premature. She did not get an answer.

And the segment ended with a sentence worth holding onto: “So for now, please no more emails. I’m just saying it’s not necessary.”

The prerequisite

Board member Laurie Herrick asked the only forward-looking question of the night: what, exactly, were the next steps?

The answer set a condition.

That was a reasonable thing to say. Sequencing a disruptive decision behind a district vision is defensible governance.

The District Strategic Plan 2026-2030 was adopted unanimously on July 23.

It is a nineteen-page document built around six core values — care, trust, relationships, belonging, communication and excellence — with six corresponding goals, a monitoring cycle and a five-year roadmap labeled Foundation, Acceleration, Growth, Innovation and Sustainability.

It contains no reference to facilities. Or buildings. Or school capacity. Or enrollment. Or attendance boundaries. Or transportation. Or class size.

We are not saying the plan is deficient; it may never have been intended to address facilities at all. But it was named, on the record, as the thing that had to come first before redistricting could “factor in.” It has now come first. And it does not mention the subject.

Meanwhile, the budget

While all of this was not happening, the district went through one of its hardest budget years.

THE 2026-27 BUDGET, IN NUMBERS

• Total school tax levy: $164,764,220 — up 6.16 percent, about $9.57 million. (That is the increase in the levy, not the tax rate and not the average tax bill.)
• Health benefits rose $7,934,618 on a 22 percent premium increase. Of the levy increase, $6,704,806 is a statutory health-care adjustment.
• Out-of-district special education rose $2,027,781. Transportation rose $973,348.
• State aid went up, by $2,241,042. This was not a state-aid-cut year.
• Even with the full 6.16 percent, roughly $5.59 million still had to be closed — and about $5 million in reductions were adopted, including outsourcing non-certificated staff.
• For scale: shaving one percentage point off the levy increase would take about $1.55 million in recurring annual savings.

Across those budget meetings — the March session that adopted a tentative budget with the full 6.16 percent still leaving a $5.59 million hole, the April sessions, the May public hearing — the superintendent said the district was “already to the bone” and that the next two million would have to come out of personnel.

Elementary redistricting was not raised once.

Then, silence — and here is the part that interests us

Ten Board meetings have passed since February 19. Redistricting has surfaced exactly three times: once as an aside during a transportation budget discussion in March, once as a joke in June, and once in August as a piece of history inside an architect’s presentation about the high school.

The March aside is the closest thing to an official word on the subject:

There was no vote to table it. No resolution postponing it. No new timetable. No document abandoning it. The study was never rejected, because it was never taken up.

And here is the second thing that happened, which we think matters as much as the first.

The residents stopped talking about it too.

The parents who filled the room on February 19 — who had read the maps, checked their own streets, worked out which side of Farms Road Circle was going where — have not raised elementary boundaries in public comment at a single Board meeting since.

That is not a criticism of them. It is, we would argue, the entirely predictable result of how public attention actually works.

Nothing has to be hidden for an issue to disappear. It only has to stop appearing. When a subject drops off agendas, when no new presentation is scheduled, when a promised analysis does not arrive, when officials stop mentioning next steps, when there is nothing to share and nothing to argue with — the issue does not stay at the front of anyone’s mind. Not because people stopped caring. Because there is nothing to care at.

Ask any dentist what happens to the tooth you decide not to look at. It does not get better in the dark. It just stops bothering you, right up until it does.

Nothing has to be hidden for an issue to disappear. It only has to stop appearing.

This has happened before

What makes the current silence worth examining, rather than shrugging at, is that it fits a pattern this town has run through repeatedly.

One more detail in that sequence deserves stating precisely.

The study was originally targeted for September 2025. It was delivered on February 5, 2026. The November 2025 school board election falls inside that gap. Asked about the delay from the podium, Haber gave his reasons on the record: turnover in the administration, “a number of things,” a decision to wait for the October 15 enrollment count — and, in his words, “then with a new board coming in.”

Those are plausible reasons, and nothing in the record says the delay was electoral. What the record shows is that a redistricting study due two months before a school board election arrived three months after it, and that the incoming board was one of the stated reasons.

Now compare the two elections

In September 2025, nine candidates sat in front of a public forum and were asked what they thought about elementary redistricting. Not one of them deflected. They talked about maps that made no sense, about a school of 201 students and a school of 408, about bus routes, about equity between buildings, about the 1983 closures and what they cost. Four of those nine won seats.

They did all of that without the study.

They did not know that every one of the eight elementary schools has island zones. They did not know that a full realignment would move about 854 students, or that it could not be done in stages. They did not know that closing a building had been examined and ruled out, or that the financial question would be left open. All of that arrived on February 5, 2026.

On November 3, East Brunswick will fill three more seats. Six candidates are running: incumbents Antoinette Evola, Timothy Cummings and Laurie Herrick, and challengers Muhammad Saqeeb, Hena Mughal and Heather James-Zuckerman.

As of early September, elementary redistricting has not featured in any published candidate coverage of this race. It is early, and campaigns are entitled to set their own priorities.

But it is a strange thing to watch happen. The town argued about this when it was working from a map and a memory. Now that it has the study everyone said it needed, the subject has largely left the conversation.

Three of these six can speak to that from the inside. They did not simply read about the study — they sat on the Board while it was presented, while the promised analysis was described, while the strategic-plan prerequisite was set and later satisfied, and while the 2026-27 budget was adopted.

Where the six stand, on the public record

What follows is a review of the public record, not a survey. Everything in it comes from recordings of public meetings, approved minutes, and published candidate questionnaires. Where a candidate has spoken about elementary boundaries, we report what they said. Where we found nothing, we say so — and that is a statement about the record, not about the candidate. Two of the six have no prior public position we could locate, which is entirely ordinary and worth knowing.

Each entry ends with the question the record leaves open. A candidate can reasonably oppose redistricting — on grounds of disruption to children, transition costs, the scale of moving 854 students, or a judgment that the educational case has not been made. Changing a position is not a failing either. New evidence is precisely when responsible people sometimes change their minds. What voters need is simply to be able to find out where each of them stands.

1 · Muhammad Saqeeb — Challenger

On the record. We located no public statement by Saqeeb on elementary attendance boundaries. His campaign describes his priorities as including transparency, student support, early education, school facilities and fiscal issues. School facilities is not the same subject as attendance boundaries, and we are not going to read one as the other.

The open question. His position on elementary redistricting is not established in the public record we reviewed. Where does he stand on reopening a districtwide elementary boundary realignment?

2 · Antoinette Evola — Incumbent

On the record · September 2025. At the candidates’ forum, Evola said of the elementary map that “it does not make sense at all.” She read out the 2024 enrollment figures — Lawrence Brook 362, Memorial 408, Bowne-Munro 201, Frost 383 — and said the schools “are not evenly distributed.” Then she raised the question the whole subject turns on: was the imbalance about where families happen to live, “or is it because they’re just being redistricted into the wrong schools because of the way the map was set up? I don’t know.” That, she said, was something the incoming superintendent would have to determine.

What exists now that did not exist then. The study answers substantial parts of what she asked. It documented non-contiguous zones in all eight elementary schools and established that a full realignment would move about 854 students. She has served on the Board since January — through the presentation, the budget and the strategic plan.

The open question. She identified the problem before the study existed. The study now exists. The public record we reviewed does not establish whether that new information changed, strengthened or weakened her position — or whether she believes East Brunswick should now move forward.

3 · Timothy Cummings — Incumbent

On the record. In March 2025 Cummings asked why closing Bowne-Munro and redistricting had been “entirely removed from the proposal,” adding that he was not saying he favored it. In February 2026 he asked the demographer directly what redistricting might save. He was told the study contained no financial analysis.

What exists now that did not exist then. The administration said that night it would build the transportation, staffing and financial models and “apply financial basis to it.” Seven months later, according to our review of the public record, no such analysis has been presented publicly.

The open question. He identified one of the largest unanswered questions himself, and it remains unanswered. The public record does not establish his current position on whether East Brunswick should proceed with elementary redistricting, or whether he believes the Board should now require the analysis he was promised.

4 · Laurie Herrick — Incumbent

On the record. On February 19 Herrick asked the only forward-looking question of the night: what the next steps were. The answer she received was that a strategic plan had to come first, “and then this can factor in.”

What exists now that did not exist then. She voted in July to adopt that strategic plan. The prerequisite she was given has therefore been completed. The plan itself contains no reference to facilities, boundaries, capacity, enrollment or transportation.

The open question. The condition she was told to wait for has been met. The public record we reviewed does not establish her position on elementary redistricting, or whether she believes the discussion should now reopen.

5 · Hena Mughal — Challenger

On the record. We located no public statement by Mughal on elementary attendance boundaries, the district budget or facilities.

The open question. Her position on elementary redistricting is not established in the public record we reviewed. Where does she stand on reopening a districtwide elementary boundary realignment?

6 · Heather James-Zuckerman — Challenger · former board member

On the record · October 2024. In her 2024 candidate questionnaire, James-Zuckerman listed redistricting as a major priority requiring immediate attention. She also identified transportation — contracted buses and route lengths — as the issue that first drew her to the Board. She served as an appointed board member from May to December of that year.

What exists now that did not exist then. She stated that position fifteen months before the study existed. The study has since found that consolidating facilities is not feasible, that a realignment would move about 854 students, and that it contains no financial analysis. Transportation — the area she named — is the one benefit the study calls “positive” and never quantifies.

The open question. She is the only candidate on the ballot for whom we located a documented prior position explicitly calling for redistricting to be addressed. The public record we reviewed does not establish whether the completed study changed, strengthened or weakened that position, or where she stands today.

---

AN OPEN INVITATION. Eyes on EB welcomes a response from any of the six candidates. If a candidate provides a substantive response addressing these questions, we will add it to this article so voters can see their position in their own words.

---

The question that remains

We do not know why this stopped. There are several entirely ordinary explanations, and we would not be surprised by any of them.

Perhaps the administration concluded, quietly and correctly, that a district facing a $7.9 million health-benefit increase had no capacity to also move a third of its elementary children. Perhaps the work is proceeding through committees and administrative planning that has not yet reached a public agenda. Perhaps the strategic plan simply was never meant to carry facilities, and something else now has to come first. Perhaps someone is waiting for the Brunswick Square Mall redevelopment to firm up before drawing any line.

Any of those would be a defensible answer. What is harder to defend is that none of them has been said out loud.

East Brunswick paid for a study. The study documented real problems — island zones in all eight elementary schools, children bused past closer schools, enrollment that is uneven from one building to the next. It was promised a financial analysis to go with it. It set itself a prerequisite and then met it. It raised taxes 6.16 percent and cut $5 million in the same stretch.

And then everyone, including the rest of us, stopped talking about it.

Which brings us back to the part that is hardest to explain.

In the autumn of 2025, this district had no study, no counts, no idea how many children were involved — and elementary redistricting was a question every candidate at a public forum had to answer on the spot. In the autumn of 2026, it has all of that, and the subject has gone quiet in the middle of an election.

More information usually produces more conversation. Here it has produced less.

That does not mean anything was buried. It means something was left. On November 3, three of these six people will inherit it — and East Brunswick is entitled to know what they intend to do with it before it votes, not after.

---

How we reported this. Every fact in this article comes from East Brunswick Board of Education approved minutes, recordings of public Board meetings, the District Strategic Plan 2026-2030, or the certified Middlesex County ballot drawing. The demographer’s full presentation is in the Board’s approved minutes of February 5, 2026, pages 33–65. Meeting recordings are public on the district’s YouTube channel. Where a speaker is quoted from a recording, the speaker has been confirmed against the Board’s roll call or the approved minutes. Candidate positions are reported from the public record only; where we found no public statement, we say so rather than infer one. We found no evidence that this issue was deliberately set aside, and we attribute no motive to any board member, administrator or candidate.