Share This Article
[Disclosure: the author of this story has children in SPS, but does not use any before-school or after-school programs for childcare and has no plans to do so.]
On Tuesday, May 28, the Sudbury Select Board discussed after-school care in Sudbury. Following much discussion and several tense exchanges, no clear path for action or inaction was determined. (49:50)
After-school care has become a discussion for multiple boards and committees in recent months, with the Park and Recreation Commission and the Sudbury Public Schools School Committee (SPS School Committee) having touched on the matter as well. A group of concerned parents has organized to advocate for solutions, and has published survey results in an effort to demonstrate the depth and breadth of the challenges that families are facing. The fundamental issue is a matter of supply and demand: there aren’t enough after-school offerings to meet the demand in Sudbury, and the one existing program that has a contract with SPS (Sudbury Extended Day) doesn’t currently have the capacity to meet the local demand.
During their February 5, 2024 meeting, the school committee members agreed that they didn’t feel after-school care was in their purview. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education guidance makes it clear that school committees have authority in this area: “The Extended School Services Law (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71, Section 26 A-B) permits local school committees to establish and maintain school-age child care programs.”
While the school committee passed the issue off, the Park and Recreation Commission agreed to advocate to the Select Board and Town Manager to form a Town Manager’s Working Group, which could study the after-school challenges in Sudbury and make recommendations.
On Tuesday, the Select Board meeting featured a long and winding discussion among members. Member Lisa Kouchakdjian asked for the topic to be on the agenda and advocated for taking swift action, repeatedly arguing that the Town could put out a bid for a private party to operate a program in the new Fairbank Community Center. That, in her opinion, would leave only a transportation challenge to solve, which she felt was surmountable.
Member Charlie Russo didn’t voice a specific opinion on the issue, opting instead to call for more input and information from Town staff before proceeding further. Similarly, Vice-Chair Dan Carty wanted the board to better define the problem they wanted to solve before talking about solutions. None of the members relied upon the survey results that have been published by Sudbury Parents for After School Solutions.
That survey, though not the official product of the Town or SPS, received hundreds of responses. Nearly 80% of responses indicated that a lack of after-school options could negatively impact them financially, while 68% indicated they would utilize a hypothetical new program either offered by (or contracted by) the Town or SPS. Another 28% said they would consider using such a program.
While all members found ways to empathize with parents dealing with childcare challenges, there was debate about the characterization of the issue in Sudbury as a broader crisis or a personal issue. Member Carty argued that the problem does not fit the definition of a “municipal crisis,” going on to say: “I’m pretty sure that we got from people that this is a town-wide crisis. Okay. I can tell you it’s not town-wide because it doesn’t impact me.“ He noted that he was in a similar situation personally in prior years, and characterized the issue as a “personal thing.” Member Russo noted: “I think if it’s going to be solved, it’s something that can only be solved together. As someone who has two elementary school-aged kids, and who spent a little bit of time not so long ago as a Mr. Mom, I think calling it a personal crisis is fair.” (1:09:30)
The U.S. Department of Labor has characterized the issue as a “childcare crisis” at the national level, and it has broadly been characterized as a crisis in Massachusetts, to the point that lawmakers studied and took action on it in recent years.
Member Dretler called for more communication with Sudbury Public Schools, arguing that nothing can be done without collaboration and conversation with SPS. She suggested having Chair Roberts speak to the Chair of the Sudbury School Committee, Nicole Burnard, and having Town Manager Andy Sheehan speak with Superintendent Brad Crozier. That suggestion was initially rebuffed by Chair Roberts, who indicated that she had already spoken to Burnard. When pressed by Dretler to inform the board about that discussion, Roberts said that it was a high-level conversation just to let the school committee know this topic would be discussed. She later stated that she would prefer to give the school committee time to settle in because they have two new members.
Town Manager Andy Sheehan implored the board not to make any binding decisions on Tuesday, and cautioned against the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to stand up a program. He explained that it would be unwise to use the one-time funds only to kick the can down the road on finding permanent funding for such a program. He also cited the financial challenges he has previously reported the Town will face in future fiscal years, as well as the fact that the Park and Recreation department is understaffed and facing their own operational challenges.
During the discussion, Chair Roberts asked the board not to comment on why the SPS School Committee wasn’t working on after-school care, and to focus only on matters within the purview of the Select Board, but it did not appear that there was an appetite to take on the issue on the Town side either, and even less appetite to move quickly. Chair Roberts suggested that they could discuss the issue again when the board gets to their annual goal setting in the late summer. That would all but ensure that nothing happens before the next school year, though it wouldn’t slam the door shut on some type of action in the future. The next step is for Town Manager Andy Sheehan to provide a memo to the board covering Town staff’s assessment of the scope and nature of the issue in Sudbury. Chair Roberts left it up to the Town Manager to decide when to bring the issue back before the Select Board.
The Select Board discussion didn’t sit well with some advocates for action on after-school care. Some took to the Q&A function on Zoom to voice their opinions in real time during the meeting. Emily Spector, an SPS parent and Sudbury resident who has been advocating for after-school care solutions, told Sudbury Weekly:
“The majority of the board (all but two members) were insistent that lack of after care is an inconvenience, not a crisis. When informed otherwise, and reminded that families are suffering, those same board members were dismissive, and seemed content to table this issue indefinitely. It is frustrating to witness the continued failure to prioritize this issue, despite overwhelming demand from the taxpayers, while true luxuries, such as walking paths, are given adequate attention.”
One apparent point of consensus in the Select Board meeting was that several parties will need to work together in order to come up with an after-school care solution. That would likely include elected officials on multiple boards, as well as Town and SPS leadership. However, none of the relevant committees or administrations have indicated a desire to take a leading role.