SUDBURY — Wednesday night, the entire School Committee of one of Massachusetts' most progressive towns will sit in front of 500 furious parents at a no-confidence vote — and a separate vote on a charter change that, if it passes, would let them be recalled for real.
The committee's chair won't have to take the seat herself: she quietly resigned the chairmanship on Monday, one day before the Boston Globe revealed she had allegedly tried to push out the district's popular superintendent in secret. That story landing — combined with a policy this committee passed last August letting kids as young as four use whatever bathrooms and locker rooms they prefer, and a string of Open Meeting Law complaints she helped generate — has set up one of the wildest Town Meetings in Sudbury's history.
The Sudbury School Committee oversees only K-8 — Sudbury high schoolers attend the separate Lincoln-Sudbury Regional district. The district's youngest students are four years old.
Peter Noyes Elementary in Sudbury, one of three elementary schools in the K-8 district at the center of the revolt.
What the policy actually does
The Gender Identity and Inclusivity Policy, adopted in August 2025, allows students "to join sports teams and use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity," per the Globe's summary. Massachusetts state guidance has called for the same facility access since 2012, so the policy itself is not an outlier — but adopting an explicit local version in a K-8 district that enrolls students as young as four brought the debate home. A more sweeping draft policy that would have mandated gender-identity curriculum for every student plus annual training for every teacher and staff member died 2-3 in June 2025, according to Sudbury Weekly.
A 2017 rally outside Manhattan's Stonewall Inn in support of trans youth. Supporters of policies like Sudbury's argue they affirm students' identities, reduce harm and isolation for a vulnerable population, and meet a duty schools owe every child in the building. Photo by Jere Keys via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).
MASSDAILYNEWS
STAY UPDATED
Get Mass Daily News delivered to your inbox
ADVERTISEMENT · Interested in advertising?
ADVERTISEMENT · Interested in advertising?
The superintendent the public liked
Brad Crozier — the superintendent credited by parents with one of the strongest pandemic recoveries in Massachusetts — is being shoved out the door in June, after eight years on the job and with three years still left on his contract. The School Committee will not say how much it is paying him to leave, citing privacy laws.
According to an Open Meeting Law complaint Burnard filed, then-chair Karyn Jones approached Crozier in January about ending his contract without authorization from the rest of the committee. "If you are not transparent with the public," Burnard said, "it erodes trust within the community, and that's where we are now."
Crozier himself, asked about the no-confidence push, was succinct: "Rarely do we ever see the public take a vote of no confidence except when they turn over the school committee on Election Day."
The chair who filed against her own committee
ADVERTISEMENT · Interested in advertising?
ADVERTISEMENT · Interested in advertising?
The committee has generated open meeting law complaints from multiple directions — two from Sudbury residents last October, Burnard's in January, and one filed in February 2025 by then-chair Jones against her own committee over the handling of an earlier transgender-policy draft.
Jones stepped down as chair on Monday, in what the committee called part of an "annual leadership reorganization." On her way out she defended the board: "Ultimately, we are all volunteers trying to do the best that we can do," she said. Her replacement, Jessica McCready, called the no-confidence push "disheartening" and insisted the board is "pursuing policies sought by families," not running a "rogue special interest committee."
Wednesday's vote
Two petitions are on the warrant for Wednesday's special Town Meeting. Article 4 demands a no-confidence vote against the entire School Committee, citing "potential violations of Massachusetts conflict of interest law (M.G.L. c. 268A) and the Open Meeting Law," "improper use of executive session," and conduct that "placed the interests of the individual Committee members above the educational welfare of Sudbury students." Article 3 would amend the town charter to allow recall elections for the first time. If both pass, the symbolic vote stops being symbolic.
The companion Change.org petition, titled "Stand Up for Students — 01776" after Sudbury's zip code, has gathered 563 signatures since February. It accuses the committee of spending $200,000 on a non-mandated summer camp, cutting roughly $80,000 from academics, failing to pursue $180,000 in Chapter 70 state funding, and pushing a $9 million override with little transparency — alongside the Crozier contract maneuvering done "without formal agenda items, public deliberation, or a recorded vote."
Not everyone is on board. The Select Board majority and the local League of Women Voters both oppose both articles. Select Board chair Lisa Kouchakdjian, leading the no vote: "I've been very disappointed by what I've seen," she said at a recent meeting. "This has caused division in our community. People have been fed misinformation, disinformation, about the [School] Committee ... namely the chair, and unfortunately, in my opinion, for political purposes." By the time the Globe story landed, the chair Kouchakdjian had been defending had quietly stepped down.
Loading Comments