A discussion about East Brunswick’s literacy program became one of the more notable moments of the June 4 Board of Education meeting, as a parent’s concerns about her daughter’s reading development prompted additional questions from Board President Marianne Tanious about how struggling readers are monitored and supported throughout the school year.

The exchange highlighted a topic that has become a major focus for the district: how students who fall below benchmark levels are identified, assessed, and provided interventions.

District Outlines Literacy Rollout

Earlier in the meeting, Assistant Superintendent of Academics Dr. Joyce Boley provided an update on the district’s literacy initiatives and the phased implementation of new reading programs.

The district’s literacy rollout began with kindergarten through second grade and will continue expanding over the next two school years. Plans call for CKLA implementation in grades three through five next year, with a full K-8 literacy rollout expected the following year.

District officials also discussed additional instructional support, teacher training, classroom coaching, and progress-monitoring procedures intended to improve literacy outcomes.

A Parent’s Frustration

During Good of the Cause, a concerned East Brunswick parent addressed the board, expressing frustration with her daughter’s reading progress.

According to the parent, her daughter scored below the benchmark in September and remained below it throughout the year, despite repeated concerns raised by the family.

The parent said she had been advocating for her daughter since the fall and recently learned that her child was reading at a first-grade phonics level despite being a third-grade student preparing to enter fourth grade.

“What concerns me the most is that these assessments were not administered until May 22,” the parent told the board.

She questioned why phonics assessments were not conducted earlier, after screening results indicated concerns related to decoding and reading skills.

The parent also questioned how students who remain below benchmark throughout the school year are monitored and what accountability exists when interventions do not produce the desired results.

Board President Seeks Clarification

Following the parents’ comments, Board President Marianne Tanious asked Dr. Boley several follow-up questions regarding student assessments, intervention timelines, and progress monitoring.

Tanious asked whether student data from fall screenings was reviewed and acted upon when students initially fell below benchmark levels and whether assessments were conducted again later in the year.

Boley explained that reading specialists continuously monitor student growth, develop intervention plans based on individual student needs, and regularly review student progress throughout the year.

“The reading specialists are constantly monitoring student growth,” Boley said.

Tanious continued to press for additional details on how frequently progress is reviewed and whether there are established metrics for monitoring student growth.

When asked whether there was a set metric and timeline for monitoring progress, Boley responded that it depends on the assessment tool used, the intervention provided, and the specific student needs being addressed.

Tanious then asked whether the board could receive additional information regarding those monitoring metrics.

“Can the board see what that metric is?” she asked.

“Certainly,” Boley responded.

A More Standardized Process Next Year

One of the key points discussed during the exchange was how progress monitoring will evolve as the district’s literacy rollout continues.

Boley noted that while reading specialists currently assess and monitor students on an ongoing basis, the district expects the process to become more standardized as the new literacy program is implemented.

According to district officials, students who fall below benchmark levels will continue to receive monitoring and interventions, while new procedures are expected to provide greater consistency across schools and grade levels.

A Continuing Focus

The district’s literacy initiative remains one of the greatest academic efforts currently underway in East Brunswick schools.

Throughout the presentation, administrators discussed curriculum implementation, reading assessments, instructional coaching, professional development, and plans to provide regular updates to the Board of Education.

The June 4 discussion demonstrated that while new curriculum programs and instructional initiatives are important, many parents remain focused on a more immediate question:

How quickly are struggling readers identified, and what happens once concerns are raised?

Eyes On EB is built and run by Five Star SEO, a local marketing agency focused on real visibility.

During Good of the Cause at the June 4 East Brunswick Board of Education meeting, East Brunswick Education Foundation Chairman Jack Levitt delivered both praise and a warning.

Levitt began by congratulating the Board of Education for what he described as a dramatic turnaround over the past year.

“You went from being disorganized with infighting to a cohesive, productive, engaged board that makes great decisions and that’s earned the community’s trust,” Levitt said.

But after praising the board’s progress, he shifted to a concern he believes could threaten that trust.

His comments centered on an issue that extends far beyond East Brunswick: Should school board members publicly express their personal beliefs, political affiliations, and support for causes, or should they remain publicly neutral in order to represent the entire community?

A Board Built on Trust

Levitt argued that the board’s recent success is rooted in public confidence.

“I believe it was able to happen because the community selected members of the board they trust would represent all the students in our schools regardless of race, religion, neurodiversity, political affiliation, etc.,” he said.

That statement serves as the foundation for the rest of his argument.

According to Levitt, school board members occupy a unique position. Unlike officials elected to partisan offices, they are responsible for making decisions that affect every student, parent, teacher, and taxpayer in the district.

Because of that, he believes they should hold themselves to a different standard.

What Behaviors Concerned Him?

Levitt did not mention any board member by name, nor did he reference any specific social media post.

Instead, he spoke broadly about public behavior that he believes can create perceptions of favoritism or bias.

“That means that as board members you need to abstain from a lot of behaviors,” Levitt said.

He specifically mentioned:

• Endorsing political candidates
• Posting signs for candidates
• Appearing with candidates on social media
• Showing outward support at cultural events

His concern was not necessarily about the private beliefs of board members.

Rather, it was about what happens when those beliefs become public.

The Discussion Went Beyond Politics

While much of Levitt’s remarks focused on political endorsements and social media activity, he also spoke about cultural representation.

In addition to mentioning political candidates and campaign activity, Levitt referenced “showing outward support at cultural events” and later suggested that board members should be cautious about appearing to advocate for some groups while failing to show support for others.

That broadened the conversation beyond partisan politics.

East Brunswick is one of New Jersey’s most diverse communities. Residents come from a wide range of religious, cultural, ethnic, and political backgrounds. In recent years, national and international events have sparked difficult conversations in communities across the country, including discussions surrounding Israel, Palestine, antisemitism, Islamophobia, cultural identity, and representation.

Levitt never specifically referenced any particular group or event. However, his comments touched on a question many communities continue to face: How should public officials engage with cultural causes and community groups while still maintaining the confidence of the entire community?

For some residents, attending cultural events is simply part of being an engaged community leader. For others, those appearances can sometimes be interpreted as taking sides.

That appears to be the concern Levitt was expressing.

The Difference Between Private Beliefs and Public Trust

One of the most striking parts of Levitt’s remarks was his distinction between private opinions and public actions.

“Regardless of what your private beliefs are, I’m concerned that some of this trust may be coming into jeopardy,” he said.

He went on to say that recent social media activity had caused some residents to question the objectivity of certain board members.

“Without going into details, there have been recent posts on social media that have caused concern for members of the community that there are board members who in showing political support have made other community members question their objectivity.”

That statement gets to the heart of his concern.

The issue, in his view, is not whether board members are entitled to personal beliefs. The issue is whether publicly displaying those beliefs affects how the community views their ability to represent everyone equally.

Are School Board Members Different From Other Elected Officials?

Perhaps the strongest statement in Levitt’s remarks was this:

“Unlike most elected offices, the Board of Education is not political.”

That idea may sound obvious to some people and controversial to others.

School boards oversee budgets, facilities, curriculum, staffing, transportation, and student services. They are not legislative bodies and do not pass laws.

Yet in recent years, school boards across the country have increasingly found themselves at the center of debates involving politics, culture, religion, curriculum, public health, and identity.

Some residents believe school board members should remain above those debates whenever possible.

Others argue that elected officials should be transparent about their beliefs and values because voters have a right to know where they stand.

Levitt clearly falls into the first camp.

Should Board Members Keep Their Personal Beliefs Private?

Levitt did not leave much ambiguity on that point.

“It’s critical that any board members keep their private beliefs to themselves,” he said.

That statement raises a larger question that many communities continue to wrestle with.

Is it realistic to expect elected officials to keep their personal beliefs private?

Board members are not only public officials. They are also residents, parents, voters, volunteers, and community members.

They attend events, support causes, participate in civic organizations, and maintain social media accounts.

Many would argue that they should not be expected to stop expressing opinions simply because they were elected to office.

Others would argue that once someone accepts the responsibility of governing a school district, certain sacrifices come with the position.

Levitt’s comments suggest he believes public neutrality is one of those sacrifices.

The Argument for Neutrality

Supporters of Levitt’s viewpoint would likely argue that public trust matters just as much as actual decision-making.

Even if a board member is completely fair and objective, public displays of political or cultural support may create doubts among families who disagree with those positions.

The concern is not necessarily bias itself.

The concern is the appearance of bias.

A parent who sees a board member publicly supporting one political candidate, movement, organization, or cultural cause may begin to wonder whether that official can fairly represent families who hold different views.

For those who agree with Levitt, avoiding those situations altogether is the best way to preserve trust.

The Argument Against Neutrality

Others would likely see the issue very differently.

They would argue that school board members do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they are elected.

Like any citizen, they have the right to support candidates, attend events, express opinions, and participate in public life.

Some would argue that transparency is actually beneficial because it allows voters to understand what elected officials believe rather than forcing them to hide those beliefs.

Under that view, the problem is not that board members have opinions.

The problem would only arise if those opinions affected their official decisions.

A Closing Challenge

Levitt ended his remarks with perhaps his strongest statement of the evening.

“Board members, if it’s important enough to advocate for some groups over others, or to not show support for certain cultures, maybe being on the Board of Education is not the best place for you to be serving your community.”

It was a direct challenge, but also a reflection of how seriously he views the role of a school board member.

A Debate Without an Easy Answer

No discussion followed Levitt’s comments.

Board members listened and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

But his remarks touched on a question that many communities continue to face.

Should school board members publicly endorse candidates, causes, and movements?

Should they remain neutral in public while serving in office?

Can elected officials fully separate their personal beliefs from their public responsibilities?

And perhaps most importantly, what matters more: the right of an elected official to express personal beliefs, or the public’s confidence that every student and family is represented equally?

Reasonable people can disagree on the answer.

What is clear is that Levitt believes trust is one of the Board of Education’s most valuable assets, and that protecting it requires a level of restraint that many other elected officials may never be asked to practice.

We queued this part up for you.

EAST BRUNSWICK, NJ — The question facing East Brunswick Public Schools is no longer just where ninth graders should go to school.

It is now a much larger question: Should the district spend millions to move existing classroom units, tens of millions to build a new ninth-grade wing, or eventually ask taxpayers to support a new high school that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars?

That conversation moved into public view during the June 4 Board of Education meeting, where district officials reviewed several possible options for bringing ninth graders onto the East Brunswick High School campus.

No vote was taken. No final decision was made. Officials repeatedly stressed that this was an early public discussion, not an action item.

But the numbers were big enough to make the discussion hard to ignore.

The district reviewed two options for moving the TCUs, or Temporary Classroom Units, from Churchill Junior High School to the high school campus. The estimated cost: about $11 million.

A separate option would build a new Ninth Grade Academy attached to the high school. The estimated construction cost: about $45 million to $49 million before soft costs, professional fees, permits, contingencies, and possible renovations to the existing building.

And hanging over the entire conversation was the biggest option of all: a new high school, which was discussed as a project that could fall somewhere between $325 million and $350 million in hard costs, with the understanding that any project of that size would likely require a bond referendum.

In other words, East Brunswick is not simply debating trailers, classrooms, or a wing.

It is debating the high school’s future.

Why Ninth Grade Is Still at Churchill

East Brunswick has long operated differently from many districts in New Jersey. Ninth graders attend Churchill Junior High School instead of East Brunswick High School.

That means students who are technically high school freshmen are not physically part of the high school campus.

During the meeting, board members and administrators discussed how that affects students academically, socially, and emotionally. Several comments focused on the idea that freshmen lose out on part of the high school experience by not being in the building with grades 10 through 12.

The concerns included access to electives, clubs, athletics, upperclassmen, high school teachers, and the daily rhythm of being part of the high school environment.

One point raised was that when East Brunswick students arrive at the high school in 10th grade, they are still learning how to navigate a new building, new teachers, new routines, and new expectations. Meanwhile, students in many other districts have already spent a full year adjusting to high school life.

That creates what some board members described as a disadvantage.

The issue is not only emotional or social. It also touches academics, rankings, and reporting. East Brunswick’s setup is unusual compared with a traditional 9-12 high school model, and district leaders discussed how that can affect the way the high school is viewed in certain ranking systems and performance measures.

The $80,000 Shuttle Problem

There is also a practical cost to keeping freshmen at Churchill.

The district discussed the cost of transporting students between Churchill and the high school for athletics and activities. The estimate mentioned during the meeting was approximately $80,000 per year for shuttle transportation.

That may be small compared with the larger construction numbers discussed, but it is still real money being spent each year because freshmen are separated from the main high school campus.

It also creates a daily inconvenience for students. Freshmen involved in sports or high school activities have to move between buildings, catch shuttles, and sometimes lose time that other students in traditional high schools do not lose.

For students, that can mean less time at practice, less time with teammates, and less connection to the high school culture.

For the district, it is another example of how the current setup has ongoing costs beyond the obvious classroom space issue.

Option One and Option Two: Move the TCUs to the High School

The first two options discussed involve moving the existing TCUs from Churchill to the high school campus.

The district owns the TCUs. Officials made clear that these are not simply old trailers. They are classroom structures with bathrooms, administrative space, meeting rooms, data infrastructure, and other school functions.

One option would place the TCUs in a straight line on the high school property. Another option would split them into different sections near the building.

Both options would require much more than picking up the units and dropping them somewhere else.

The district would need to run new utilities, including water, sewer, electric, and technology connections. Fencing and gates would also be needed to keep students safe as they move between the main building and the classroom units, especially with traffic around the high school.

The district would also have to restore the area at Churchill after the TCUs are removed. That means removing or capping the infrastructure installed when the units were placed there.

The estimated cost for either relocation option was about $11 million.

That number does not come with an identified funding source. Officials said there is no money currently set aside for the move, meaning the district would have to determine how to pay for it if the board chose that path.

The timeline is also a major issue.

Officials said the TCUs could not be moved in time for this September. Even under an ideal scenario, with funding, approvals, permits, and site work all moving smoothly, the district would likely be looking at an 18-month process. That would make September 2027 the earliest realistic target.

The Problem With an $11 Million Temporary Fix

The TCU option has one obvious advantage: it gets ninth graders onto the high school campus faster than building a new high school.

But it also has a major drawback.

It does not fix the high school.

During the meeting, officials and board members repeatedly came back to the same point. Moving the TCUs would bring freshmen onto the campus, but it would not solve the existing building’s aging infrastructure, crowded cafeteria, gym limitations, classroom conditions, roof issues, plumbing concerns, or hallway space.

It would solve one problem while leaving many others in place.

That is the heart of the debate.

Is spending $11 million worth it if it improves the freshman experience but does not address the deeper high school facility issues?

Or would it be throwing good money into a temporary solution when the district may eventually need a much larger high school project anyway?

Those are the kinds of questions the board appeared to be wrestling with.

Option Three: Build a Ninth Grade Academy

The third option discussed was building a new Ninth Grade Academy attached to the high school.

The concept presented was much larger than just a classroom wing. The proposed structure would be approximately 83,000 square feet and could include classrooms, a media center, a gym, an auditorium, and an expanded cafeteria.

That would do more than simply move freshmen to campus. It would add significant new instructional and student life space.

But the cost would also be much higher.

The preliminary estimate discussed was approximately $45 million to $49 million for construction alone.

That figure does not include soft costs, professional fees, Department of Education fees, permit fees, contingencies, or renovations to the existing high school.

That distinction matters. A project that starts at $45 million to $49 million in hard construction costs can grow once the full project budget is built out.

There was also discussion about whether a Ninth Grade Academy would make sense if the district is still considering a new high school in the future.

One of the clearest points made during the meeting was that if the district decides it is going to build a new high school, it probably would not make sense to first spend roughly $50 million building a separate Ninth Grade Academy.

That would be a major investment in a building that may not fit into the long-term plan.

Would a Ninth Grade Academy Really Be Just for Ninth Grade?

Another question raised during the meeting was whether it even makes sense to call the proposed addition a Ninth Grade Academy.

At the high school level, students are not always separated neatly by grade. Depending on classes, electives, levels, and programs, students in grades 10, 11, and 12 may share courses.

Some board members questioned whether the district should be trying to isolate ninth graders in a separate academy or fully integrate them into the high school.

That question matters because the goal is not just to physically move freshmen. The goal is to give them a true high school experience.

If ninth graders are moved to campus but kept mostly separate, some may ask whether the district has fully solved the problem or simply changed its location.

The Current High School Is the Bigger Issue

The most important part of the June 4 discussion may not have been the TCUs or the Ninth Grade Academy.

It may have been the condition of East Brunswick High School itself.

The current high school was built in 1958, with additions over the years. Much of the building is decades old, and board members discussed whether it still fits the needs of modern students.

Concerns raised during the meeting included roof leaks, aging plumbing, outdated classrooms, old furniture, HVAC problems, limited cafeteria space, gym limitations, and hallways that may not be ideal for the current student population.

The phrase “leaky season” came up during the discussion, referring to water problems during heavy rain. Board members discussed buckets in the building and concerns about what repeated leaks mean for students, staff, and the long-term condition of the facility.

District officials said leaks are investigated and environmental consultants are brought in when needed.

Still, the broader point remained: the building is aging, and the district is facing decisions that go beyond one grade level.

The high school is not just old because of its age. It was designed for a different era of education.

Students today use laptops, modern science equipment, collaborative spaces, specialized programs, and different instructional models than students did in the 1950s, 60s, or even 90s.

Board members described classrooms with old-style desks, limited space, and layouts that do not always match how students learn today.

That makes the ninth grade discussion part of a much bigger facilities conversation.

The Roof, the Pipes, and the Cost of Waiting

One of the most striking parts of the discussion was the question of whether the district should keep investing in repairs to the current high school or begin planning for something larger.

Roof work alone was discussed as a major expense. Plumbing was also mentioned, including past issues that forced the district to dig up parts of the building.

The problem with aging buildings is that costs do not usually disappear. They grow.

A roof can be patched. Pipes can be repaired. HVAC units can be replaced one section at a time. But each repair raises the same question: is the district maintaining a building that still has decades of useful life, or delaying the inevitable?

That is not an easy question.

Repairing the current high school may cost less in the short term. But if the building ultimately needs to be replaced or dramatically renovated, smaller fixes may become part of a larger financial puzzle.

On the other hand, a new high school would be one of the largest public investments East Brunswick residents have ever been asked to consider.

The New High School Question

The discussion eventually turned to what a new high school could cost and how it could be funded.

A district official said a project of that size could not be paid for out of the operating budget. It would require a bond referendum.

Hard costs for a new high school were discussed in the range of approximately $325 million to $350 million. The district also discussed the possibility that the full referendum amount may not necessarily have to equal the entire project cost if other funding sources were available.

But officials were also clear that finding outside funding at that scale would be difficult.

State support was discussed, but there was no clear commitment or simple funding path presented. Officials mentioned that some districts receive major state support through mechanisms that are not available in the same way to districts like East Brunswick.

That means any serious new high school plan would likely require a major local funding discussion, and ultimately taxpayer approval.

That is why the board is now looking at other options.

The TCU move may be expensive, but it is far less than a new high school.

The Ninth Grade Academy may be expensive, but it is also far less than a new high school.

The challenge is deciding whether those smaller options are smart stepping stones or costly detours.

Three Bad Options?

At one point in the meeting, the discussion seemed to arrive at an uncomfortable reality: every option has drawbacks.

Moving the TCUs could cost around $11 million and still leave the existing high school’s problems largely untouched.

Building a Ninth Grade Academy could cost $45 million to $49 million before additional expenses and may not make sense if the district later moves toward a new high school.

Building a new high school could address the larger problem, but the price tag could reach hundreds of millions of dollars and would likely require a bond referendum.

Doing nothing is also a choice, but it comes with its own costs. Freshmen remain at Churchill. Shuttle transportation continues. The high school continues to age. Repairs continue. The long-term question remains unanswered.

That may be the hardest part of the issue.

There does not appear to be a cheap option. There may only be different levels of expensive.

What Happens to the TCUs?

Another important question is what happens to the TCUs if the district moves forward with a different plan.

Because the district owns them, they remain an asset. Officials discussed several possible uses if they are no longer needed for ninth grade classrooms.

They could potentially be used for community programs, early learning, administrative offices, or other district needs. There was also discussion about whether they could eventually be sold if the district no longer needs them.

That matters because the TCUs are not disposable. They have value.

But officials also warned against making a short-term decision that the district may regret later. Once the TCUs are sold, they cannot simply be brought back.

That is another reason the board is trying to connect the ninth grade discussion to a broader strategic plan.

The Five-Year Temporary Classroom Issue

The district also discussed the state approval process for temporary classroom units.

TCUs are approved by the state for five-year periods, and extensions must be requested if they continue to be used. Officials said they were not aware of districts being denied extensions, but the expectation is that temporary units are tied to a longer-term plan.

That is important because the TCUs were originally connected to the idea that the district would eventually move forward with a larger high school solution.

Years later, that larger solution has not happened.

The June 4 meeting made clear that the district is now trying to restart that conversation in public.

The Budget Reality

This discussion is happening at a difficult time for school districts across New Jersey.

East Brunswick, like many districts, has been dealing with budget pressure, rising costs, special education expenses, health benefit costs, transportation costs, staffing needs, and facility demands.

That makes the high school question even more complicated.

A district may need a new building, but needing one and being able to pay for one are two different things.

Board members appeared aware that any major plan will have to be explained clearly to residents. Taxpayers will want to know not only what the district wants to build, but why, how much it will cost, what alternatives were considered, and what happens if the district waits.

That may be the real purpose of this early discussion: putting the options on the table before the district commits to a direction.

What Residents Should Watch Next

The June 4 meeting did not settle the future of ninth grade in East Brunswick.

But it did give residents a clearer view of the choices ahead.

The key questions now are:

Should East Brunswick spend approximately $11 million to move the TCUs to the high school campus?

Should it spend tens of millions more to build a new Ninth Grade Academy?

Should it move toward a full new high school referendum?

Should it continue repairing the existing building while delaying a larger decision?

And perhaps most importantly, what is the long-term plan?

Residents should expect more discussion in the months ahead. Any serious option will require more detailed planning, updated cost estimates, funding discussions, architectural review, and public input.

For now, the board has not chosen a path.

But the June 4 discussion made one thing clear: East Brunswick’s ninth grade problem is no longer just about ninth grade.

It is about the future of the high school, the condition of one of the township’s most important public buildings, and how much the community is willing to invest in the next generation of students.