Share This Article
By Jessica McCready, Vice-Chair, Sudbury School Committee
I am writing this as an individual member of the Sudbury School Committee and am representing my own views only.
One of the criticisms being lobbied at the School Committee is that they only cater to “special interest” groups such as children in the LGBTQ+ community or children with special needs. They say this because the Committee took substantial steps to better support these students this year. Calling these groups “special interest” is inflammatory and inaccurate. They are federally protected classes. Federally protected classes include race, sex, gender identity, disability, religion and age.
In April 2025, the district presented data to the School Committee regarding student academic achievement and wellbeing in K-8. Data showed that students in the LGBTQ+ community were falling behind academically and felt substantially less belonging than their non-LGBTQ+ peers. Given these data, should the Committee have done nothing? Or should the Committee have worked with the district to find ways to increase student achievement and a sense of inclusion? The Committee chose the latter.
In so doing, the Committee passed the Gender Identity and Inclusivity Policy, Policy JBD, and set up a Parent Advisory Council both of which were vetted with input from teachers, administrators and district leadership. During the discussion and implementation of this work, the Committee experienced extreme push back from a small group of community members. Individuals expressed displeasure in helping a “special interest” group in place of helping “all students.” They said we would lose $800 million of federal funding, even though our overall budget was approximately $47 million. These tactics did not dissuade me from the important work of educational improvement and social belonging. I ran for School Committee expressing support for the Gender Identity and Inclusivity Policy and the PAC and I proudly voted for both after being elected.
Another criticism being lobbed at the Committee is that they are using monies to run a “summer camp” instead of using money for “all students” during the school year. As with most issues there is a nuance here that can’t be captured in a sound bite. This “summer camp” the naysayers spoke of was academic summer programming designed by Sudbury educators for children at risk of significant academic regression over the summer. The Committee stepped in when families asked due to the very late announcement of the change in programming from the past 5 years.
Do these two instances constitute the Committee catering to “special interest” groups? No. But they do show that the Committee is committed to creating policies and environments that allow our students to thrive. I have received comments that parents “finally feel like they have a Committee that has their students’ best interests at heart.”
These two instances are not the only examples where the Committee worked to enhance student achievement and belonging. Families asked for the Committee to combat anti-Semitism, leading the Committee to set up an Anti-Hate/Anti-Bias Task Force which will meet shortly for the first time. Other examples include the Committee’s work on digital technology, reviewing implementation of new ELA curriculum, etc. A full list can be found in the At a Glance Newsletter below which details the Committee’s accomplishments this year.
Let’s use the correct terminology and stop pitting one group of students against the other. Sudbury Public Schools are at their best when we come together to increase student success. I welcome community feedback on policies and steps to create equity for any student and to ensure that each group has what they need to thrive at SPS.