Back in early May, we updated you on Burlington parents’ ongoing fight for accountability and policy change following the administration of the explicit Youth Risk Behavior Survey in March. This survey, which featured questions about sexual activity, drug use, suicide, and other mature topics, was given to students as young as sixth grade – even after their parents had opted them out! Parents were livid, and the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center stepped in to help. The MLLC has now filed three federal complaints on behalf of parents, the story has made national news, and local parents are still pushing hard for change. As of our last update, the Burlington School Committee and Superintendent had gone quiet following the solicitation of an independent investigator. They declined to comment any further or update their survey policy, which they had promised to change, until the investigative report was finished. While the school committee stayed silent and Superintendent Conti kept mum, parents continued to use their voices, speaking up at the May 13th meeting and using their comment time to ask for answers, raise questions about the YRBS’s connection to Lahey Clinic, and draw attention to Dr. Conti’s role as a key organizer of the survey. You can watch those comments here.
We have continued to keep an eye on Burlington, and that’s why we noticed that on May 19th the BPS had quietly uploaded the long-awaited results of the independent investigation to the YRBS page on the district website. This 14-page document, written by Attorney Jeffrey Sankey, was dated May 14th, 2025. You can read the report here.
Neither Dr. Conti nor the Burlington School Committee had released a statement or letter to the parents or community concerning the now-posted investigation, but since during the May 13th meeting School Committee Chair Melissa Massardo said that “Per the advice of our counsel we will not be making any additional statements until (the investigation) is completed,” we expected to see the document on the agenda of the next full school committee meeting, which was to be held on May 27th.
In the meantime, MFI read Attorney Sankey’s report, which went through the timeline of the history of the YRBS in Burlington as well as what happened during the 2025 administration of the survey that led to the controversial survey that talked about sex toys being given to kids as young as 12 (and against some parents’ wishes). It paints a picture of administrative failure at multiple levels. The Wellness Committee failed to give meaningful input when given the opportunity to vet the questions. The Director of Health and Physical Education and the Director of Mental Health were notified by JSI, the survey company, that changes had been made to survey questions and definitions after the original survey was agreed upon (including updating the sexuality-related questions “to be more inclusive”), and they never notified the Wellness Committee or objected to these changes. A middle school assistant principal failed to send the pre-survey script to the teachers. Because this script was not read, some students mistakenly believed they were required to take the survey. These are only a few of the failures and examples of poor practice that contributed to the debacle that ultimately occurred.
Attorney Sankey also made recommendations, including for the full school committee to determine whether or not the district should participate in such surveys, and “for a notice to the public to be made and the opportunity for open discussion to occur.” He also recommended that the school committee consider the pros and cons of an opt-in or opt-out policy, should they decide to continue with the survey.
This report, while useful in some ways, left many unanswered questions. It did not contain any documentation for its claims or conclusions. It referenced many written communications, but did not include those communications. It never says who will be held accountable for these failures, or how. It never explains who approved of JSI’s involvement in the first place, or who created the administrative structure that ultimately failed so badly. In short, Attorney Sankey only answered the questions that the school district paid him to answer.
While waiting for the May 27th meeting, we received a credible report that the Burlington Educators Association, the local teacher’s union, shared during a union meeting that they had received assurances that “once the lawyers have completed their investigation, teachers will be completely exonerated, and no person in admin will be required to resign and no person will lose their job.” They also stated that “Eric is committed to continuing surveys that provide valuable data for our social-emotional services…”. Since it seems Dr. Conti had been communicating internally regarding the survey and the investigation, surely, he would share these same sentiments with the community at the next meeting.
Yet on Thursday May 22nd, the agenda for the May 27th meeting was posted, and Attorney Sankey’s investigation was not on it. The only thing on the agenda related to the YRBS flap was item 8b: “Survey Policy – 1st Reading.” Introducing the policy as a first reading is a violation of the Burlington School Committee’s own policy on policy adoption, which requires that a new policy or policy amendment be put on the agenda as an information item first, “to provide an opportunity for interested parties to react.”
Why didn’t the school committee follow its own policy, which seems even more important given that the issue has been so contentious? And why wasn’t Attorney Sankey’s investigation – the very answers that the district paid to receive, and had claimed would result in future discussion – on the agenda? The outrageous omission of the investigation as a discussion item and the lack of outreach by Dr. Conti about the contents of the investigation sends a clear message: despite his reassuring rhetoric, he has no intention of being transparent with the people of Burlington.
Finally, it was time for the May 27th meeting, and community members were ready once again to raise their voices with public comment. Chair Massardo broke the public comment into multiple sections, with comments on the survey policy only being permitted during the second section. During the first comment section, parents, a student, and a town meeting member called out Dr. Conti for his failure to communicate with the community about the results of the investigation and the academic failures of the district despite its high cost to taxpayers. “There are different kinds of mistakes, and some you don’t get to walk back,” the town meeting member said. Referring to Dr. Conti, he said, “He is ultimately responsible.” See highlights of these comments here.
Paper copies of the proposed survey policy were distributed to those in attendance at the meeting (see below). When the time came for that item on the agenda, Dr. Conti stated that the draft policy was written by Attorney Darren Klein and focuses on an opt-in format. After much discussion, it became clear that of the five school committee members, two support an opt-in policy and three support an opt-out. Per Burlington’s policy adoption policy, a two-thirds vote is necessary to adopt a policy – which means that four school committee members would need to agree before it could move forward. Given the impasse, Chair Massardo suggested that the policy subcommittee hash out a “draft #2.” Committee woman Monaco, who is on the policy subcommittee, said, “Sure, we’ll let Darren do it,” referring to Attorney Klein. “With Darren,” said Chair Massardo, “or like, review with Darren.” With that, the discussion on the proposed policy ended, and no action was taken.
During the second public comment section the parents went on to make strong comments about the survey policy, calling for no more surveys or an opt-in policy, and highlighting again Dr. Conti’s key role in the involvement of JSI and the administration of the survey. See highlights of these public comments here.
What is next for the Burlington School Committee and the YRBS? Further discussion of the survey policy at a future meeting is certain. Based on the vagueness of the next steps discussed, the policy subcommittee should remember that if they are discussing school committee business outside of a public meeting, they would be deliberating with a quorum of that committee, and that would be an open meeting violation. The Burlington school committee, and Dr. Conti, has repeatedly pledged transparency. When it comes to school committee deliberations, the law requires as much. We will be watching to see when the policy subcommittee meeting is posted, and we encourage members of the public to attend when it is. We think the sample policy proposed at the meeting is a step in the right direction, but the public must be privy to any future deliberations and changes.
We also encourage Burlington school committee members, and members of the Burlington community, to visit the Massachusetts Education Resource Center. MERC offers a wide variety of attorney-drafted model policies that are free to download and can be adopted by any MA school committee. This includes a policy that eliminates surveys like the YRBS, and one that requires an opt-in. Members of the public should contact their school committees with recommendations, including suggesting these policies.
Finally, the Burlington school committee must remember their charge. According to their own policy manual, “the Committee is responsible for the development of policy as guides for administrative action, and for employing a Superintendent who will implement its policies.” In short, developing policy is the responsibility of the school committee. So is hiring or firing the superintendent. The school committee must act in good faith, and with public discussion, to pass a policy that protects kids and represents the will of their constituents. And they must hold Dr. Conti accountable for the egregious handling of the YRBS, the violations of federal law, and the failure of his employees to protect the safety and innocence of students.
The public is watching. And they aren’t going away until change comes to Burlington.
We will continue to follow the developments in Burlington and keep you updated on what happens next. MFI also encourages parents across MA to reach out to their districts regarding the YRBS survey and other similar surveys. What happened in Burlington can happen in any city or town that institutes graphic and inappropriate surveys. Find out if your district intends to implement a survey with sensitive topics. If so, opt your child out, and then advocate for a policy that puts a stop to the surveys altogether. If you believe your rights under the PPRA have been violated, contact the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center today by emailing [email protected].
Support MFI’s work to empower Massachusetts parents with a generous gift today!
