Share This Article
The Sudbury Public Schools School Committee (SPSSC) has a documented policy for developing new district policies, but the Monday, June 16 meeting of the committee featured a long, circular discussion about what “process” the committee is supposed to follow when developing new policies.
At issue were two policy matters —a gender identity policy and two policies pertaining to the Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC). The gender identity policy has been subject to significant debate about process and procedure since late 2024. The SEPAC policies were caught up in the controversy, but were not a focal point.
During the June 16 meeting, there wasn’t much specific discussion of the committee’s own policy—Policy BGB—which lays out a process for policy adoption. Instead, members voiced support for the gender identity policy in concept, all while questioning if it had been prematurely elevated to the full committee for deliberation, and if sufficient public input had been provided, all based on individual member preferences, and interpretations of varied precedents set by the committee in prior years.
SPSSC Chair Karyn Jones explained the three-step process laid out in policy BGB (below), and indicated that the agenda items were merely a matter of deciding if the full committee wanted to restart work on these policies, but a litany of procedural concerns were voiced throughout the discussion by members Mandy Sim, Nicole Burnard and Vice Chair Jessica McCready.
Superintendent Brad Crozier jumped into the fray to suggest that the committee allow for staff feedback on the gender identity policy. He suggested that input from clinical staff could generate insights for the committee. (2:27:10) Crozier added that gathering staff feedback was standard practice, but Chair Jones and Vice Chair Jessica McCready questioned that claim. Crozier claimed that staff input was part of prior policy work, but did not establish that it was standard practice for all policies.
Under prior committee leadership, and with involvement from Superintendent Crozier, the district changed Policy JFABG, regarding Enrollment of Children of Non-Resident Employees, to eliminate the opportunity for non-DESE licensed Sudbury Public School staff from sending their children to Sudbury Public Schools. Staff offered public comment after the policy change was adopted by the committee in May of 2024, lambasting what they perceived as a lack of transparency regarding the policy changes. It does not appear that staff input was gathered for that policy change, which directly impacted employment benefits for staff. Members Mandy Sim and Nicole Burnard were serving on the committee at the time and did not raise concerns about the process used for that policy change, or any of the dozens of policy changes made at that meeting. (7:00 below, page 43 here)
With regard to the SEPAC policy, Member Mandy Sim argued that she was hoping for a fuller discussion about which policies the committee would work on in the year ahead before dealing with any specific policies that didn’t come as recommendations from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC). That requirement is not included in the committee’s policy development policy, and Sim did not raise the same concerns when the committee amended the policy regarding enrollment of children of non-resident employees last year.
The committee chair at the time, Nicole Burnard, confirmed in a December 3, 2024 email to Sudbury Weekly that the change to that policy did not come from an MASC recommendation. Burnard told Sudbury Weekly “The update to Policy JFABG was not a MASC policy update. Policy JFABG was an existing SPS policy updated last May to align with current practice.”
The committee had agreed, at their last meeting, to have a broader discussion about policy priorities in a future meeting. Chair Jones argued that these two policy initiatives were unresolved components of last year’s policy work, not new policy work, and that she was just trying to determine if the committee wanted to finish the work on them or not.
It appeared throughout the discussion, based on member comments, that the policies at-hand had majority support from the committee, but interpretations of the policy development process and procedures varied significantly from one member to the next.
A vote by the committee to send the gender identity policy to legal counsel for review failed two in favor and three opposed. The committee resolved to hear any staff feedback that Superintendent Crozier could gather by their July meeting, at which time they may vote to make further edits and/or advance the gender identity policy to legal review. The SEPAC policy will also come back for further deliberation at a future meeting, based on a straw poll of the committee that was conducted by Chair Jones at the end of the policy discussion. (3:22:30)
