Massachusetts Informed Parents: Articles

Download the MA 3Rs lessons

The first example is the Sex Ed Lecture Series, a limited offering of on-demand webinars for MA educators and school employees. While the online form no longer includes the list of the lectures since registration is full, our archived version below clearly demonstrates that at least one, likely more, of the sessions promoted gender ideology.

Note: the red highlights throughout this post are ours, for emphasis.

Now, a bit about the Sex Ed Lecture Series. Parents should know that regardless of whether or not one of these trainings talks about gender ideology - which was the focus of the HHS letter - anything put out by this organization is likely to be driven by progressive ideology and will contain views at odds with those of many MA families. The Founder and President of Sex Ed Lecture Series, Bill Tavener, was the Executive Director of The Center for Sex Education at Planned Parenthood for almost three decades. His organization collaborates with Partners for Sex Education, a highly-political organization that has consulted on curriculum in many MA school districts. We’ve talked about them before here. Hearing the names of organizations like Partners for Sex Education and Sex Ed Lecture Series should raise immediate red flags for moms and dads who don’t want outside voices pushing radical agendas into their children’s classrooms. Finding out what consultants have their hands in your district’s curriculum development is an important stone for parents turn over.

However, the second training we have highlighted, which is really a group of trainings, is much worse.

DESE has partnered with the progressive activists at Advocates for Youth (AFY) to provide a long list of PD trainings on topics including gender identity, and they are using federal PREP funds to pay for it.

The registration link on the DESE page takes you to this page from the AFY website:

The page references three main training areas promoted by DESE and AFY: “Partnering with Families on Conversations about Gender Identity in Schools,” a “3Rs Scope & Sequence Training,” and “PREP Priority Topic Trainings.” Teachers can also sign up for Virtual Avatar PD, where they practice answering tough questions from virtual students and receive direct coaching from AFY staff. The PREP Priority Topic Trainings includes a training called “Understanding Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation,” designed to “help school professionals” learn to address gender identity and sexual orientation “in their lessons and weave them throughout their materials,” in alignment with the CHPE Framework.

We’ve talked about DESE’s Comprehensive Health and Physical Education Framework, or CHPE Framework, before. Approved in 2023, the CHPE Framework employs a CSE approach to sex ed, in addition to health and physical education standards. Because CSE goes far beyond matters of reproduction and contraception, and includes other topics such as gender identity even for young students, the CHPE Framework does too.

To see concrete examples of this, we need look no further than one of AFY’s trainings for MA teachers also listed on this page: the “3Rs Scope and Sequence Training.”

Rights, Respect, Responsibility, or the 3Rs for short, is AFY’s K-12 school sex ed curriculum. The 3Rs is one of the most graphic sex ed curricula available today, and is especially appealing to MA school districts because it can be accessed for free on the AFY website. We have been alerting parents to this dangerous curriculum since before the CHPE was approved, and the 3Rs is at the center of the opt out movement in Worcester Public Schools, where thousands of students now opt out of sex ed every year because of the graphic and inappropriate lessons it contains.

But AFY has gone farther than simply making their lessons available online, should MA school districts choose to use them. They have created their own Massachusetts Adapted 3Rs Lessons Recommended Scope and Sequence, which they make available online at the link in the 3Rs Scope and Sequence Training registration.

You can click on that link here. The link opens to a google drive folder that contains the MA Adapted 3Rs Lessons Recommended Scope and Sequence below, along with all of the lesson plans and other materials that go along with the recommended lessons.

(Note: the google drive folder that contains these documents belongs to AFY, but we have archived all of the material provided in it as of time of publication. If they alter the contents of the folder or deactivate the link, we will upload a copy of everything it contained here. Please notify us if you notice that their link is no longer working, or does not contain all of the lessons listed above.)

Before we talk about the content of these lessons, there’s something that MA residents should note right at the top. Under the title of the document it says, “Opt-Out lessons are highlighted in yellow, according to MA law.” When reviewing the document, you will notice that only 14 of the 67 lessons are highlighted. According to this, AFY is telling MA school districts that they only have to honor parental opt outs for 20% of their lessons! If that was true, MA parents would not be able to opt out of lessons about gender identity (except for one - make it make sense!), puberty, role giving sexual consent (including role plays), and sexual orientation, amongst others. We don’t agree with AFY’s interpretation of the MA sex ed opt out law, which allows parents to opt students out of “curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues.” And it certainly does not align with last summer’s US Supreme Court decision, Mahmoud v. Taylor, which allows a much broader opt out for religious parents based on their First Amendment rights. If your child attends a MA school and you are told that you can’t opt out of lessons like these - push back! To learn more about your opt out rights, read our article below.

Now, back to the 3Rs lessons being recommended to MA teachers. While the majority of these lessons contain elements that many parents would object to, we are only going to highlight a few examples include the topic that HHS has forbidden in PREP grant funded programs: gender identity. We encourage readers to review the rest of the lessons themselves, here.

Pink, Blue, and Purple: Grade 1
This lesson, selected to align with CHPE standard 2.3.HR.7: “Discuss gender-role stereotypes and their potential impacts on people of all genders,” actually introduces first graders to the idea of transgenderism. In fact, as you’ll see in the sample section below, being able to define “gender identity” is one of the primary learning objectives of the lesson.

The lesson takes a topic that many parents would agree with (that gender roles can be flexible) and uses it as a way to introduce a topic that most parents don’t want their first-graders to be taught (that a boy might really be a girl on the inside). Not only is this unfair to parents, who might not know what the lesson contains just by the title, it’s dangerous for children who are just learning to grasp reality and are now being lied to about a core part of their identity: what it means to be a boy or a girl.

View the whole lesson here.

Thinking Outside the (Gender) Box: Grade 4

This lesson is selected to align with three different CHPE standards, 5.3.HR.9, 5.3.HR.10, and 5.6.SH.4, all of which pertain to gender identity. The lesson requires direct instruction on gender identity and introduces terms like “cisgender,” “transgender,” and “gender nonbinary.” Students are forced to participate in a “Go Fish”-style matching game to ensure term comprehension. See the sample pages below.

As the sample pages and selection of Go Fish cards demonstrate, it is impossible for a student to escape the indoctrination in this lesson (and yet AFY erroneously claims that this lesson does not fall under the MA opt out law, which is why parents must object if their opt out is denied).

To view the rest of the lesson and the remainder of the Go Fish cards, click here.

Being a Sex Ed Sleuth - Grade 5

This lesson meets CHPE standard 5.6.SH.1: “Identify characteristics of valid health information, products, and services related to human sexual and reproductive anatomy, puberty, and personal hygiene.” This standard doesn’t mention gender identity at all, yet as the highlights below demonstrate, the topic is present. Yet that is not the only problem we found with this lesson. Aside from the very obvious fact that instructing 10-year olds to seek out information about sex and genitalia online as this lesson does is a bad idea, it also contains other shocking elements that demonstrate the anti-religious bias present in the 3Rs and clearly show how children can be sexualized when the adults in the room place agenda over common sense.

The lesson starts with asking the teacher to ensure that three specific websites are not blocked by the school’s filters. It also gives a reminder about the importance of using “gender neutral” language - an example of how even when a lesson isn’t about gender ideology, it’s still about gender ideology.

The lesson then goes on to introduce a powerpoint presentation. The presentation will teach students how to “find reliable online sources for sexuality-related information - and how you can determine how some sources aren’t particularly interested in getting you the information you need!”

The powerpoint, which you can see in its entirety here, tells us what kinds of sources AFY wants kids to seek out online - and what they don’t.

First, they want kids to look for a website that “believes” that 5th graders “have a right to info about sexuality.”

Then they want to make sure the kids haven’t accidentally stumbled onto a (gasp!) website that presents a religious view of human sexuality, or a website that only gives objective information on human anatomy. To find out if the website meets their standards, they instruct kids to “check out the links” on the website to see if it is linked to other health-related sites.

After that, they instruct students to judge whether or not the page is suitable for them by reviewing the photos, topics, and number of words on the page. If the page has images on it that appeal to or represent children, it has content and topics that are of interest to the curious child, and the words are easy to read, then it’s safe for kids - as long as the “about us” page doesn’t reveal religious bias.

The students are then asked to break up in groups and assess 1 of the 3 websites that the teacher had the IT team clear prior to the lesson. The lesson allows the teacher to choose between letting student groups look the websites up online, or using provided printed information to review each website. It mentions the possibility that if students go online they might be tempted to go to different parts of each site rather than complete the activity. There is, however, nothing said about anything else problematic about the websites.

Here is an example of one of the group assignments provided by AFY, including the printed sheet that a student might use to review a website if they aren’t on a computer. This one directs students to the website Planet Puberty. The other groups are directed to Amaze (a highly controversial website that we have talked about before that promotes gender ideology and masturbation to minors, amongst other topics. Their videos are so graphic that some have been removed from Youtube for violating its terms of service!) and KidsHealth (which is much more academic in nature, but still contains some information that is too mature for elementary schoolers).

Let’s take a look at what the kids assigned to review Planet Puberty might find.

First, we can’t help but notice that it’s impossible for kids to complete the assigned questions with the information provided. In fact, all three of the websites have an equally-small amount of information in the printable materials. Either AFY must assume that most teachers will have kids review the live website, or they forgot to upload some of their pages. We suspect the former.

Even if the students only review the one available printed page alone, pictured above, they will see that it mentions something called “Introduction to masturbation” (imagine a small group of 5th graders all reading this in class and having to answer questions about it!). Most parents wouldn’t want their 5th graders talking in class about a website that offers such an “introduction,” and the content on that printed page alone is bad enough. However, if the teacher does allow the kids to access the actual site, what they find is much worse. The terms used in the sidebar tip us off to the fact that the website talks about sexual relationships, sexual pleasure, and gender identity - and that’s just the start.

The artistic design of Planet Puberty may be appealing to children, but it contains highly sexual information only intended for adults. In only a few minutes, we were able to find the following disturbing and pornographic images on this site.

Editor’s note: These images have been redacted to protect our readers who prefer not to see depictions of nudity. Unredacted versions (which is what the children who visit this website could stumble upon) can be viewed in the links provided. The images below are not all of the pornographic images on this website, they are merely a sample of them. Many of these links contain additional images, and there are other links that contain depictions of graphic nudity and sexual activity that we did not list here. All of these images can be viewed by anyone who visits the site, with no restrictions.

From the All About Sex - Transgender guide on Planet Puberty.

This page is giving Buffalo Bill… IYKYK

From the All about Masturbation - Females guide on Planet Puberty.

From the All about Masturbation - Males guide on Planet Puberty.

From the Pornography Fact Sheet on Planet Puberty.

Children should never be directed to view a website that contains material like this, and yet thanks to AFY, they are. And even if a teacher does not instruct their students to access the full website during class, the lesson gives them another chance to do so as homework!

"Explain that you are going to distribute a list of websites that are reliable and medically accurate and ask them to visit one of them for homework with a parent or caregiver,” the lesson instructs teachers. Students are sent home with the handout below.

On the surface, this homework appears to respect the role of parents. But if AFY really wanted to respect parental rights, they wouldn’t have shown the websites to the kids first.

Introducing a website like Planet Puberty directly to 10 year olds, where they can easily discover depictions of people masturbating or participating in sexual acts, is either profoundly negligent or profoundly evil. There is no third option.

Also notable is the lack of content in this lesson that deters kids from accessing sexual material even worse than what they will find on Planet Puberty or Amaze. The lesson essentially tells kids to look for websites that appeal to them, that have words they can understand, that believes they have a right to sexual information, and that isn’t attached to a religion. This description could lead kids to porn involving sexualized children’s characters, furry porn (yes, those are both real), or even pornography involving children.

And remember, this is from a lesson both written and recommended by AFY, and promoted to MA teachers by DESE. The next time your tax dollars will pay for this training is a little less than a month away. These lessons might already be in your school.

We have only highlighted a few of the issues with the 3Rs lessons being recommended to MA teachers in this post. There are many, many other lessons that parents must reject. We strongly encourage all MA parents to look at this curriculum for yourselves, and then tell your school that the only “3Rs” you want in your district are “Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic” - not AFY’s 3Rs that sexualize children, lie to them about what it means to be male or female, send them off to porn sites, and smuggle in anti-religious views in the process.

It’s also important to know that some MA districts, like Worcester and Boston, use additional 3Rs lessons not on this list. To view more 3Rs lessons on the AFY website, click below.

Download additional 3Rs lessons

(Want to see which 3Rs lessons are used in Worcester? Click here.)

Ultimately, just because DESE recommends a curriculum like the 3Rs doesn’t mean that districts have to adopt it. Parents - and school committee members alike - must reject graphic, activist curricula (even when it’s free and the trainings are grant funded) and demand better from their highly-paid district administrators.

We also think the Trump administration’s HHS should take a close look at what’s happening in MA. Rather than pull back on using PREP funds to pay for curriculum and program materials that promote gender ideology as the HHS instructed, it appears MA is going in the exact opposite direction. Despite the legal roadblock they have faced from some states regarding this order, the HHS must continue to pursue this matter. It’s bad enough that many MA taxpayers have to fund state priorities with which they don’t agree. It’s worse when people who voted for the current administration nationwide - some of whom voted across party lines because of the issue of gender ideology - have to fund it as well.

Is your district using the 3Rs? Are they sending your school staff to these trainings? Let us know in the comments, or email us at massinformedparents@gmail.com.

Did you love this post? Do you know people who would like to receive this type of in-depth analysis in their inbox, once a week (or whenever we post it)? If so, share Massachusetts Informed Parents Substack with your friends now!

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Parent Alert: Supreme Court Sends Clear Signal that Secret Gender Transition Policies are Unconstitutional

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 18:46:12 GMT

The Gender Support Plan used in Leominster, and many MA towns, contradict the message sent by a new SCOTUS decision that affirms parental rights.

We come to you today with an exciting update on a topic we’ve been talking about already: secret social “gender transitions” at school.

Just last month we exposed the Leominster Public Schools and their “Gender Support Plans” that specifically cut out parents who are not “affirming” and - not only let the school keep secrets - but instruct their teachers to do so as well. One teacher objected to this, and was soon out of a job. You can read our full reporting below.

When we shared this article in the MIP facebook group, some of the comments reinforced what we already knew - that not only is this a real issue in Leominster, but it’s happening in other towns as well. Here are a few of the comments:

What the thread also showed was that, unlike the brave teacher in Leominster who protected parental rights, there are also teachers who have - and use - many excuses for lying to parents.

This teacher’s comments follow a pattern we have seen in MIP before, and reported on here in the past. Progressive ideologues, especially educators, often visit groups like ours to leave comments that gaslight parents, downplay their legitimate concerns, or greatly misconstrue their true beliefs or intentions. In this case, it appears to be the third. While her comments act like she’s just trying to be nice and “make kids feel comfortable,” a gander at her public FB profile shows what she really thinks about parents who think differently than herself. These are just two such examples.

In this case, the teacher works at a pricy private school, so there are parents currently paying upwards of $50k per year for what they believe is a superior education, only to have their rights and views discarded by a teacher who thinks they are “either evil or ignorant” (or who believes their home might not be a “safe” place if they don’t want to trans their elementary-schooler). Following her comments, we reminded this teacher that if she truly believes that a child is not “safe” at home, as a mandated reporter, she should be calling the authorities. But that if that’s not the case, then “safety” is not an excuse to lie to parents. Also, given that her public social media posts are vehemently anti-Republican, we recommended that she check out the work of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender. Protecting kids from gender ideology and respecting parental rights need not be partisan issues - in fact, they shouldn’t be.

You can read the whole comment thread for yourself here.

A week later, another post in MIP about secret gender transitions yielded similar comments, this time from public school teachers in two other Massachusetts towns. These teachers also didn’t seem to see the harm in playing along with a child’s self-appointed identity at school, and employed various justifications for doing so. You can read that whole thread, including their comments, here.

We know there are many excellent teachers who respect the rights and role of parents when it comes to gender identity. And we also know that many of those who don’t appear to, probably still mean well on some level. There are some radical activist teachers who use their position to indoctrinate students in a number of areas, including gender and sexuality, and those people have no business being in the classroom. However, most average teachers who might casually “affirm” a child’s gender confusion aren’t doing so because they have an agenda. They are doing so because they’ve been told it’s the right thing to do. We are not “out to get” these teachers - we want to change their minds.

Not every teacher who keeps secrets from parents has bad intentions. But they are wrong, and the list of excuses for ignorance about the dangers of social transition grows shorter daily. If you are a teacher who has never thought about the downside of affirming a child’s chosen name and pronouns, it’s time to do so. To learn more about the harms of social transition - the psychological intervention you yourself are participating in when you keep “gender”-related secrets from parents - start HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

The tide is turning on this issue, and teachers, it’s not too late to change with it. We wrote last month about how two major medical associations, the American Society for Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association have shifted their guidance concerning “gender affirming care” for minors. The medical treatments that have long relied on “consensus” for acceptance can no longer do so. If you missed our reporting on this issue, read it here.

And earlier this week, SCOTUS dropped a decision that affirms the rights of California parents to direct the upbringing of their children, specifically as it relates to “gender transitions” in schools. This watershed decision sends a clear message that our nation’s highest court views keeping secrets from parents as a constitutional violation. To learn more about this, see the blog post from the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center reprinted below.

If you are a parent and you want to inform your district that they do not have a right to use another name or pronouns for your child without your consent, submit our opt out letter today! You can access it here.

The question now is, will Massachusetts schools heed this signal from SCOTUS, which comes on the heels of a $1.5 million decision against a Maryland district that denied parental opt outs and a $2 million decision against a psychologist and plastic surgeon for their role in a minor’s gender transition? Or will they wait for the law to force them to do the right thing, potentially risking legal liability in the process?

Time will tell, and we’ll be watching.

Now, here is our legal update from Attorney Sam Whiting of the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center (published yesterday, March 3rd). You can also read this on the MLLC blog here.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Sends Clear Signal that Secret Gender Transition Policies are Unconstitutional

Yesterday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a remarkable decision that struck a major blow against secret gender transition policies in public schools across the country.

We’ve been keeping you informed about these despicable policies in Massachusetts public schools, which require teachers to lie to parents about their own children and cover up students’ gender dysphoria. In 2022, we filed a federal lawsuit against Ludlow Public Schools after staff there hid a child’s gender confusion from her parents and then continued calling her by the wrong pronouns even after the parents demanded that they stop socially transitioning their child. Last summer, we filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear our case, which is still pending before the Court.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision dramatically changed the legal landscape. The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, involves strikingly similar facts to our own case in Ludlow: California passed a law that requires schools to hide students’ gender identities from parents unless the students consent, and requires teachers to use students’ “preferred pronouns” even if parents object. After parents sued, a federal district court issued a permanent injunction that forced the state to back down. But when California appealed the decision, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals put the injunction on hold.

Now, however, the U.S. Supreme court has granted the parents’ emergency petition to put the injunction back in place. The Court issued a short opinion stating that the parents were likely to succeed not only on their religious liberty claims against the California laws but also on their parental rights claims. It stated that “under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children.”

This is a resounding win for parents. While this opinion was not a final decision on the merits of the case, it strongly signals to lawmakers and schools that secret transition policies are unconstitutional. However, final victory won’t be achieved until the Supreme Court sets a binding precedent in a case – like our case out of Ludlow – and definitively holds that schools cannot conceal students’ gender dysphoria from parents. We are more optimistic than ever that this will happen soon. The future of thousands of children may depend on it.

Please join us in praying for final victory on this issue and support MFI so that we can continue to protect parental rights!

Donate to MFI today!

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Lexington Public Schools Tries, and Fails, to End-Run Around the Sex Ed Opt Out Law

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:20:26 GMT

The LPS still doesn’t know what a woman is.

As we reported previously, in the Lexington-based case that parallels Mahmoud v. Taylor, a federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction on behalf of the father of a kindergarten Lexington Public Schools (LPS) student and ordered the district to opt his child out of LGBTQ books. (Not sure what we’re talking about? Read this.) Last week the Boston Herald ran a story detailing a minor development in this case that has led to questions from some of our readers. On February 10th, the judge in the case released an order finding that the LPS is no longer required to opt the child in question out of two specific books, Pink is For Boys and Except When They Don’t. According to the judge, these books do not require an opt out to because they discuss gender stereotypes, not gender identity. Some folks who have seen the Herald’s headline have mistaken this to mean that the case is resolved, but it is not. The case is ongoing, and the current status is still favorable to the father. When there is a major development in this case, we’ll report it here, so make sure to subscribe and you’ll get it in your inbox!

Today on the substack, we are sharing a blog post that went live from our friends at Massachusetts Family Institute last week. Not to be confused with the case mentioned above, a second parent with a student in the LPS reached out to the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center (MLLC), with a different issue - when the parent tried to opt their 5th grader out of sex ed, as is their right under Massachusetts law, the LPS tried to make them teach the same content at home! Thanks to the MLLC’s support, the LPS backed down. This is an important victory to share with our readers. If your school district tries to end-run around the law, don’t let them!

To read MFI’s full report, keep scrolling, or read it on the MFI blog here.

Lexington Tried to Hoodwink Parents. We Didn’t Let Them Get Away With It.

By MFI Staff

If it wasn’t clear already, Lexington Public Schools are determined to push progressive sexual ideologies onto elementary schoolers. But we’re working to make sure Lexington parents can protect their kids from this onslaught.

Last fall, we reported that we had sued LPS for exposing a 5-year-old kindergartener to LGBTQ-themed books (including one which featured a Pride parade complete with men in leather bondage gear). Even in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor this past summer, which gave religious parents a right to opt out of these materials, the school refused to budge an inch. Fortunately, the court was not impressed, and we were able to obtain a preliminary injunction order protecting our client’s rights.

But while all of this was going on, ANOTHER Lexington parent reached out with a different concern: the school was refusing to opt her 5^th grader out of sex education. Of course, Massachusetts law gives parents the right to opt out, and even Lexington couldn’t completely ignore this. Instead, they used a more underhanded tactic and told the mom that while she could opt her son out of sex education class, he would still have to learn the same objectionable material in an “alternative lesson.” Here’s the email their assistant health coordinator sent this mom.

According to the email, the mom had two choices if she wanted to opt her son out: 1) her son could do “alternative” sex ed lessons, or 2) she could identify other “alternative curriculum” that would have to be approved by the school, and the student would still have to “include descriptions of their experiences relating to these developmental issues.”

So, what did Lexington’s “alternative assignments” include? Essentially, everything that is in the normal sex ed curriculum, including lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation, puberty, and sexual intercourse. Here are the lessons they sent to parents to teach at home:

You can download their full slideshow and other supporting documents below.

Alternative Lessons Slides and Other Docs for HGD Lesson Grade 5 LPS

3.93MB ∙ PDF file

Note the ideology-laced terminology Lexington expected parents to use: Instead of “sex,” they wanted parents to say use “sex assigned at birth.” Instead of “male” and “female,” Lexington expected parents to teach their children the phrases “person with a penis” and “person with a vulva & uterus.”

This is the same school district that also tells parents in their official sex ed parental notification letter that it’s not worth opting out because their kids will just hear about sex from their classmates anyway, and if they do opt out, they are bad parents because their kids will hold “incorrect or incomplete understandings” of sex. You can read the letter for yourself here.

When this mom reached out to us, we knew we had to respond. We immediately sent Lexington’s assistant health coordinator a legal letter informing her that what Lexington was trying to do was illegal. Schools cannot attempt to end-run around the sex education opt-out law by forcing parents to give their children “alternative lessons” that cover the exact same content. We pointed out that this would defeat the purpose of the law and likely violate the mother’s religious liberty rights under Mahmoud. You can read our letter here (redacted to protect the client’s privacy).

Thankfully, Lexington quickly backed down. We received an email from their director of elementary education which stated that the alternative lessons were “suggested materials only” and that this was all just a misunderstanding (we’ll let you decide whether that explanation holds up to scrutiny based on the email the mom originally received). The director let us know that not only would our client’s son not have to do an alternative sex ed lesson, he would be opted out and wouldn’t have to do any alternative lessons at all.

We’re grateful for this victory, but it shouldn’t take a letter from a lawyer to get schools to follow the law and respect parental rights. We want the message to be spread far and wide: Parents have the right to opt their kids out of sex education, and the school can’t give “alternative” sex ed lessons to get around the law. We hope you’ll help us raise awareness on this important issue!

If you want to support the work of Massachusetts Family Institute and its Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center as we tackle these critical issues, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today.

Donate to MFI Today

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Leominster Public Schools Shocking Secret Gender Plans Revealed

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Sat, 14 Feb 2026 00:36:30 GMT

An actual page from the book “Be Gay, Do Comics” found in the library of a middle school in Sudbury, MA. This book clearly markets gender-related hormones and surgeries to minor children. Like Leominster, the Sudbury Public Schools also has a secret gender transition policy.

Last week, we told you about three major developments that had hit the world of gender ideology that parents need to know about. First, a NY court awarded $2 million dollars to Fox Varian, a 22 year old detransitioner, for the medical malpractice she experienced as a teen ushered through the “gender transition” process. Days later, two major medical associations backpedaled from their previous support of gender surgeries and medicalization of minors. You can read our full report here.

At the end of our report, we posed two questions that every Massachusetts public school parent should ask in light of these wins for Team Sanity:

If doctors and therapists can be held financially liable for harming a gender-confused child through their advice and interventions, why not schools?
If schools have affirmed the gender confusion of their students (and sometimes gone even farther than affirmation) based on what they believed to be medical consensus, what will they do now that the consensus is gone?

And by “every parent should ask,” we mean, every parent should ask their SCHOOL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT LEADERSHIP.

This is because, even though double mastectomies don’t happen in a K-12 classroom, the thought patterns that lead to double mastectomies often start there. Gender medicalization can be part of the lesson, like the curricular examples we showed you last time (we’ll put the one from Lexington here again - it deserves a second mention for how wildly dangerous it is). But even when the lesson doesn’t literally instruct students to check out a gender clinic, the schools can still be seeding the insidious ideas that ultimately can lead a young person to have their own body maimed in order to align with a synthetic trans identity. No 16-year old girl wakes up one morning and suddenly wants her breasts cut off for no reason. The thought patterns that lead to that tragic desire come from somewhere. Far too often the delusion of gender identity begins, or is nurtured, right in the classroom.

An actual lesson from Lexington PS where they instruct kids to investigate clinics, many of which offer gender-related interventions.

This connection between schools and gender surgeries has been dubbed the “school-to-gender-clinic-pipeline.” We know that in many Massachusetts classrooms, even elementary-aged children are presented with confusing ideas about sex and gender, and are told that a boy really might be a girl on the inside and vice versa. We also know that these ideas can come in from other sources within the school as well, a fact often reported to us by parents in the Massachusetts Informed Parents facebook group. Two recent examples reported by MIP members, are gender indoctrination in school libraries:

and during the IEP process.

Now, not all children who become confused about their “gender” learn this in school. Social media and other forms of outside influence can also play a role. While we know that school is certainly an influence (and some detransitioners, like Boston’s own Simon Amaya Price, specifically cite curriculum as a contributing factor in his own transgender identification), rarely does all of the blame rest at the feet of the public school system. However, when the school takes an active role in not only introducing kids to gender confusion, but in empowering them to move toward “gender transition” and actively identifying as a member of the opposite sex (or something else entirely), their culpability greatly increases - especially so when it is done without parental notification or consent. A student’s secret gender transition is the complaint at the crux of the Massachusetts-based court case Foote v. Ludlow, which is currently sitting before the US Supreme Court for consideration (please, Lord, let SCOTUS take it up!). It is also an issue that has cropped up in other Massachusetts towns - and sometimes, in towns that you might not expect.

One such town is Leominster.

Back in early 2024, Massachusetts Family Institute shared the story of a teacher at Leominster High School who had been non-renewed following declining to hide a student’s trans-identification from their parents. As a professing Christian, he could not follow the school’s instruction to deceive the student’s parents without violating his religious convictions. He requested an accommodation from his administration, but it was denied, and he was let go from his position (ostensibly for a different reason) shortly after. You can hear his comments before the school committee here.

The fact that the Leominster Public Schools wanted their teachers to keep gender secrets from parents came as a surprise to many folks in Leominster. Leominster is relatively blue-collar and conservative by Massachusetts standards. It’s not like Cambridge or Northampton, or other Massachusetts cities where one would expect to find progressive policies. And yet, right there in Leominster, a teacher was sounding the alarm: the school district is perpetuating gender confusion and hiding information from parents in the process. We knew we needed to keep an eye on Leominster.

Then in early 2025 as part of MFI’s Sex Ed Map Project, we received Leominster’s sex ed curriculum which had been obtained via public records request. The documents provided by the LPS revealed two particularly noteworthy issues. First, many LPS students were being taught sex ed by an outside organization, Making Opportunity Count, not LPS teachers. Second, that outside organization was using the 3Rs: one of the most graphic and ideologically-driven curricula found in MA schools. See the letter below from the LPS as well as the lesson sequence logs, which can also be found starting on page 107 of MFI’s Report.

The use of outside instructors in a public school classroom is something that should set off alarm bells for parents for many reasons. An instructor who is not a district employee is not subject to the same level of scrutiny or accountability. They likely do not have the same level of vetting or education. Parents probably won’t have a chance to meet them on Meet-the-Teacher night, and the outside instructor won’t have a relationship with the students or their families. The curriculum used by an outside instructor might not have been approved by the school committee, and may not easily be made available to families (this was MFI’s experience - when more information about MOC’s lessons was requested, the school district couldn’t produce it. See page 7 of this report.). And when the outside organization teaching the lessons also offers other services like “reproductive healthcare” (which Making Opportunity Count does), there is a higher likelihood that students will be referred there during the course of the instruction. All of this is unnecessary as the LPS could use their own teachers to teach these classes, which would provide greater accountability. Leominster parents should demand that they do.

The second concern is the 3Rs curriculum itself, which leans in heavily to leftist ideology and contains a great deal of material that religious parents, or parents who lean conservative (or even moderate) would object to. For instance, the lesson “Reproductive Justice - Past, Present, Future” smuggles in progressive ideas such as “ending incarceration” and “decolonization” alongside abortion, all under the heading of “sexual health.”

And while there are many concerns with the 3Rs curriculum being used in Leominster, one issue that stands out is how it discusses gender identity. The lessons are very intentionally anti-biological sex. Almost every one includes some sort of instructions to the teacher regarding “inclusive” language, like these two examples:

This is important because while there is a section of lessons on gender identity, the language above is found in lessons on other topics as well. It is pervasive.

Even the lesson “Blue is for Boys, Pink is for Girls… Or Are They?”, a 7th grade lesson about gender stereotypes (a topic that many parents agree can vary - for instance, a girl can play with trucks and still be a girl), includes a push for transgenderism. See below (or the full lesson starting on page 268 HERE).

We strongly recommend that Leominster parents review all of the documents that MFI received from their sex ed public records request, and then OPT THEIR KIDS OUT.

Given the degree of the gender identity indoctrination in the LPS’s sex ed lessons, and the testimony of the Christian teacher who was instructed to hide a child’s self-appointed transgender identity from their parents, we wanted to dig in more. Has anything changed with the LPS’s policies since that brave teacher exposed their deception? Or are kids still being secretly transed in Leominster? Further exploration was needed.

We took a look in the Leominster school committee’s policy manual and found their trans-the-kids policy, Policy AC-E: “POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR TRANSGENDER STUDENTS.” You can read it below (emphases ours).

Based on news reports, this policy appears to have been approved in 2016 (though the LPS online policy manual does not provide an adoption date, a fact not surprising as their manual is not consistently maintained). 2016 was before many of the current school committee members took their seats, before many current teachers (like the one in the video) were hired, and while many of the LPS’s current student were still in diapers. We have to wonder - do all of these stakeholders - especially parents - know about this policy? Do any of them?

Leominster’s Policy AC-E is troubling for many reasons. It allows for any student old enough to “advocate for themselves” to select their own gender. It then allows for a “Point Person” to essentially act in lieu of the student’s parent and help enforce aspects of social gender transition such as a name change, use of opposite-sex bathrooms and locker rooms, and more. The Point Person works with the student and administration to put together a “Gender Transition Plan,” which is a special document “meant to help support the necessary planning for a student’s formal transition of gender from its commonly assumed status to something else.” Parental involvement is not required for the creation of this plan or the installation of the accommodations it specifies.

This made us curious. What does a “Gender Transition Plan” document look like in the LPS? To find out, we submitted the following public record request:

After a request and appeal process that spanned multiple months and including the district initially denying that they had any responsive documents (and us pointing back to the policy that states that they use such a plan), we received a response that contained the following information about how the district manages its “gender transition plans” as described in policy AC-E:

According to the LPS, there is no district-provided blank form or template for their “gender transition plans”. But what they did provide is profoundly troubling.

First, there is the “Leominster High School Student Name Change Request Form.” Despite the district’s assertion that this form is for name-change requests that “may include a gender transition,” the form seems tailored just for that. It references “preferred names” that “reflect who they are,” and asks for their “gender” and “preferred pronouns” - both of which would be unnecessary if a child’s name was being changed for another reason (for instance, adoption).

Everything we marked in red points toward this form being specifically for gender transitions. It’s all gender-coded.

We also noticed that, while there is a spot for a Parent/Guardian’s Signature, it’s not required. In other words, parents don’t need to consent - or even know - if the school is changing their child’s name and gender identification.

You can download the original document from the district below.

LHS Name Change Form

63.7KB ∙ PDF file

The gender support plan template that, per the district’s response, HAS BEEN USED IN PAST YEARS in one building, is even more concerning. This document, created by the activist organization Gender Spectrum that promotes “gender inclusive schools” and has worked with the leftwing Biden Foundation and PFLAG, not only allows for parents to be kept in the dark about gender transition, it creates a plan to hide the student’s trans identification from parents who are not “supportive.”

See the plan for yourself here. The sections about keeping secrets from parents are in red.

You can download the entire form received from the district below.

Gender Support Plan from LPS PRR

352KB ∙ PDF file

The last page, if distributed to students, continues to point students toward a variety of non-related adults instead of those who love them most and know them best - their parents.

Given the testimony of school deception made by the brave former Leominster teacher, the policy that expressly says that parents only need to be involved if the students are “not yet able to advocate for themselves,” the name change form that only requires a parental signature “if available” and the Gender Spectrum template that leads staff to create a plan that lies to parents deemed unsupportive, we think the evidence is clear. The Leominster Public Schools is keeping gender-related secrets from parents.

This is especially troubling given that gender ideology is a part of the curriculum. The school can teach the child gender confusion, and then reinforce that confusion to the degree of the child essentially living as a different person while at school, including using cross-sex bathrooms and locker rooms - all without the parent ever knowing. And then the teachers are told to continue the deception.

The LPS is not the only district that does this, to be sure. A search of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees’ online policy manual reveals many other Massachusetts districts that have similar policies. Lenox Public Schools has an even lengthier transgender student policy taken in part from GLSEN, another LGBTQ activist organization that seeks to influence schools. East Longmeadow’s policy ACB actually contains a link to the same Gender Spectrum plan we found in Leominster. Acton-Boxborough’s online policy manual includes their own form (seen below), which contains many of the same elements as the Gender Spectrum template. Somerville, Framingham, and Newton all have gender policies that call for a support plan. And the list goes on and on.

These policies should concern every public school parent, because while most public school teachers and employees are genuinely goodhearted people who want to help kids, many of them are trained to think that helping kids means lying to parents. And in a system that allows (and sometimes forces) teachers to keep secrets, there are fewer safeguards in place to protect kids from being exploited by the adults who genuinely have nefarious motives.

Another question that comes to mind about the Gender Transition Plans and other forms of secret-keeping is, how do the schools identify the students who receive such plans, when the plans are not initiated by parents?

One answer can be found in the “Using Gender Support Plans” video found on the Gender Spectrum website. While our public records don’t tell us if this video was viewed by Leominster staff, parents should assume that any school district that uses any sort of gender support or transition plan has likely received similar training. In this clip (which starts here around 1:01:14), the presenter is answering the question, “Do you approach every single kid?”

In his response, the trainer describes teachers noticing kids who are dressing differently and viewing this as a sign that they are potentially “navigating gender.” He suggests start a conversation about gender with the child, which can include asking if there is a different name the child would like for him to use. Then later if a parent OR STUDENT comes to school staff and wants to discuss their gender identity, they can inform the child of the “systems in place” that the school district has to “support them” and ask them if they would like more information. This could include offering the child an opportunity to go chat with “Mx. So-and-so in the office who helps us support our trans and non-binary kids.”

This, Mom and Dad, is how your child can be transed at school right under your nose. As a parent, you know that sometimes kids go through phases. They like to try out new styles. They may want to cut (or grow!) their hair. They are trying to figure out who they are and what they like. This is all very normal. And while you might be giving your child space to experiment, knowing that trying new things is a part of growing up, an adult at school might perceive your daughter’s new pixie cut as a sign that she is “navigating gender” differently and needs an impromptu counseling session.

Not only will you not be informed of that conversation, but it may be intentionally withheld from you. And that may be just the beginning.

This is how the school-to-gender-clinic-pipeline can play out in real time. Secret conversations about gender with school officials can lead to social transition at school, which can lead to kids seeking out (or adults offering) referrals to organizations that help facilitate medical transition. Using an alternate name and pronouns for a gender-confused child is not a harmless accommodation, it is a psychological intervention. Given that kids who are socially transitioned are much more likely to maintain a transgender identity and later on go on to make permanent changes to their bodies, this is a five-alarm fire. Gender Transition Plans, and the policies that call for them, are a real danger.

From the Newton North HS nurse’s office. Credit: Parental Rights Natick

Parents, if it can happen in Leominster, it can happen in your town, too. Find out today whether or not your district has a secret gender transition policy. Check your school committee’s online policy manual. Submit a public records request for the phrases “gender support plan” or “gender transition plan.” Let us know what you find. But more importantly, let your school committee know - and then demand better. The tide is turning on the issue of gender identity, and they are no longer protected by “expert consensus.” It’s time for change, in Leominster, and across Massachusetts.

Our friends at Defending Ed also maintain a list of the districts across the US that have gender policies that keep secrets from parents. Is your district on their list? If not, it just might mean that nobody has reported it yet. If you find such a policy in your district and it’s not on their list, be sure to let them know. You can find their list HERE.

As always, in addition to opting our kids out of in-school lessons about sex and gender, we recommend keeping an open line of communication with your child about gender identity. If your child is already grounded in the knowledge that their sex is determined at conception, and if they know that they should tell you if adults at school try to talk to them about sex or teach them something different than what their family believes, they will be much less likely to be drawn into a conversation with “Mx. So-and-so at the office,” or stumble into any other traps that may be put in their path. For more information on how to do this, check out Raising Gender-Confident Kids (the book is free!) or the upcoming release, Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality and Gender Identity. These resources, while written from a faith-based perspective, offer insights that can help all parents who want to keep their kids from getting “Mx’d” up in gender insanity.

Be encouraged, Mom and Dad. Speaking up against gender madness and pushing back on the institutions that continue to promote it is how we create cultural change. It’s how we make room for the truth to come out, again and again, until like lobotomies, the former “settled science” of gender ideology will be a subject of ridicule and remorse. The fight for sanity isn’t over, but it’s trending in the right direction.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

The Gender Medicine Dam is Cracking. Will MA Schools Pay Attention?

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Fri, 06 Feb 2026 20:58:21 GMT

If you, like us, have been paying attention to the absolute horror show that is “gender affirming care,” then you might already know how big the last week has been for Team Sanity (but more importantly, for gender-confused minors). In case you missed it, here’s the good news.

Detransitioner who had her breasts amputated awarded $2 million dollars in medical malpractice lawsuit.

In the first successful lawsuit of its kind, Fox Varian, now 22, had sued her psychologist and plastic surgeon for facilitating her double mastectomy when she was 16. On January 30th, she was victorious. Varian’s suit, originally filed in 2023, was one of an estimated 30 detransitioner lawsuits working their way through the legal system. This seven-figure award sends a powerful message to any medical professional who has ever glossed over a child’s other mental health diagnoses in favor of life-altering hormones or surgeries, or has looked a distraught parent in the eye and said, “Would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter?” Doctors are afraid of this type of settlement, and they should be. No amount of money could replace what has been taken from detransitioners, but in a world where money talks and insurance companies don’t like liability, Varian’s bravery and the jury’s decision may make other doctors think twice before they cut off a teenage girl’s healthy breasts in the name of gender ideology - and that’s a good thing.

First major medical society officially breaks ranks with gender woo.

On February 3rd, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons released an official position statement saying that they do not recommend gender dysphoria related surgical interventions for minors. From the ASPS:

“…in light of recent publications reporting very low/low certainty of evidence regarding mental health outcomes, along with emerging concerns about potential long-term harms and the irreversible nature of surgical interventions in a developmentally vulnerable population, ASPS concludes there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents. ASPS recommends that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.”

This position statement is huge, because plastic surgery is one of the specialties that needs to be on board to do gender mutilation surgeries. Dr. Oren Ganor, the infamous gender mutilation enthusiast from Boston Childrens,’ (we wrote about one of his patients here, who underwent multiple “gender affirming” surgeries and tragically died, potentially due to complications from phalloplasty) is a plastic surgeon. So is Dr. Sibdh Gallagher, of “Yeet the Teats” and “#teetusdeletus” fame, who practices in Florida but markets her butchery online through her massive social media following. She sees patients from all of the country, many of them underage. With this position statement, doctors like Ganor and Gallagher can no longer hide behind false claims of “consensus” amongst “experts” to justify chopping off the healthy body parts of confused and vulnerable minors.

Read the ASPS’s full statement HERE or download it below.

ASPS 2026 Position Statement on Gender Surgery for Children/Adolescents

353KB ∙ PDF file

Second major medical society (sort of) follows suit.

Shortly following the ASPS’s announcement, the American Medical Association responded to inquiries from National Review and Becker’s Hospital Review with comments that demonstrate a newfound hesitancy to wholly endorse gender surgeries for kids.

From National Review:
”The AMA said in a statement to National Review that because ‘the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement . . . the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.’”

From Becker’s Hospital Review:
”The American Medical Association, one of the largest U.S. healthcare organizations, has revised its position on gender-affirming surgeries for minors, the AMA told Becker’s in a statement shared Feb. 5.

‘The AMA supports evidence-based treatment, including gender affirming care. Currently, the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement,” the statement said. “In the absence of clear evidence, surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood. Treatment decisions should be made between the physician, patient and family based on the best medical evidence and clinical judgment.’”

These comments, while not yet formalized in a policy statement, represent a stark shift from the AMA’s previously strong support for gender surgeries for minors. The AMA has been active in opposing states that passed legislation restricting the mutilation of gender-confused kids and teens. One example, a letter written by the AMA in 2021 to governors in defense of “gender affirming care” for minors, stated the following:

“Empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression. For gender diverse individuals, standards of care and accepted medically necessary services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria may include mental health counseling, non-medical social transition, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and/or gender-affirming surgeries. Clinical guidelines established by professional medical organizations for the care of minors promote these supportive interventions based on the current evidence and that enable young people to explore and live the gender that they choose. Every major medical association in the United States recognizes the medical necessity of transition-related care for improving the physical and mental health of transgender people.”

It seems that now that the consensus has crumbled, the AMA has discovered that the evidence to support the “medical necessity” of “gender-affirming surgical intervention” isn’t strong after all. While this newly discovered truth does not help girls like Fox Varian, Chloe Cole, and all of the countless survivors of teenage gender butchery (or boys like Jazz Jennings, whose stories are equally tragic), watching another major medical organization’s domino fall sends a very positive message for the future. No longer can doctors, gender clinics, counselors, school psychologists, Planned Parenthood, trans online influencers, progressive legislators, or the self-aggrandizing “If your parents don’t accept you, I’m your mother now” contingent of the rainbow mafia say that the “science is settled” and that if you question it, you’re “transphobic” - or worse - an abusive parent. The despicable manipulation of “Would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter” is no longer valid. To be clear, it never was. We’ve known that for a long time. But now, we know that the ASPS and the AMA know it, too.

But now, we want to know: will Massachusetts schools pay attention to these changes?

We know that Massachusetts schools have already been complicit in lying to kids about sex and gender, and in many cases, creating or fanning the flames of the very gender confusion that could lead a child to make life-altering changes to their body. Sometimes the connection is even more overt.

We caught the Beverly Public Schools giving 9th graders “Sex Guides” that reference surgically-created vaginas. We discovered a video that promoted gender surgery being shown to 8th graders in Uxbridge.

Scene from actual video shown to Uxbridge 8th graders, depicting “gender dysphoria” as scary and surgery as a possible solution.

We found out Lexington is instructing their high schoolers to “Check Out a Local Sexual Health Clinic” as an assignment (see below, then head to page 724 of the MFI Sex Ed Report to click the links for yourself!).

The Lexington lesson includes the gender mutilation clinic at Boston Children’s, BAGLY (which asks minors for their pronouns but not parental consent - see their absolutely wild intake form below), Planned Parenthood (which provides cross-sex hormones), amongst others.

Lexington also refers students to Cambridge Health Alliance, which has school based health centers (read: health centers IN THE SCHOOLS) in Cambridge, Somerville, Malden and Everett. As recently as last month, these SBHCs were advertising that they offer gender-affirming care including hormone therapy and surgery referrals for students who are 18+, plus “behavioral healthcare” (which we suspect may include other things like binders and outside referrals) for those who are younger. See the screenshot below, and click here for the whole post.

An older post invites students to make a confidential appointment to learn more about “social and medical transitioning.” See their post series “Transness Part One” and “Transness Part Two,” which promote binders, packers, and tucking underwear in addition to surgery and hormones.

These clinics are just one example of the dangers of ceding your parental responsibility for your child’s medical care to your local school. To read more about the dangers of school based health centers, see this excellent new article from parental rights advocate Kelly Schenkoske (@kellyske).

And then there’s Advocates for Youth and their curriculum, Rights, Respect, and Responsibility (the “3Rs”). This curriculum, which is free online and heavily promoted to Massachusetts schools by DESE, contains a 5th grade lesson called “It’s All About Hormones” that promotes puberty blockers (below). Puberty blockers have known side-effects and can cause permanent mental and physical impairment. It is unknown how many Massachusetts schools use this specific lesson. But since the 3Rs includes many lessons that promote gender ideology and confuse students as young as first grade about the biological nature of sex, and that confusion when reinforced leads kids down the path to the very surgeries that the ASPS and the AMA no longer uniformly stand behind, the danger to students is present whether or not that specific lesson is taught.

We could go on and on about the ways that kids and teens in Massachusetts public schools are exposed to dangerous gender ideology, and how sometimes even well-meaning teachers and administrators can function as part of the “school-to-gender-clinic-pipeline.” But we would rather focus on two big questions that, following the developments of the week, remain unanswered.

If doctors and therapists can be held financially liable for harming a gender-confused child through their advice and interventions, why not schools?
If schools have affirmed the gender confusion of their students (and sometimes gone even farther than affirmation) based on what they believed to be medical consensus, what will they do now that the consensus is gone?

These are questions that should drive Massachusetts parents to demand answers from their schools about what policy and practice changes they can expect based on this new information. It should also drive school leaders, and any other person who interacts with students, to engage in deep reflection. We know that many goodhearted people have been wrong on this issue. They thought they were helping kids by perpetuating the lie of gender ideology. But they were wrong. Now, the list of excuses for not speaking up and protecting kids is getting shorter and shorter. The dominos are falling. Will they wake up before they - or more crucially, more gender-confused young people - are crushed underneath?

The invitation to Team Sanity is wide open, and there’s no time like the present to join.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

MA Mom Speaks Out After Trans-Identifying Boy Bumps Girls HS Track Athletes

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 19:30:58 GMT

Earlier this month, a mom from Pembroke confronted her local school committee after her daughter, an indoor track athlete, was bumped by a male competing in the girls competition. Watch the viral clip of her testimony below.

In this competition, the MSTCA Northeast Invitational, the top 8 female athletes from the preliminary round go on to be finalists. The male athlete placed highly in the competition, and her daughter came in 9th. Because of the male taking a place in the top 8, her daughter did not receive her rightful spot as a finalist in her event.

We looked into this mom’s claims, and what she said checked out. We were able to identify the young man in question, and while we don’t publish the names of minors, we can say for certain that he is male. We also discovered that this was not the only time he had taken a spot that should have rightfully gone to a female athlete. While competing as a female, he has taken first place in nine out of eighteen events, and second place in six others, just so far this track season alone! The number of girls displaced by his performances is astounding.

The actions of young men like him, and the broken system that enables them, translate to opportunities being stolen from girls. Scholarships, recognitions, and recruitment opportunities can all be lost when a female athlete is forced to compete with the deck stacked against her. We have seen this time and time again nationwide, and now (again) in Massachusetts. The threat to our girls is not theoretical. It’s ongoing.

Track and field isn’t the only sport where Massachusetts girls may be forced to compete against a male. Earlier this month the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights initiated a Title IX investigation into the Foxborough Public Schools related to this issue. The US DoE did not mention a specific sport in their press release, but some reports have suggested that the investigation may be connected to a Foxborough High School girls basketball team player widely reported to be male. If so, this wouldn’t be the first time we have seen girls basketball players in Massachusetts impacted by a boy competing in their sport. And we know this has been happening in field hockey for many years (although not typically due to the male player identifying as female).

This is not the first Title IX investigation to hit Massachusetts because of its gender identity-based athletics policies. Back in February 2025, the MIAA, the governing body of Massachusetts interscholastic athletics, was placed under a similar investigation. In their announcement of this investigation, the DoE specifically mentioned a case we had told you about here before involving a male athlete from KIPP Academy in Lynn whose play during a basketball game was reportedly so rough that multiple girls were injured and the opposing team ended the game early. The story drew national media attention, in addition to the eyes of the White House. That Title IX investigation is ongoing.

With the KIPP Academy incident almost two years old, it’s worth revisiting, because the plight of female athletes in Massachusetts has not improved. In addition, following our original report, it was later reported by other outlets that the multi-sport male KIPP athlete had been previously suspended from a different sports league for ogling female teammates in the locker room. This speaks to yet another concern that still lingers in our state - the safety and privacy of female spaces. The young man from KIPP is now college-aged, presents as masculine and performs as a baritone, but still uses his chosen feminine-sounding name. We hope that he, and others like him, ultimately find their way out of their confusion and fully embrace their identity as males. We blame the adults who make the policies for the injustices faced by female athletes, not the young men who succumb to gender ideology. But the obvious male-ness of the former Lynn student goes to show (yet again!) that permitting a male to compete against girls based on “gender identity” not only victimizes the female players. It demonstrates a failure to think rationally and a willful denial of biological reality.

Now, back to Pembroke. During her now-viral public comments, the mom also brought up the MIAA. She urged the Pembroke school committee to petition the MIAA on behalf of Pembroke’s female athletes to change their policies so that males are no longer permitted to compete in female sports. We agree with this mom’s call for change.

Screenshot from MIAA training, Power of Language and Practical Allyship, still on the MIAA website.

While the MIAA is still stuck in the mire of gender-woo, as evidenced by training material on their website (above) and their policies regarding gender identity (below), we think it’s well past time for them to come to terms with the fact that they are on the wrong side of this issue. The US Supreme Court may ultimately come down with a ruling on gender identity and sports participation that could force their hand, but it would be better if they did the right thing all on their own and protected Massachusetts girls.

A student’s “bona fide gender identity” is what takes precedence over the privacy and safety of girls, according to the MIAA.

The next meeting of the Pembroke school committee will be held on February 3rd, 2026 at 6:00pm, at the North Pembroke Elementary School Library. We encourage every common-sense parent and citizen who believes girls sports and private spaces should be protected to attend this meeting and speak up (come early to sign up to speak). Ask the Pembroke school committee to do the right thing and petition the MIAA for change. Protecting girls isn’t extreme. It is the only rational position.

We also encourage other students or families who have been impacted by this athlete to speak up in their own towns. For every event in which that young man took first place there was a girl who lost her first place spot. Those girls are not just in Pembroke, and it’s time for their voices to be heard. If that’s you (or your daughter, or granddaughter, or niece, or friend), we encourage you to take this mom’s example and speak up where you live. When you do, email us at massinformedparents@gmail.com to let us know. We would love to amplify your story.

At the same time, every family impacted by a male student who competes as a female should file a Title IX complaint. To learn more about how to do this, see this legal advisory and template from Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center or contact malibertylegal.org directly for assistance.

We know the cultural tide is turning on this issue, but in the meantime, Massachusetts girls continue to lose out. Let’s stand up for our girls before one more tournament spot, one more medal, one more opportunity is stolen. Our girls shouldn’t have to wait any longer.

Let’s all take our cues from that brave Pembroke mom. Courage is contagious, and now is time to act.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Breaking News: Federal Judge Orders Lexington Public Schools to Opt Kindergartner Out of LGBTQ Books in Mahmoud-Precedent Case

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 19:30:17 GMT

From Maiden and Princess, one of the books named in the federal judge’s preliminary injunction.

2025 is winding down, and while this year has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride, we’re thrilled to finish it off with some wonderful news for Massachusetts parents! Read on for an exciting update, hot-off-the-press from the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center.

Press Release
For Immediate Release: 12.31.25
Contact: Mariah Newell, contact@malibertylegal.org
Direct: 774.462.7043

Federal Judge Orders Lexington Public Schools to Opt Kindergartener Out of LGBTQ-Themed Books

Court finds likely violation of First Amendment free exercise rights

LEXINGTON, MA – A federal judge has ordered Lexington Public Schools to stop reading LGBTQ-themed books to a kindergarten student after ruling that the school district likely violated the family’s First Amendment rights by refusing to allow an opt-out based on religious objections.

In granting a preliminary injunction, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV held that “under well-established constitutional principles, defendants cannot force plaintiff to choose between foregoing the valuable benefit of having his child attend public kindergarten and exposing his child to materials that would burden his free exercise of religion.”

The lawsuit was filed by the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, a public-interest law firm affiliated with Massachusetts Family Institute, in partnership with the American Center for Law and Justice. The case challenges Lexington Public Schools’ refusal to allow a five-year-old kindergartener to opt out of multiple LGBTQ-themed books that violated the Christian faith of the student’s family.

Lexington’s actions came despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held that public schools must provide parents with notice and an opportunity to opt out of curricular content that threatens to undermine their religious beliefs.

Under the court’s order, Lexington Public Schools must opt the child out of all content that “depicts or describes LGBTQ+ characters, relationships, or activities, or LGBTQ+ political or social advocacy.” Notably, the injunction applies not only to materials the family had already identified, but also requires the school district to identify any additional materials containing LGBTQ content and allow the family to opt out of those as well.

“We are very grateful for this decision, which represents a major victory for parental rights across Massachusetts,” said MLLC counsel Sam Whiting. “Public school districts are now on notice that they cannot play fast and loose with constitutional protections for families without facing significant liability.”

This may be the first court decision anywhere in the country addressing curriculum opt-out rights since Mahmoud. The injunction is not a final decision on the merits and remains in effect only during the pendency of the lawsuit. However, the ruling signals that the plaintiff is likely to succeed in his claims against the school district and that similar actions by other districts will produce similar results.

For more information regarding this lawsuit, please reach out to contact@malibertylegal.org.

To read the MLLC’s blog post about the latest development, click HERE.

To see our previous coverage of this case, click below.

The granting of this preliminary injunction is great news - not only for the Lexington family at the heart of this case, but for all Massachusetts parents of faith who have school-aged children. Going into 2026, schools are more on notice than ever that religious rights matter, even in public schools. That’s something to celebrate nationwide, and especially here in Massachusetts, where parents of faith have had an uphill battle for many years.

To learn more about the history of the opt out fight in Massachusetts and Mahmoud v. Taylor, the pivotal 2025 Supreme Court decision that underpins the Lexington case, read more here:

The news out of Lexington today is exciting, to be sure, but it’s not the only point of celebration we’ve had in the past year. Before the ball in Times Square drops, let’s take a quick look back at some other high notes and victories for the rights of Massachusetts parents and families in 2025.

Good news from MIP: Parents Standing Up!

In February, parents from Blackstone-Millville pushed back when their district approved a graphic new sex ed curriculum. The School Committee listened, and the program was revised. Read more here:

In April, when Burlington students whose parents had opted them out were given a survey containing shockingly graphic questions anyway, parents stood up! Federal legal complaints were filed, and the US Department of Education is currently investigating. The Burlington school committee has since passed a policy requiring additional scrutiny of all future surveys, and more parents are opting out than ever. Read our series here:

In October, when Plymouth Public Schools tried to fast-track a graphic new sex ed curriculum for 8th graders - and make it almost impossible for parents to review the lessons - Plymouth parents said NO. Thanks to parent pushback, the curriculum was delayed, changes were made, and the current curriculum is now on the PPS website. This issue is ongoing, but we are celebrating the progress these parents have already made. Read their inspiring story here:

MIP will be here in 2026 and beyond to track these stories, and help parents in more communities make a difference. When parents engage and speak up, changes can be made!

Good news from Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center: Parental and Religious Rights Protected!

In May, the MLLC played a key role in securing a landmark decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirming that parents do not forfeit their constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children simply because those children are involved with the child welfare system. The Court made clear that state interference with parental religious decision-making is subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, reinforcing long-standing protections under both the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the First Amendment.

In October, the MLLC also successfully intervened on behalf of a first-grade student whose public school unlawfully prohibited him from bringing and sharing Christian books with classmates. After MLLC’s advocacy, the school reversed course and formally acknowledged that students may engage in religious expression on the same terms as secular expression, consistent with clearly established constitutional law.

In September, together with their partners at Alliance Defending Freedom and First and Fourteenth PLLC, the MLLC filed a federal lawsuit against officials at the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families on behalf of two Christian foster families. These families were denied the ability to continue fostering solely because of their religious beliefs regarding gender and sexuality. In mid-December, there was an important development in this case. DCF has now issued emergency revisions to its policies, removing language that expressly required foster parents to affirm a child’s claimed gender identity or sexual orientation. While this reversal represents a significant victory, the case remains ongoing. The MLLC will continue to litigate until DCF provides a clear and binding commitment that such unconstitutional discrimination will not recur.

These reports, taken from the MLLC blog, are only a few examples of the important wins they have brought about for Massachusetts citizens, parents, and families in 2025. Read their full 2025 recap post HERE.

Friends, we have so many reasons to be encouraged. We are so thankful for the progress made in 2025, and we are looking forward to more in 2026. Here’s to more equipping parents and protecting kids, in 2026 and beyond.

Happy New Year, from your friends at MIP!

Did you know that the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center offers its services to parents for FREE? The legal victories and advocacy contained in this post could not have happened without the support of donors like you, and the MLLC needs your help to continue to stand up for parents in 2026 and beyond. The MLLC, and MIP, are missions of Massachusetts Family Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit public policy organization dedicated to strengthening families in Massachusetts. If you’ve never donated to our work before, could we count on your support? Click the button below to partner with us through a financial gift today.

Support Our Mission

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Plymouth Parents Make Progress, Truth is Exposed, and School Committee Members Beclown Themselves on Camera

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 14:03:21 GMT

Telling 13 year olds that they can have sex and be “sexually healthy” when they are too young to legally consent is wild.

In our last post we told you about the Plymouth Public Schools (PPS) and their ill-advised effort to fast-track a controversial new 8th grade sex ed curriculum. The district had made it difficult for parents to review the curriculum, and when some parents were finally able to see it, they sounded the alarm about the graphic content it contained. They spoke up at an October school committee meeting, formed a parent group, and hosted an info night at a local church. After the parents pushed back the district made a couple of changes, then temporarily delayed the curriculum’s implementation, but the concerns about transparency remained.

Meanwhile, we had also done some investigating. We learned through a public records request that the PPS had brought in pricy grant-funded consultants to help write the curriculum. The request also exposed training materials presented to PPS teachers, encouraging them to use radical outside resources like Planned Parenthood.

(Haven’t read Part 1 of our coverage yet? Read it now here!)

On December 1st the school committee was set to meet again, and a presentation about the new sex ed curriculum was on the agenda. Would the district attempt to gaslight parents into thinking that the curriculum was mandatory, as the presentation slides put out with their agenda seemed to indicate? Would they talk about the outside consultants, and the grants that got them there? Would they announce more changes to the curriculum? We were watching.

(And now you can watch too - the full meeting is below.)

The meeting was spicy, and most of the spice came straight from the public comments, which lasted over an hour. Speakers were equally divided between those opposing and supporting the new 8th grade curriculum, with some sex ed supporters sporting stickers with pro-sex ed slogans on them. As it turned out, one of the most notable aspects of the comments wasn’t the comments themselves - it was what was going on in the audience. We’ll get to that later.

During their presentation that evening, the K-8 PE and Health Department Head and the Assistant Superintendent did answer a few of our questions. They clearly stated that they intend to expand sex ed to grades 6 and 7 next year. They erroneously told the school committee and parents that MA law mandates that “any school offering sexual health education must provide a medically accurate, age-appropriate, and comprehensive curriculum consistent with the state’s Comprehensive Health Framework.” (Fact check: it doesn’t. Are they lying? Or do they not know the law?) They admitted that grants were instrumental in funding this new program, but only when asked by a curious school committee member. Finally, they agreed to look into putting the whole curriculum online so parents could see it. Only one of these developments is good. In the spirit of glass-half-full, let’s start with the one worth celebrating.

After the meeting, around mid-December, the PPS followed through and uploaded the 8th grade sex ed lessons to their district website. You can view the entire curriculum as posted to the website HERE, or download it below.

Plymouth 8th Grade Sex Ed from PPS Website 12/25

7.05MB ∙ PDF file

Based on parent reports, the posted curriculum represents a modified version of what was originally created by the district and was on deck to present to students back in October. Some activities and Amaze videos have been removed, and references to the age of consent law have been added. These are positive developments, as is the fact that the PPS has increased transparency by posting the updated lessons online.

However, the curriculum is still deeply flawed, and some questions remain unanswered. For instance, the material uploaded does not contain any information on how the teachers have been instructed to present the lessons, nor does it define some hot-button terms. For instance, the “Climate-Setting Intro Slides” include multiple references to being “inclusive,” yet the slides contains no explanation of what this means. How are the teachers describing what it means to be “inclusive” to the class? Parents wouldn’t know based on simply viewing this lesson.

Slide from “Climate-Setting Intro Slides”, found on the PPS website

Thanks to the teacher training PD document we received from our public records request (read more about this in Part 1 of our series), we have a clue about what “inclusivity” likely means: bringing gender identity and sexual orientation into the lessons. See a slide from this PD below. How are these instructions impacting the classroom? Parents should find out.

Another issue crops up in the lesson regarding consent. On the one hand, they (rightly) teach kids that the legal age of consent in Massachusetts is 16.

But then they go on to describe what conditions need to be in place for sexual consent to be given. This might make sense if these students were old enough to legally consent… but they’re not.

Teaching kids for whom engaging in sexual activity is illegal about HOW to consent to sex is often justified as a form of abuse prevention, and we suspect the PPS would use the same justification here. Yet, wouldn’t it be more effective - and less confusing - to simply tell 8th graders that they aren’t old enough to consent to sex, and anyone who tries to have sex with them or touch them in a sexual way, is breaking the law?

But Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) curricula - in Plymouth and elsewhere- don’t clearly teach students that they should not have sex at a young age. Instead, CSE presents abstinence as only one of many valid options, and “enthusiastically” consenting to sex as another option. If CSE students are also instructed in the consent law, it’s usually secondary - or it’s a literal afterthought, like it seems to have been in Plymouth.

CSE curricula don’t tell kids to “Just say NO” to sex, because doing so wouldn’t be very “sex positive.” According to the Guttmacher Institute, the value of “sex positivity” falls under the seven core tenets of CSE (specifically, under tenet #4, “Pleasure”). The Guttmacher Institute was founded as Planned Parenthood’s research arm. Planned Parenthood is one of the largest purveyors of CSE in the world.

From the Guttmacher Institute’s “A Definition of Comprehensive Sexuality Education.” Read the whole document HERE.

There are other parts of the curriculum that also pose an issue, like this chart from the 8th grade STI lesson that portrays unprotected oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex as all equally risky when it comes to STD transmission. This, of course, is not true.

The internet is replete with easily-identifiable, reliable resources that demonstrate that when it comes to disease transmission, unprotected oral sex is significantly less risky than other forms of sex, and that unprotected anal sex is by far the riskiest of the three. This lesson is not medically accurate. Does the PPS realize they are misleading students?

Plymouth parents, we strongly urge you to review this entire curriculum. Point these flaws (and others) out to the district, and then to your friends and neighbors. If the PPS refuses to make additional changes, opt your kids OUT.

(Learn more about your OPT OUT rights and download an opt out letter below!)

Beyond the 8th grade curriculum being posted and our review of that curriculum, there are two other issues that popped up at the December 1st meeting that Massachusetts parents need to know about.

First, say “hello” to this duo, who left their manners at home.

When watching the December 1st meeting online, it was impossible to miss these two pals in purple sitting in the front row. They were chit-chatting and making what appeared to be snarky remarks to each other while parents shared their concerns. They chuckled, rolled their eyes, and made what can be described as mocking faces at several of the speakers.

At one point the woman in purple visibly laughed at a parent who mentioned that Depo Provera, a hormonal birth control touted by an Amaze video that had been found in the PPS curriculum, is currently the subject of a massive lawsuit because of its connection to brain tumors. See for yourself below.

What’s so funny about brain tumors, Ms. Purple Giggler?

If this purple duo were simply members of the public, their disrespectful and cringy behavior would merely be noteworthy as an example of folks whose mommas must have never taught them manners, or as a cautionary reminder that, just like God sees when you talk about someone behind their back, sometimes cameras do too. But, they are not simply members of the public. They are sitting school committee members from two neighboring towns.

The laughing woman in purple is Katrina Delaney, a member of the Pembroke School Committee.

On LinkedIn, Delaney specifies that her pronouns are “she/they,” and markets herself as a “Grassroots Organizer.”

Delaney was elected in 2024 on a platform that, according to her website, included “prioritizing community engagement and listening to all viewpoints while keeping our students in mind with every decision I make.”

For the sake of the good people of Pembroke, we genuinely hope that Delaney does a better job of “listening to all viewpoints” in her own town than she does when she’s away from home. However, we have little reason to believe that she does.

And what of the pal she was thick-as-thieves with during the meeting? That’s Matt Monteiro, a school committee member from Old Rochester Regional (ORR).

Monteiro also seems to think it’s acceptable to disrespect parents. In the clip below, during comments from a Plymouth mom who raises concerns about an Amaze video that normalizes pornography use for children, he appears to rolls his eyes. He also makes comments under his breath to Delaney, who becomes so apparently exasperated with the mom’s concerns that she rests her head on Monteiro’s shoulder. She then visibly holds in laughter at the Plymouth mom’s religious references.

Monteiro’s apparent failure to take parental concerns about sexually explicit content in school seriously probably does not come as a surprise to many ORR parents. Back in 2022, Monteiro was at the heart of a controversy that surfaced over whether or not it was acceptable for ORR to have sexually graphic books, including Gender Queer, in the school library. According to reports, Monteiro stated: “I do not agree that these books are obscene or problematic, and I support the representation of marginalized communities…”. By that rationale, Monteiro doesn’t think the picture below, taken from Gender Queer, is “obscene or problematic” for the minor students under his care.

We, of course, beg to differ (as do most reasonable people).

(FYI, we blurred a portion of the picture. You can view the uncensored image - the one Monteiro thinks is fine for children to see - for yourself HERE.)

Delaney and Monteiro are elected officials, and since they have chosen to behave badly in public, they deserve to be called out in public. Folks in Pembroke and ORR should pay attention to the attitudes and actions they display, even when they are out of town.

As the saying goes, when someone shows you who they are… believe them.

Later, Partners In Sex Education gets name-dropped. Parents should demand to know why.

During the presentation when asked about grants and consultants, the Physical/Health Education K-8 Department Head mentions that Partners In Sex Education (PSE) was also a consultant on the development of the PPS’s new sex ed curriculum. PSE did not show up in the invoices received via records request, an omission that we don’t currently have an explanation for. Yet the fact that this organization was involved should set off alarm bells for Plymouth parents. Here’s why.

PSE has been around for a while, and they are known for their political activism, as well as the fact that they recommend pretty much all of the most graphic sex ed curricula we’ve seen. They not only recommend the 3Rs, but many others, including Our Whole Lives, which teaches masturbation and transgender identity to grades K-1. But PSE’s influence extends far beyond their curriculum recommendations and consulting services.

They also host the New England Sex Ed Conference, which in 2025 featured lectures such as “Fighting Back Against Anti-LGBTQ Forces in Your Community” and “Protecting Adolescent Privacy: Access to Reproductive & Sexual Healthcare.”

Their Bluesky account is strikingly partisan and often crude, with these posts, and many others like them.

We censored the language on this post, for our readers who would rather not be cussed at.

They even reposted artwork from a “furry porn” account (we blurred the drawings of genitals for our readers, but you can see the original HERE).

They also posted, or re-posted, anti-conservative, anti-homeschooling, and/or anti-parental rights sentiments. See one example below.

These positions are extreme for an education non-profit, but perhaps not surprising given that PSE’s director, Megara Bell, is quite open about her activism.

One such example was from April 13th, 2024, when Bell used her public Facebook profile to proudly hail herself as someone who had spent the day heckling “hate groups.” Depicted in Boston toting a bullhorn, she was sporting a “Protect Trans Kids!” hat and t-shirt.

Brian Flaherty also works with Partners in Sex Education as the Director of Development.

But what “hate group” was in Boston on April 13th? According to our research, the “hate group” was actually… Christians.

A national Christian women’s group, which focuses primarily on prayer, held a regional event in the city that day called ““Don’t Mess With Our Kids.” Their mission was to “Pray, Fast and Stand” to protect minors from gender confusion. According to their Facebook event, they also planned to take communion. This is what the Boston DSA referred to as a “hate group” in their post above. We believe it’s also the event where Bell did her “heckling.”

(Note to Bell: if we got this wrong, please email us with proof that you were actually protesting something different that day. We will gladly consider your evidence and amend our report if need be. You can contact us at massinformedparents@gmail.com.)

Photo of the oh-so-terrifying “hate group,” courtesy of the Boston Herald.

Does Bell, the Director of PSE, think that Christians praying and standing up for biblical views of sex and gender in the public square is something that deserves to be protested? Not only that - they count as a hate group? It appears she does. This should send chills down the spine of every religious parent who has children in a Massachusetts public school. Not only did Bell likely have direct influence on Plymouth’s sex ed curriculum, but she has in many other districts in Massachusetts already, including (but not limited to) Worcester and Boston.

Bell, and others from PSE, have a right to participate in protests. This is America, after all. But Plymouth parents, and all public school parents, have a right to know that the very people influencing their child’s curriculum - and possibly paid with tax dollars to do so - heckled Christians praying at the State House, and run an organization that feels no qualms about airing its blatant political bias on social media. If Bell and PSE are this bold about their activism elsewhere, we have no reason to believe they keep it out of the classroom.

In fact, we have reason to believe the opposite. Here’s an example of a lesson from the 3Rs curriculum that Bell thinks is appropriate for a middle school classroom. Not only does PSE endorse this curriculum, Bell is the author of this lesson.

Credit at the end of this lesson, which you can download in its entirety below.

We suspect that this 3Rs lesson, called “Climate Setting Lesson,” was the foundation of Plymouth’s 8th grade lesson with a similar name. The 3Rs version also includes an activity that polls kids on their attitudes about sex, asking them to stand by an “agree” or “disagree” sign aligning with a certain statement. It instructs the teacher to “validate different opinions” and state that “there aren’t right or wrong answers” on statements like “High school students are too young to have sex” and “It’s ok to send nude pictures to someone you trust.”

Aside from allowing students to believe that things that are actually illegal (like creating and sending pornographic images of minors) are neither right nor wrong, this lesson essentially surveys students about their views on sex behavior or attitudes. Surveying students on this subject without specific parental notification would likely be a violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, a federal law. The lesson also encourages students to talk to school staff about sex, as well as raises issues of policy that align with PSE’s ideology. This is activism in the classroom, smuggled in under “just asking questions.”

Is this activity being used with Plymouth 8th graders? Since the whole “Climate Setting” lesson plan hasn’t been put on the website, only the slides, we don’t know. PPS parents should find out.

You can download the whole lesson below.

3Rs Climate Setting Lesson Oct 2024 - Written by Megara Bell

244KB ∙ PDF file

Concerns about disrespectful school committee members and biased consultants go beyond Plymouth, to be sure. But right now, Plymouth is ground zero for these things. The PPS has already announced that they are expanding their curriculum to grades 6 and 7 next school year, and the financial documents from the public records request lead us to believe the PPS is planning to pay more for consultants in 2026. Moving into the new year Plymouth parents have more to watch out for.

Whether you are in Plymouth or another town, make a New Year’s resolution to find out what is happening in your district regarding sex ed, curriculum development, and consultants. If you find something like what’s going on in Plymouth, stop by the Massachusetts Informed Parents Facebook group and share your information to warn other parents. You can post anonymously, and we always protect our sources.

Also, if you live in a town where your elected officials don’t respect the concerns and rights of all parents, you deserve better leadership. Did you know there is a new, non-partisan conservative organization committed to training, equipping, and supporting citizens who are ready to step up and run for office in Massachusetts? If you’ve ever thought of running for office, or you know someone who has, check out Massachusetts Family Action today.

2026 is almost here, and in Plymouth and elsewhere, the fight to protect kids isn’t over. But be encouraged, Mom and Dad. When your cause is righteous, being mocked and protested means that you’re on the right track. If you’re taking incoming fire, it’s a sign that you’re over the target.

Keep going. We’ll be right there with you.

#EquippingParents
#ProtectingKids

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Plymouth Violates own Policy to Push New Sex Ed Curriculum, Parents Fight Back

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 22:02:45 GMT

Screenshot from Amaze video originally intended to be part of the PPS’s new 8th grade curriculum. This video name-drops Planned Parenthood and encourages the use of Depo-Provera, the contraceptive shot currently at the center of a major lawsuit for (allegedly) causing brain tumors.

Plymouth, MA, home of the famous (and famously underwhelming), Plymouth Rock, is now home to something truly impressive - parents brave enough to take a stand against indoctrination in their schools.

While the threats to the original settlers of Plymouth were disease, lack of supplies and warring tribes, Plymouth families in 2025 are facing something else entirely. The threat to these families is the sexualization of children - in this case, through a new 8th grade sex ed curriculum.

The situation in Plymouth first caught our eye when at the Plymouth Public Schools’ October 20th school committee meeting, a concerned father drew attention to the lack of transparency around the new curriculum and exposed some of the shocking material he had found when he reviewed it. A local priest also spoke up about the dangers of allowing teachers to supplant the role of parents, especially when it comes to children making sensitive decisions about sexuality and sexual activity. You can watch their comments below.

In the course of his comments, the concerned father talked about the challenges he had faced in trying to review the new curriculum. He also pointed out that the Plymouth school committee’s OWN policy states that if parents want to review sex ed materials and they don’t feel that the school has provided sufficient access, they can follow an appeal process. This process can take up to six weeks. However, the district had announced the new curriculum on October 8th, to be implemented on October 23rd. This did not allow enough time for parents to follow the district’s own appeal process, he argued, and therefore the implementation of the curriculum must be postponed.

District administration must have realized he had a point, because two days later, the principal of the Plymouth middle school where these changes were expected to roll out, sent the following email:

While this email was a positive step (though the district shouldn’t get too many kudos for following its own policies!), it raised more questions than it answered. “Over the past several months, our health education team has worked diligently, engaging in professional development, collaborating with consultants…” it said. Now wait a second - what kind of professional development had the teachers received, and who were the consultants employed to provide it?

We know that outside voices like consultants crafting curriculum and telling teachers how to do their job can be a problem, especially if they promote values that don’t align with those of the families whose children the district is responsible for educating. Was this what had happened in Plymouth? What outside voices had been active in the PPS, and what were they saying? And while we’re at it - who was funding their work?

To find out more about these consultants and the professional development provided to Plymouth teachers, Massachusetts Family Institute submitted a public records request on November 3rd. You can see the request here.

Here is what we learned when we reviewed the documents returned by the PPS.

Teachers were trained to use activist curriculum.

One thing returned in the public records request was the following slideshow, which clearly states that it is based on the Rights, Respect, Responsibility (3Rs) Curriculum. The 3Rs is a project of Advocates for Youth, a progressive activist organization that actively promotes issues like abortion access, free contraceptives on campuses, transgenderism, and more. Advocates for Youth is also a managing partner of Amaze.org, a notorious purveyor of animated sexuality cartoons with titles like Masturbation: Totally Normal and Is it Normal to Watch Porn? (spoiler alert: Amaze says yes, kids, watching porn is “normal.”).

This slideshow contains references to progressive ideologies that the presenters expected teachers to implement in their classrooms.

It also instructs teachers to access other biased, politicized resources such as Planned Parenthood.

You can download the entire slideshow here:

Copy Of Teaching Puberty & Sexual Health With Confidence

144KB ∙ PDF file

Training was provided by Lighthouse Wellness and Health Education Consulting, and it wasn’t cheap.

The public records request revealed that the district had received the Promoting Safe and Healthy Learning Environments: Elevating Student Voice and Well-Being Grant from DESE. Per this email from 2024, the funds from this grant were used to pay $25,000 to Lighthouse Wellness and Health Education Consulting (LWHEC) for their professional development services.

Before we go further, a word about grants. Every school committee loves grants, because they allow the district to obtain goods or services without a hit to the general budget. In a world where every district wishes they had more money to service students, grants seem like a godsend. However, the desire for budget-neutral resources frequently blinds school committee members to the programmatic impact and controversial ideologies that often come along for the free-money ride.

We didn’t go down the rabbit hole of tracking the history of this particular grant in Plymouth Public Schools (Did the school committee support it? Were they aware of the implications? Was it discussed publicly and voted on? If so, when? Did the community have a chance to weigh in?), but someone else certainly could. Plymouth parents deserve to know what grants its district is applying for, and what those grants, when received, obligate the district to do.

In this case, it appears the grant provided funding for training in DESE’s new Comprehensive Health and Physical Education framework - and that training was to be provided by DESE’s approved vendor, LWHEC. See screenshot below from the “Key Requirements” sheet for the CHPE portion of this grant below.

Slow clap for the folks who figured out how much money there is to be made in education consulting. Quite a lucrative industry.

But that wasn’t all that was paid to LWHEC. Per our public records, it appears that the LWHEC was paid a total of $54,000 by the PPS in 2024 and 2025. There are $40,000 worth of invoices that appear to be tied directly to this grant, and another for $14,000 (for “YMHFA Training”) that may or may not be connected. Please see for yourself by downloading the supporting documents below.

Plymouth and LWHEC Documentation 2024-2025

1.78MB ∙ PDF file

So who is LWHEC, anyway, and why is this consulting firm so influential in MA public schools? There’s likely more that parents could look into there as well, but here’s a quick bit of intel worth noting for those concerned about sexualization and indoctrination in the classroom (and yes, even in gym class).

LWHEC is run by Holly Alperin and Sarah Benes, two ladies with a long list of credentials in the health and education space (though none as actual K-12 classroom teachers, at least based on their website bios). One particularly noteworthy (or should we say, red flag-worthy) credential is that Benes was the President of the Society of Health and Physical Educators (also known as SHAPE America) in 2023. While we wish that gym class was a safe space from progressive ideologies, sadly SHAPE is not an ideologically-neutral organization. On their blog they advocate for social justice in physical education, their latest Inclusive Practices in Health Education guidance recommends that teachers “Consistently include topics and gender identities that are culturally relevant and affirming to LGBTQIA+ youth,” and their annual conference has featured sessions such as “Beyond Rainbows and Pronouns: Teaching About Gender Identity in Elementary School” and “What’s Trending? Decoding Teens With Amaze’s Sex Ed Resources” (both of which list Nora Gelperin of Advocates for Youth as the presenter). In short, SHAPE is woke, and while we don’t know what Benes believes about every issue under the sun, woke organizations tend to elect woke leaders. And now, one of those leaders runs the organization that’s teaching MA teachers how to develop health curriculum and run their classrooms.

From a Sarah Benes’ youtube interview, where she also mentions the importance of being “affirming of all student identities” and using “social justice approaches.” You can watch it for yourself here.

Maybe it’s no longer surprising that DESE would promote training (and trainers) whose ideological priors don’t align with those of many MA families. But since there might be some parents who don’t yet realize that even gym class has been politicized, these affiliations are worth mentioning.

(Here’s another rabbit hole you can go down - want to know more about what Advocates for Youth and SHAPE promote? Download the slides from Gelperin’s 2024 “Beyond Rainbows and Pronouns” presentation below.)

SHAPE America Gender Identity In K 5 Gelperin

5.9MB ∙ PDF file

Plymouth Public Schools also spent a LOT of money on Sex Ed and SEL curriculum.

The public records request also revealed invoices from ETR for their HealthSmart curriculum. According to these invoices, it appears that the PPS paid $56,000+ per year for this curriculum in 2024 and 2025.

If true, that’s a ton of money for a curriculum, especially considering it’s a prepackaged curriculum - and that price appears to be on top of the monies paid for the training and professional development! We have to wonder if this is what Plymouth taxpayers really want their tax dollars to pay for. $56k per year for one class hardly seems like a good value, regardless of the curriculum content. (Also, is this hefty pricetag the reason why the PPS is so unwilling to provide copies of lessons to parents? Are they trying to protect their investment? Shouldn’t they be more worried about protecting kids - and parental rights - instead?)

The public records request also uncovered how much the PPS paid for a three-year license for Second Step, an SEL curriculum. That cost the district another $54k. Yikes.

You can download all of these documents below.

Health Related Curriculum Invoices PPS

6.28MB ∙ PDF file

While we were reviewing the documents we got back from the public records request, Plymouth parents were busy mobilizing their community. A group of concerned parents called Protect Plymouth Youth planned (and held) an education event on November 18th.

These parents also set up an incredible website to further educate parents about what’s happening in Plymouth sex ed, and why it matters. The local news source The Plymouth Independent has picked up on this story as well. Per their article, a reported 244 people attended the November 18th event. This is really remarkable, and it just goes to show what a group of motivated parents can do. Kudos to Protect Plymouth Youth - you are doing great work!

In the meantime, the PPS has put back out their 8th grade sex ed opt out form. According to the form, the new lessons will now begin on Friday, January 12th. The form provides a list of topics, but does not contain specific information on the content of the lessons.

It seems the PPS has not learned their lesson about the importance of curricular transparency just yet. But will they?

Tonight, December 1st at 7:00pm, the Plymouth school committee meets again. Sex Ed is on the agenda.

Snippet from 12/1/25 agenda. Download the full agenda here.

The agenda includes a presentation by the Health/PE K-8 Department Head and the Assistant Superintendent. You can review the whole presentation here.

Or download it here:

Plymouth Sex Ed Presentation

756KB ∙ PDF file

Parents, tonight’s meeting is your next best opportunity to find out what’s going on, and make your concerns clear. We recommend you attend if possible. We also recommend that you take note of at least two troubling things that we found in this slideshow, which per the agenda, will be presented tonight.

First, it appears that the slideshow is stating that MA law mandates that “any school offering sexual health education must provide a medically accurate, age-appropriate, and comprehensive curriculum consistent with the state’s Comprehensive Health Framework.”

This is not true. Current MA law does NOT require this. Learn more about what MA law does - and does NOT require - on this informative, downloadable pdf from Massachusetts Family Institute. This is extremely important.

It appears that what this slide is actually describing is what the law would be IF the much-contested Healthy Youth Act passes. This bill, while currently before the House and Senate, has NOT passed and is NOT the law. You can learn more about the Healthy Youth Act here and contact your legislators to tell them why they should oppose it here.

This distinction matters a great deal, because if the PPS is justifying these curricular changes based on a faulty understanding of MA law, or upon a bill that has NOT passed, they need to be called out for it.

Second, the slideshow contains the PPS’s intent to continue to expand sex ed. Not only do they want it in 8th grade, which is new this year, they want it in grades 6-8 in the future.

Plymouth parents, it’s time to make your voices heard. It’s also time to dig in and find out, if this is happening in middle school, what is the district proposing for K-5 and 9-12? In 2022, MFI received information from the PPS as part of its Sex Ed Map Project on what it was doing for sex ed across multiple grade levels. You can review that information here. Has this changed? What’s actually going on in the classroom? Time to find out.

If you are a Plymouth parent and you have new information to share with us, please email us at massinformedparents@gmail.com. We are happy to expand this report, and we always protect our sources.

We will be watching what happens in Plymouth, and will update you with major changes.

If you’re not a Plymouth parent, here’s your cue to take inspiration from the folks in Plymouth and get active in your own community. Has your district received DESE grants to implement new sex ed programming? Is your district spending gobs of money on health curriculum that it won’t allow parents to see? What’s happening in your town? Time for you to find out, too.

Involved parents rock. Go get ‘em, mom and dad.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Breaking: Preliminary Injunction Sought in Lexington Lawsuit After School Teaches LGBTQ Content to Kindergartener, Refuses Opt Out

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Thu, 06 Nov 2025 22:52:27 GMT

From Prince and Knight, a book listed in the LPS’s Kindergarten DEI curriculum.

We told you last month about a Christian father of a 5-year-old Lexington Public Schools (LPS) student who sent an opt out letter to the district at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year for certain sensitive subjects that contradict his family’s religious beliefs. If you haven’t seen the LPS’s shocking Kindergarten curriculum, read more here:

Rather than simply honor this father’s request, the district claimed his letter lacked sufficient “specificity,” even though they had not provided the curriculum materials in advance for him to review. Even further, he found out that while the district was busy delaying their responses to his emails, they had taught his child a lesson that contained the very material he had instructed them to avoid.

This was a direct violation of parental rights by LPS – not only were this father’s express wishes disregarded, but his firmly held religious convictions were deemed unsubstantial. These actions threaten to erode the constitutional boundary between state authority and parental autonomy in the Commonwealth and across the country, especially given the recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor.

Mahmoud began with several parents of diverse religious backgrounds, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims, requesting that their children be excused from class when pro-LGBTQ books were being read to students, as instructing their children with the pro-LGBTQ messages in these books would contradict their religious beliefs about God’s design for marriage, sexuality, and gender and interfere with their rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The school board initially agreed to allow such opt-outs, but ultimately reversed course and implemented a no opt-out policy for the LGBTQ-themed texts.

SCOTUS deemed this action unconstitutional and ruled that the religious liberty of these parents was indeed violated, and that the purpose of reading such books to young and impressionable children was to exert a “psychological pressure to conform” to the views that they espoused, rather than the religious views that their parents held.

To read our previous coverage of the Mahmoud decision, see the posts below.

Given the Mahmoud decision, parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of content in any class that substantially interferes with their right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Therefore, LPS clearly violated the constitutional rights of this Lexington father.

In response to this injustice, MFI’s Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center (MLLC) and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) sent a demand letter to LPS insisting that the district honor the parent’s written opt-out request and provide timely, transparent access to classroom materials and curricula. And if the LPS didn’t act, MLLC and ACLJ made it clear that they were prepared to pursue all available legal remedies – both for this parent, and for other families across Massachusetts who experience similar abuses.

LPS did not take action to correct this, so MLLC and the ACLJ followed through and filed a complaint against the District in federal court.

This case seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief to uphold the plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights to direct the religious and moral upbringing of his child. You can download the full complaint below.

L. v. Lexington Public Schools et al

4.85MB ∙ PDF file

Since then, there has been no resolution between the LPS and the plaintiff. That is why today, November 6th, the MLLC and ACLJ filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The purpose of the motion is to put a temporary order in place that says that the school can’t expose the plaintiff’s child to any of the objectionable content while the case is pending.

You can download the Motion and Memorandum in Support below.

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction - L. vs. Lexington Public Schools et al

178KB ∙ PDF file

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion - L. vs. Lexington Public Schools et al

290KB ∙ PDF file

This may be the first case of its type in the nation post-Mahmoud, so we will be watching closely and will update you with further developments. You can also follow the case online for yourself here.

Religious parents nationwide should be aware of Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the protections it provides. You can’t rely on your local school district to tell you about it, but trust us… they know. The Massachusetts Association for School Committees (MASC) has been talking about it for months, and the NEA filed a brief AGAINST it at the Supreme Court, so we know the teacher’s unions are aware as well (and not happy about it). Another organization in-the-know is the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents (MASS). We couldn’t find anything on the MASS website about Mahmoud, but we have obtained guidance they distributed to superintendents back in September regarding the case If you want to know what MA superintendents are being told about your opt out rights, read on.

You can also download the pdf version of this document here.

Update on Mahmoud v. Taylor – Practice Tips for M.A.S.S.

171KB ∙ PDF file

See that last line, #12? Parents, when you contact your school with your opt-out request, if it goes beyond the MA sex ed opt out law and requests an opt-out based on your religious objections, you can assume the district is contacting their legal counsel before they even respond to your email.

However, as the author states, “For purposes of this memo, we assume Massachusetts school districts would prefer to avoid being a party to such litigation, while still making sure they meet their obligations to all students.” While that assumption doesn’t appear to be the case in Lexington, where they could have avoided a lawsuit by honoring the reasonable requests of a Christian father, we agree that most other districts would probably rather be about the business of educating children than dealing with attorneys.

With that in mind, we hope that most MA religious parents who submit an opt-out request under Mahmoud v. Taylor will find their district receptive and willing to collaborate in order to protect their rights, and their child. We do believe there are Massachusetts school districts and school committees who respect parental rights and would work to accommodate such a request. However, the Lexington case has shown us that not all districts share this view, and parents need to be vigilant and ready to fight back.

Parents shouldn’t have to drag their school district into court to get them to respect their right to direct the religious upbringing of their child. But sometimes they do.

If you, like this Lexington dad, opted your child out and the school didn’t honor your request, now you know who to call.

Are you a religious parent who is concerned that some of your child’s curriculum might undermine your ability to direct their religious upbringing? If you haven’t opted your child out yet, use the opt out form in the link below today to protect your child.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Charlie Kirk was Assassinated. MA Teachers Celebrated. We Investigated.

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:23:32 GMT

Pretty sure she teaches somewhere in MA.

It’s been almost two months since conservative activist Charlie Kirk was murdered while participating in a free speech dialogue event on a college campus in Utah. Almost immediately after his assassination, many public school employees took to social media to express their glee over his slaying. This was a nationwide phenomenon, and accounts like Libs of TikTok took notice of their ghoulish displays. Some of the teachers whose comments went viral were from Massachusetts. Rightfully, parents were horrified. Why did these publicly-funded employees - people trusted with the great responsibility of caring for children(!) - feel so free to celebrate murder? If a teacher celebrated Charlie’s death because they disagree with his faith or his politics, how could a conservative or religious parent be confident that their child or family would be treated fairly in that teacher’s classroom? And even if such a teacher treated the child fairly on a personal level, how could parents trust that their lessons would be politically neutral?

Watching these inflammatory social media posts from professional educators surface made us wonder: if Massachusetts public school employees were posting outrageous rhetoric on social media about Charlie Kirk, what might they be saying internally? We knew that many parents had the same question. If school administrators were receiving complaints or concerns from parents, how were they responding? We wanted to know.

To find out, we partnered with concerned parents and parental rights groups in a number of Massachusetts communities to submit public records requests to local districts regarding Charlie Kirk. These requests were submitted within weeks of Kirk’s death and focused on emails originating from or being forwarded by district email addresses containing Kirk’s name. While we knew this wouldn’t capture everything educators said about Kirk, it could provide parents a glimpse behind the scenes. Today we will share some of what we learned.

As it turns out, parents weren’t the only ones watching the news about teachers getting in trouble. Administrators were watching too. Hoping to save his district from the same fate experienced by nearby Wachusett Regional where a teacher went viral for her anti-Kirk comments, Shrewsbury Public Schools’ superintendent sent an email to all SPS staff less than 24 hours after Kirk’s assassination. He wanted to make sure his staff members were aware that some social media statements could “compromise (their) standing as a public school employee.” He also reminded them of the importance of maintaining political neutrality in the classroom.

While neither of these points should need to be made, the fact that public school teachers openly celebrating an innocent man’s murder online is a thing that was actually happening, it’s reasonable that a superintendent might want to give his staff a refresher on their district’s social media policy (not to mention basic human decency). As for the importance of political neutrality in the classroom, as the results of our public records requests ultimately demonstrated, that’s a reminder teachers in other districts could have used as well. In this case, specifically teachers in Natick and Groton-Dunstable.

Natick

One such example of bias was found in an English lesson from Natick High School.

In modern education, “media literacy” is a common emphasis - so in that spirit, let’s do this exercise together. Zoom in on the lesson below and see if you can spot the bias. If you are a teacher who leans left politically, this exercise is especially important for you.

Did you find it?

Twice, in this teacher’s short explainer of who Charlie Kirk was, she attributes quotes to him. Then later in the lesson she instructs students to pick a side in a discussion about free speech and “reckless rhetoric,” ostensibly based on the information provided, including the quotes. The problem is, these quotes have been taken out of context.

Under the descriptor “A Polarizing Political Figure,” she quotes Kirk as having said that empathy is a “made-up, New-Age term that causes a lot of damage.” Then later on under “A Key Quote (about the second amendment and lives lost through gun violence,” she quotes him as saying, “I think it’s worth [it] to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal.”

Both of these quotes, which were flying around the internet at breakneck speed after Kirk was killed, are indeed words that Kirk said. But they mean something different when read in their full context. In reality, the “empathy” quote is followed by him saying that he prefers the term “sympathy,” and the gun death quote is part of a larger conversation about how liberties sometimes come with dangers (another example he gives is driving). Both quotes, when read as he actually spoke them, provide a fuller understanding of what was being communicated - and neither are as heartless or as “reckless” as they appear. For a great analysis of these quotes, including the context and links to source material, click HERE.

Charlie Kirk’s comments, speeches, and writings are all over the internet. Why didn’t this teacher provide students with links to original sources to review? Why did she only feed them contextless, negative quotes - the very quotes being batted around by his most fervent critics? Was her lesson merely sloppy, or was it intentionally dishonest? Either way, the end result was the same. Students were given a distorted view of Kirk’s character and positions based on misleading snippets, and were then asked to form an opinion based on what they learned.

Like Shrewsbury, Natick Public Schools has a policy that governs how controversial issues should be handled in the classroom. See the relevant portion of the NPS’s policy IMB below. We argue that this lesson, while on its face appears to present multiple views, is actually in violation of this policy.

Making sure your lessons are fair as a teacher is important, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because you serve students who have differing views on controversial issues. Two student emails from the Natick public records request highlight this reality. While it’s unknown if these particular students took the class that gave the lesson above, it’s safe to assume that students who hold these perspectives can be found in every classroom.

In one email, we see a student expressing frustration because his classmates are making fun of Kirk’s death. He is emailing a likeminded friend, wishing he was in class with him.

In another email we see students laughing, finding aspects of Kirk’s assassination funny.

How was a student grieving Kirk’s death to feel, if his classmates treated his assassination like a joke? And how free would that student feel to speak up in class, if even the teacher wasn’t giving a fair portrayal of their slain hero?

The reaction to Kirk’s death highlights the reality in our country: political tensions are high, and there is a great deal of division. Students feel it too. So if teachers are concerned about the dangers of “reckless rhetoric,” they should ask themselves: what’s actually reckless? A conservative leader speaking to a willing audience who hears and understands his entire message? Or an authority figure like a teacher subjecting their captive student audience to a bogus characterization of that leader, misrepresenting his positions, and then forcing students pick a side based on bad information?

Groton-Dunstable

Natick was not the only district where the documents exposed a concern about political neutrality. The same issue presented in the Groton-Dunstable Regional School District (GDRSD), but in a different way.

Our public record request revealed that on the evening of Friday, September 12th, a parent contacted the district to express concern about comments allegedly made by a teacher during an 8th grade Civics class. According to the parent, the teacher told the class that “Charlie Kirk died because he is a sexist and a racist,” and also made a statement about her desire to influence her students politically. The parent also expressed concern about an assignment given by the teacher that allegedly discouraged depictions of American flags, in favor of pride flags or flags from other countries.

Before we go further, here’s a note about the redactions in this section. The GDRSD did not redact the names or contact information of the parents who submitted this complaint. To protect this family’s privacy, we have made those redactions, appearing in black. The redactions in orange are the teacher’s name, which we have also elected to withhold.

Now, back to the story.

At 12:02 on the following Monday after receiving this troubling complaint, the superintendent forwarded the parent’s email to the chair of the school committee. He informed the chair that the middle school principal and vice principal had already been looked into it, and that the parent’s claim about the teacher’s statement was “not substantiated.”

Later that day, the parent received a response from the principal, stating that she had spoken with the teacher. According to the principal, the teacher had provided an alternative explanation for the flag issue on the project. She said that she and the assistant principal would “continue to explore the other comments that you are suggesting happened.” She ended the email with, “We take your concerns seriously.”

In response to this email, the parent replied and formally requested a written explanation of the steps the district is taking to investigate the incident and prevent similar conduct in the future. On September 16th, a meeting between the parents, assistant principal, and the teacher occurred. On the day after the meeting, the assistant principal followed up with the parent and stated that he was still investigating the issue.

Reading through these emails, we can’t help but notice that the timeline of the administration’s investigation, as well as what was communicated to the school committee chair vs. what was being communicated to the parent, doesn’t add up. How seriously could building-level administrators really be taking the investigation on September 17th, when they had told their boss on September 15th that it had already been looked into, and was “not substantiated?”

While waiting for the results of the investigation, the parent contacted the district again with concerns about another lesson from the same class. According to the parent, this lesson included a list of notable figures that the students should consider for an upcoming project. The list of figures was disproportionately comprised of folks on the political left, and included George Takei, who the teacher allegedly stated is her “favorite.” Takei is a former actor and current author and activist who has written on multiple topics but is widely known for his progressive positions, anti-Republican rhetoric, and support of LGBTQ issues.

Takei’s political bias (and the reason why a conservative parent may express concerns about a teacher’s endorsement of his work) can be demonstrated by a 30-second survey of his Bluesky account. Yet in her response email, despite being a self-professed Takei admirer (and no doubt familiar with his activism), the teacher acted as if she couldn’t understand the parents’ objection.

In her reply to the parent’s email - which omitted the parent, but looped in the president of the GDRSD teacher’s union- she painted her admiration of Takei as unimpeachable, and the parent impossible to accommodate. She omitted Takei’s current political activism in her summary of his attributes, and did not address the parent’s allegation about the biased makeup of her assignment.

But if the teacher had done everything right - if the parent was simply being unreasonable, and there was no potential wrongdoing on her part - why did she copy her union president? And why did that union leader go on to forward it to the building-level union leadership?

The emails we received also show the principal forwarding the parent’s complaint about the teacher’s alleged comments to the HR director, another move that seems unnecessary if they were sure that the accusations were baseless.

So… were the accusations baseless?

Accusation #1: Teacher said that Charlie Kirk was sexist and racist.
Result: Undetermined. None of the emails we received from our records request proved that the teacher had slandered Charlie Kirk in front of her class. This neither refutes or proves the parental complaint.

Accusation #2: Bias in two of the teacher’s lessons.
Result: Keep reading to see for yourself.

According to the parent, in one lesson the teacher discouraged depictions of American flags in favor of pride flags or flags from other countries. The name of that lesson is “Identity House.” We obtained a copy, and you can see it below.

(Red boxes added for emphasis)

As you can see, the lesson does indeed tell students that they may not use the American flag.

Let’s take a closer look at the three exemplars at the bottom. Exemplars are often given to students to help them better understand the assignment, to show them what an excellent project would look like, or both.

Sample #1 highlights several left-coded topics such as “health care for immigrants” and “equal pay.”

(Orange edit ours, to redact what appeared to be a student’s name.)

Sample #2 has even more overtly leftist causes depicted (although, props to this student for giving Mom and Dad a shout out!).

And finally, sample #3 depicts the progress pride flag, climate change, anti-colonialism, minimum wage, and gun control.

There’s not an American flag in sight. These exemplars align with the teacher’s grading rubric below, which also states (in red!): “No American Flag.”

Why would a teacher require students not to use the American flag, if that it the flag they feel represents them the most - especially in Civics class? And why would a teacher only supply students with exemplars that demonstrate allegiance to left-wing or progressive ideologies? Was the climate of the class so biased that no students felt brave enough to express other views? Or did they express them, but their projects were not chosen?

Either way, it is clear that the parent’s concerns about this lesson were well-founded.

The second assignment reported by the parent contained a list of notable people, to be used as the suggested focus of a project. According to the parent, the list of names was “predominantly aligned with political far-left or liberal Democratic viewpoints.”

But is it? You can see the list of “Change Makers” below for yourself.

In order to assess the parent’s claim that the list was biased, and avoid any possible accusations of bias ourselves, we entered the list of names into ChatGPT with instructions “to analyze the following list of names for political bias” and tell us “for each name, if the person identifies with a political party or social movement, and if they ‘lean left’ or ‘lean right.’”

It answered our question in two different formats, both of which had the same result. You can see one of them HERE. The other can be seen in the screenshots from ChatGPT below.

According to ChatGPT, not a single one of the names presented as a “Change Maker” was right-leaning. And out of a list of 32 names, the only one with any connection to the Republican party has been dead for 130 years!

We also obtained a different version of this same assignment that contained all of the names above, plus 8 additional: Justin Dart Jr., Ansel Adams, Nellie Bly, Lewis Hine, Frederick Law Olmsted, Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Milton Hershey.

When those names are put into ChatGPT for the same analysis, here’s the result.

Accusation #2: Bias in two Civics lessons.
Result: Confirmed.

This reflects very poorly on the Groton-Dunstable Middle School Civics program, and the administrators who oversee it. The records we have don’t prove that this teacher said something derogatory about Charlie Kirk, but they certainly demonstrate other examples of political bias in the classroom. They also give us a glimpse into a district culture where, when a serious complaint was made, a great deal of parental pressure appears to have been required to convince administrators to launch a formal investigation. And when they did ultimately investigate, the results seem to be a foregone conclusion. Given this, we can’t rule out that any GDRMS teacher might have felt free to say something terrible about Kirk, or to demonstrate political bias in some other way, and not anticipate any negative consequences. With this amount of bias present in this one small snapshot, we have to wonder - what else is going on at this school that parents don’t know about? Why should any conservative or religious parent trust this district to deal honestly with them, or with their children?

Just like in Natick, Groton-Dunstable also has a policy that speaks to controversial issues and bias in the classroom. And just like in Natick, they aren’t following it. See the relevant portion of the GDRSD policy below.

Teachers and administrators in Natick and Groton-Dunstable (and other districts too) must remember that respecting the families and cultures of all students is their responsibility. That includes conservative and religious families, too. If they can’t figure out how to do that, or if they don’t want to try, it’s time they find a new job.

Kudos to parents like the ones from Groton-Dunstable who were paying attention to what goes on in the classroom and decided to speak up. Massachusetts needs more parents like them.

What else did we learn from our public records inquiries about Charlie Kirk? Make sure to subscribe so you’ll get part 2 in your inbox as soon as it is released!

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Lexington Public Schools Exposed: Kindergarten Student Taught Forbidden Lesson After Dad Says "No"

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Mon, 13 Oct 2025 18:10:57 GMT

Last month, an anonymous Lexington Public Schools parent shared the photo above in the Massachusetts Informed Parents Facebook group. Their question was, can I opt opt out of some of the topics in the first grade social studies curriculum? They didn’t go into details about specific concerns, but many group members picked up right away on the red flags in the letter, like its focus on identity and its reference to feeling like “a boy, girl, both, or neither.” Most parents don’t expect to see those topics in any first grade classroom, never mind in social studies!

The Lexington parent who shared the photo and the MIP group members who registered their dismay in the comments weren’t the only ones who saw the warning signs in the LPS’s first grade parent letter. So did Defending Education and the NewBostonPost, both of whom took up the story.

But as it often happens in a case when parents raise concerns in a public Facebook group like MIP about sensitive topics being incorporated into the curriculum, the apologists come out of the woodwork. Inevitably some anonymous member of the self-anointed expert class will pop up to explain why the ideologically-loaded buzzwords don’t actually mean what the parent thinks they mean, or that the school isn’t really teaching about controversial subjects (but if they are, it’s actually good!), or that professional educators know better than parents do, and parents definitely shouldn’t worry about (insert parent’s legitimate concern here). Predictably, that happened in response to this Lexington first grade parent’s post, too. See one example below.

This post, submitted under an anonymous nickname in response to this parent’s concerns, is one example of a phenomenon we’ve seen before: someone who supports inserting a leftist agenda into the curriculum trying to talk wary parents out of trusting their gut. While the identity of the poster is not visible to the public, because Facebook admin can view the profile of someone who wishes to post or comment anonymously, we know who these people are. They are often public school teachers or staff, or progressive activists who do not disclose their affiliations and then proceed to leave disarming comments that mislead parents. For instance, “SincereSeal9590” is a childcare worker whose public profile is full of “Pride”and anti-MAGA posts, alongside recent photos and videos of herself and her spouse at a “No Kings” rally and a drag brunch. She’s hardly the type of person whose “non-political” assurances most conservative (or even moderate) parents would find compelling if they knew who she was, which is probably why she wanted to post anonymously.

But despite the gaslighting from internet randos like SincereSeal9590, Lexington parents are right to be concerned. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and the Lexington Public Schools is an indoctrination inferno.

We’ve reported about the LPS and their progressive anti-parent agenda before. In 2023 we told you about Serious Talks, a mandatory social justice and gender-and-sexuality-infused curriculum the district was pushing on its youngest students against the express wishes of LPS parents. At the time it was the latest example of the district’s wholesale allegiance to critical race and gender theories. You can read more about LPS’s woke history here.

Earlier this year we highlighted the leftist agenda at work in Lexington by amplifying the report one Lexington parent sent to the Department of Education, as well as exposing the LPS’s graphic and disturbing sex ed curriculum. You can read more about those here.

Now, we have new info to share on Lexington’s curriculum for its youngest students. And if you thought that first grade social studies curriculum outline was bad, wait till you see what they do in Kindergarten! But in some ways, equally as important as what the LPS’s kinder curriculum contains, is the reason that we have it.

At the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year, a Christian father of a 5 year old LPS student sent an opt out letter to the district for certain sensitive subjects that contradict his family’s religious beliefs. Rather than simply honor his request, the district played games. They claimed his letter lacked sufficient “specificity,” even though they had not provided the curriculum materials in advance for him to review. How could he be more specific about which lessons he objected to if he couldn’t see the curriculum? When the father was finally able to review the materials, he found even more examples of these sensitive topics being brought into other subject areas! If he hadn’t reviewed these materials, he might not have known that topics like gender and sexuality were turning up in more places than he expected.

We did a deep dive into these lesson, too. Here is what we found.

DEI lessons for 5 year olds.

DEI parent letter, complete with radical organizations recommended at the bottom.

Did you know that not only does the LPS infuse DEI principles into their district HR office, they have a whole K-12 curriculum on it? It’s been in the works for a while, with the plan being to launch it for the 2025-2026 school year. We don’t know if every grade is up and running, but Kindergarten sure is. The letter above gives a sneak peek into what’s in store for these classes, while the full curriculum below tells the rest of the story. Here are a couple of examples of the ways that gender and sexuality pop up.

In a lesson about “getting along with others,” books exposing kids to gender and sexuality are included as “connected read alouds.”

Not Quite Narwhal, while not overtly about gender, is frequently found on LGBTQ book lists due to its non-threatening presentation of the concept of identity being non-binary. And Lovely goes out of its way to include images that defy traditional gender norms such as hairy legs wearing women’s high heels, two men posed as a couple, and the picture below, which depicts a man in a dress.

In another lesson called “Heroes Have a Voice,” students are read to from You Have a Voice, a book that depicts a frightening and somewhat dubious narrative about the dangers of modern racism and then tells little kids that they can fix it if they become good little activists. The lesson draws special attention to the signs depicted in the book.

What are those signs? See below. The accompanying text says, “You know what’s right, you know what’s wrong,” clearly encouraging kids to adopt the positions on the signs in the picture.

These are only two examples of the objectionable material built into these lessons for 5 year olds. To see the full LPS Kindergarten DEI curriculum, download it here.

Lexington Kindergarten DEI Curriculum

3.48MB ∙ PDF file

Health Class that goes far beyond “health.”

The LPS doesn’t teach sex ed to Kindergarten students, but they do teach “health” - and they align their health classes not only with the 2023 DESE Comprehensive Health and Physical Education framework and SHAPE America (both of which, while not good, are fairly common in MA), but also with Social Justice Standards from the radical progressive organization Learning for Justice. Here is just one of these standards, as appears noted on the first Health lesson (emphasis ours).

We have to wonder, what do they mean by group identities? Which ones? Why would children be putting themselves into categories? And what does identity politics and intersectionality have to do with Kindergarten health class?

Social Justice standards are present in every lesson, and parents should ask why.

What else might parents object to in these lessons? Here is another example.

In a lesson called “Families are Special,” the class is read Families, Families, Families, a book that depicts same-sex couples with children and informs kids that “If you love each other, you are a family.”

The person who wrote this book has never seen how real roosters act, and it shows.

This book depicts the natural family as just one in a long list of options, and same-sex pairings as normative. This violates the religious rights of many parents in the LPS.

Lessons like this also raise another question - why are families being talked about at all? What about a child who live with foster parents, or their mother just died, or their father abandoned them? Why do they need to talk about a painful subject in health class? Not only is it unnecessary, it’s potentially traumatizing.

The Social Justice Standards pervade these lessons, which means that even a lesson about tooth brushing or eating vegetables could be interpreted through an activist lens. Many of the lessons contain slideshows we have not been able to access. To review all of the information on the LPS Kindergarten Health curriculum currently available to us, download it here. If we obtain additional information we will update this link.

Lexington 2025 2026 Health Lessons Kindergarten

4.92MB ∙ PDF file

Social Studies for Social Brainwashing

By the time you get to the LPS Kindergarten Social Studies lessons, you begin to see a trend. Students are being taught about identity across multiple subjects, with the same themes recurring over and over. Well-planned curriculum? Sure. But it’s also brainwashing.

Here’s an example from a lesson called “Our Families,” where the students are read Love Makes a Family and asked questions intentionally written to ensure that they take notice of the different family structures depicted.

“What do you notice about these families?” Well for one thing, there are more same-sex adult pairings than male-female pairings! A child reading this book would be led to believe that the majority of kids have same-sex parents, and that there is no functional difference between mothers and fathers. And of course, the lesson is specifically designed to make sure they notice this.

In June, the students are taught about Pride Month using This Day in June. The lesson bring it back to the idea of allyship, which they had also been taught in social studies earlier in the year.

This book, which focuses on a pride parade, introduces kids to BDSM fetishes:

“Clad in leather, perfect weather.” It’s almost difficult to believe this page is real.

It also depicts the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and includes verbiage highly offensive to Catholic readers, amongst other images that have no business in a kindergarten classroom.

The Kindergarten social studies curriculum also includes an optional 2-lesson series on gender identity, which teachers can choose to implement. How would the parents know if these lessons would be taught? We have no indication that they would be informed in advance.

You can see this full lesson, along with the entire LPS Kindergarten Social Studies curriculum below. There are quite a few things in it that we didn’t highlight here (like the lessons on “allyship” including another gender-related book, the recurring theme of child activism, and the CRT-influenced treatment of holidays) but that parents really need to see.

Remember, this isn’t sex ed, or a senior year sociology class. This is social studies for five year olds.

Lexington Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum

9.23MB ∙ PDF file

Would a prospective LPS parent have any warning that their child’s social studies curriculum could include these topics? Not if they were looking at the LPS website. See the topics listed below on the K-5 Social Studies page. A savvy reader may discern that “Families” could be code for teaching kids about diverse coupling arrangements, but it’s not plainly stated, and there’s nothing at all here noting the presence of the gender identity discussions.

Maybe Lexington parents should ask the district why they aren’t more candid about the types of lessons they put in front of vulnerable five year olds. Or better yet, ask them why they think these lessons are appropriate to begin with. The ideological rot in Lexington is nothing new - it is pushed from the top by Superintendent Julie Hackett and the school committee for years - if they have questions about this specific curriculum they could start by contacting Aisha Banda, the LPS’s K-5 Social Studies Curriculum Coordinator. Based on her bio below, Ms. Banda clearly understands her role as a disruptor of classical history education, not someone charged with the weighty responsibility of preserving our rich national heritage in the birthplace of American liberty.

But back to the issue that started this deep-dive into the LPS’s kindergarten indoctrination - one dad, who wanted to opt his young child out.

Well, that dad found out that while the district was busy delaying their responses to his emails, they had taught his child a lesson that contained the very material he had instructed them to avoid. This violated his right to direct the religious upbringing of his child, and he wasn’t going to take that lying down.

He is now being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, who sent a formal demand letter calling on the district to immediately correct course. Their letter insists that the district honor the parent’s written opt-out request and provide timely, transparent access to classroom materials and curricula. And if the LPS doesn’t act, they are prepared to pursue all available legal remedies - both for this parent, and for other families across Massachusetts who experience similar abuses.

To read the ACLJ’s full press release, click here.

We’ve been following the LPS long enough to know that this dad wasn’t the first parent to have his rights run roughshod over. But with the legal landscape now changed thanks to June’s Mahmoud v. Taylor US Supreme Court decision, he could be the last.

We will keep you updated as this case develops.

If you are a MA public school parent, especially a parent of religious faith, make sure you know your opt out rights. Read our post below to learn more about this important decision, and what it means for your family.

When you’re done, review our Back to School post to get a refresher on your rights to review your child’s curriculum, and other important information.

Finally, pay attention to your child’s curriculum. Learn to look for buzzwords like “identity,” and ask questions when you see them. Don’t let a well-meaning friend, an anonymous Facebook account, or your own fear talk you out of digging deeper or trusting your gut.

The devil isn’t always hiding in your child’s curriculum. But when he is, he’s usually in the details.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

🚨 ACTION ALERT! Hold Insurers Accountable for Gender Transition Harm!

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Wed, 01 Oct 2025 16:48:38 GMT

We are alerting you to an important hearing taking place that is key to ensuring that survivors of “gender affirming care” get the help and support they deserve.

Next week Beacon Hill will host a critical hearing on H.1172, a bill that could decide whether detransitioners are given equal access to the medical treatment and mental health care they desperately need. For too long, these individuals have been abandoned by a system that funds harmful “transition” procedures but refuses to cover the care required to ameliorate the damage. This hearing is our chance to change that.

The Joint Committee on Financial Services is holding a public hearing NEXT WEDNESDAY, October 8th, at 10:30 AM in the Gardner Auditorium at the State House in Boston. There is an option to testify virtually or in person. Written testimony may also be submitted.

The deadline to register to testify virtually is THIS FRIDAY, October 3rd, by 5 PM! Those who wish to testify in-person may register at the hearing, but we strongly encourage you to register ahead of time as soon as possible.

For full details and to sign up, click the button below.

H.1172, An Act relative to insurance coverage for new treatment, is on the table.

The lie of transgender ideology leaves lasting scars. Many who undergo chemical and surgical “transition” later face deep regret over the irreversible harm done to their bodies. Yet when they try to de-transition, insurance companies often refuse to cover their critically-important care.

Below, listen to detransitioner Chloe Cole talk about her experience as a gender-confused minor who was encouraged by doctors and therapists to undergo permanent medical interventions such as a double mastectomy. Procedures like this are covered by insurance under “gender affirming care,” but when those who go under the knife experience regret, the medical system far too often won’t help. And if they do help, they expect the survivors to pay out of pocket.

We don’t think “gender transition” surgeries should be funded by insurance, period. But since they are, those same insurance companies shouldn’t be able to skirt their financial responsibility for the harm they cause to survivors like Chloe.

This bill ensures that those harmed by “transitioning” are not abandoned. If insurers choose to fund costly gender procedures, they must also cover the medical and mental health treatments required to address the damage.

By guaranteeing access to both corrective care and vital psychological support, H.1172 offers real compassion and accountability. It protects detransitioners—those grappling with the consequences of so-called “gender-affirming care”—and provides a path to recovery that our healthcare system should never deny.

Learn more about this bill in a brief from Massachusetts Family Institute below, or read it online HERE.

You have a part to play in the fight against radical gender ideology. We urge you to register to testify in support of this important bill today!

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

New Complaint: Burlington School Committee Violates Open Meeting Law to Give Embattled Superintendent a Raise

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Mon, 29 Sep 2025 19:28:00 GMT

From the “Make it Make Sense” files, we have yet another update from the Burlington Public Schools.

After making national news for giving a sexually graphic Youth Risk Behavior Survey to minors against their parents’ wishes – an action resulting in two federal complaints being filed by the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center – the Burlington Public Schools is under legal scrutiny again. Thanks to information shared with us by citizen advocates, we have learned that another legal complaint has been filed against the BPS. And while this complaint isn’t about giving 11-year-olds a survey that asks about sex toys, given what has been going on in Burlington, in some ways it is almost as shocking.

For months, Burlington parents and community members have been calling for action from their school committee and for accountability for Superintendent Dr. Eric Conti for the egregious failures surrounding the YRBS, a survey he has played a key role in for years. This is why they were shocked to learn that last month, in the midst of two open federal complaints and a blizzard of negative press for these legal violations, the school committee voted to give Dr. Conti not only a raise, but also a contract extension!

Financially rewarding an already highly-paid superintendent in the midst of a contentious legal battle is incomprehensible, but it isn’t illegal, unless another law is violated in the course of doing so. In this case, that’s what appears to have happened.

On September 15^th, an Open Meeting Law complaint was filed by a Burlington resident. This eagle-eyed resident noticed that, according to school committee minutes, on August 19^th the school committee had voted “to increase Dr. Conti’s salary by 3.5% and to add 1 year to his contract.” Per the minutes, the motion was made by Meghan Nawoichik and seconded by Christine Monaco and was carried 3:1:0 by a roll call vote, with Jeremy Brooks opposing. This vote had not been on the agenda.

Read the full complaint below.

You can also download the complaint here:

Burlington Open Meeting Law Complaint (redacted)

4.84MB ∙ PDF file

As the complaint writer points out, according to MA Open Meeting Law, the meeting notice “shall contain the date, time and place of the meeting and a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting.” We did some digging, and based on what we found, it appears that the Superintendent’s contract is reviewed and voted on annually by the Burlington school committee. In previous years, this vote was specifically noted on the agenda.

Both the discussion of the superintendent’s contract and the vote on the contract were listed in the agenda for the school committee’s meeting on June 26, 2023. And on the agenda for the July 23, 2024 meeting, both were listed as well. So in the previous two years, when the Burlington School Committee has reviewed Dr. Conti’s contract, it has been specifically noted on the agenda that a vote would be taking place. In 2025 it was not.

Based on past practice, arguing that the school committee could not have reasonably anticipated voting on Dr. Conti’s contract on August 19^th strains credulity. In fact, the only things that has changed between 2025 and these previous years is that the district is now subject to federal complaints… and parents are watching.

In addition to an apparent violation of open meeting law, this omission is also a violation of the school committee’s own policy. Per the BPS policy on school committee meeting notification, “However, a minimum of 48 hours prior to each meeting the Committee shall cause to be posted a listing of each subject the Chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting (the agenda).”

Did the Burlington School Committee and Dr. Conti leave this vote off the agenda because they didn’t want parents to know what was being voted on until it was too late? If so, that would be yet another egregious violation of parental rights by the Burlington Public Schools. We urge the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office to take this Open Meeting Law complaint very seriously. This is especially important since this is not the Burlington School Committee’s first Open Meeting Law complaint – another one was filed for a different reason back in May. And on August 25^th, the federal Department of Education announced that they had officially opened an investigation into the federal complaints regarding the YRBS survey, and that complaint is ongoing.

One has to wonder – how many times does the BPS leadership have to violate the law before change comes to Burlington?

Tomorrow night is the Burlington School Committee’s next meeting, and this Open Meeting Law complaint is on the agenda.

If you’re a Burlington resident, this is your next best opportunity to ask two obvious questions: Why would the school committee reward an embattled superintendent, and why would they not put the vote on the agenda like they usually do?

Burlington parents and students deserve better, and we will continue to stand with them as they push for common sense and accountability.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

🚨 Action Alert: MA Gender Ideology/Sex Ed Mandate Back on the Table

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 22:30:42 GMT

(While many of us are grieving the loss of Charlie Kirk this evening and praying earnestly for his family, we have to break in and tell you about this terrible bill coming up on Beacon Hill next week. The deadline to sign up to testify is coming up quick, and this one is important.)

We are alerting you to an important hearing taking place that is critical to preserving parental rights and protecting children from radical ideology and explicit materials in our schools.

The Joint Committee on Education is holding a public hearing NEXT TUESDAY, September 16th, at 11 AM in the Gardner Auditorium at the State House in Boston. There is an option to testify virtually or in person. Written testimony may also be submitted.

The deadline to register to testify virtually is THIS FRIDAY, September 12th, by 1 PM! Those who wish to testify in-person may register at the hearing, but we strongly encourage you to register ahead of time.

For full details and to sign up, click the button below.

One of our biggest fights –H.656/S.340, An Act Relative to Healthy Youth— will be on the table again at this hearing.

MIP and Massachusetts Family Institute have successfully mobilized against the Healthy Youth Act for several years now, but that doesn't mean it isn't a threat. In fact, it might be more dangerous than ever.

If passed, this bill would mandate that any school district that teaches sex ed follow DESE's Comprehensive Health and Physical Education framework. This is a threat to local control and would result in an increase in controversial topics like gender identity, which it mandates be taught by any school that offers a sexual health program.

From the requirements in S 340, any MA public school that teaches sex ed must also teach: "(vii) age-appropriate information about: (A) gender identity and sexual orientation for all students, including affirmative education that people have different sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions; and (B) resources and support services for all students, including, but not limited to, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, agender, queer and questioning students."

In addition to the Healthy Youth Act, there are also MANY other bad bills that will be presented at this hearing such as the LGBTQ Curriculum bill, this one that would mandate mental health education for students K-12, this one that would mandate a divisive view of race in American history as part of the history and social studies standards, and more.

There are also some good bills, such as the Sex Ed Opt In bill, a bill that reduces the barriers to homeschooling, and others.

If you care about education in MA, this hearing is your next best chance to speak up!

Read this legislative brief about the Healthy Youth Act to learn more.

Help us protect parental rights and religious liberty and register to testify today!

Want to know more about why this bill is so bad? Read our post from last year below!

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Ready, Set, Go... Back to School with Massachusetts Informed Parents!

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Sat, 30 Aug 2025 00:38:29 GMT

August is drawing to a close, and every mom or dad knows what that means - it’s time for another school year! Whether your kids have just started back or they will within the next few days, MIP is thrilled to announce a new resource that you’ll want to keep handy this month, and all year round.

Introducing the Massachusetts Informed Parents Back to School Checklist!

Print this checklist and hang it somewhere where you will see it, or download the pdf version below (it’s got links in it!).

Massachusetts Informed Parents Back to School Checklist

783KB ∙ PDF file

All of these resources are on the MLLC website

Now here are our checklist recommendations, to start the school year off right, and stay in-the-know all year long.

✅ Get to know your teachers and district leadership

You probably know the name of your child’s teacher, but do they know yours? If not, start the year off with a friendly introduction via email. Tell them anything you would like for them to know about your child, mention any assistance or special skills you are willing to share in the classroom this year, and invite them to contact you going forward with any questions or concerns. Make sure to attend parents nights and teacher conferences as well, and make the most of every opportunity to get to know the adults who will be interacting closely with your child.

Who is your child’s principal? School nurse? Guidance counselor? Find out the names and contact information of anyone else who you may need to get in touch with regarding your child or an issue at the school. If there is anything you want them to know about your child, or any expectations you as a parent have of the school, contacting them proactively and opening up a line of communication early on is often your best bet.

Be sure to sign up for all school newsletters, principal’s update emails, and school social media pages. Make sure you are receiving all notifications from your school, if your school uses an online system like Parentsquare. Often district leadership communicates through these avenues, and you can follow up with them if you have any questions about any of the information they put out.

Finally, who are the members of your school committee, and when do they meet? Locate and bookmark the webpage where this information is posted (keep an eye out for your school committee’s policy manual and bookmark that too!). If your schedule permits, attend an upcoming school committee meeting. Even if you don’t have an item of interest on the agenda, attending a meeting will help you better understand how your school district works and who the leaders are that make the decisions that impact your child (and who to contact with questions or concerns when they arise). If you aren’t able to attend a meeting in person, find out if the meetings are streamed or recorded. Most Massachusetts districts now post recordings of their meetings online for the public to view.

✅ Review Syllabi and Curriculum

We know that many Massachusetts school districts embed controversial ideologies into subjects where parents would not normally expect to find them, or use politicized resources to teach topics that would otherwise be unobjectionable. The best way to engage this reality (or at least prepare your children for it) is by having an awareness of what topics are being discussed in class. Open up a positive line of communication with your child, asking them to share the syllabus with you or provide you access to their google classroom so you can view assignments for yourself. Keep the communication line open and ask them to tell you if certain topics come up in class as the year goes on (but don’t freak out or become visibly angry if they report something back to you that you don’t like. Keep a cool head and follow up with the teacher to ask for clarification.) Review any information provided about the curriculum or upcoming lessons via email, parents nights, through a classroom, department or district website, or through documents sent home. If you don’t see the information you are looking for, email your child’s teacher and request it.

Massachusetts state law provides parents the right to “inspect and review program instruction materials” for sex ed, and the federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) provides “the right of a parent of a student to inspect, upon the request of the parent, any instructional material used as part of the educational curriculum for the student.” Public record requests are also a useful tool to gain information from your school district, but when it comes to your child’s curriculum, you shouldn’t need to file one. You have a right to know what is being taught to your child, and the school should accommodate your parental requests.

✅ Know your rights

As a public school parent, you have many rights. As mentioned above, you have the right to view your child’s curriculum and instructional materials under the PPRA, which also provides rights regarding surveys that ask kids about topics such as political affiliation, sex behavior or attitudes, religious affiliation, and more. Under the federal Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA), you have the right to review your child’s official student record. Under Massachusetts law you have the right to opt your child out of sex education for any reason. And now thanks to the recent US Supreme Court decision Mahmoud v. Taylor, religious parents now have the right to opt their child out of instruction that substantially interferes with their ability to direct their children’s religious upbringing, such as LGBTQ-themed storybooks presented to young children. To learn more about this important case, read the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center (MLLC)’s advisory letter, or our previous post about Mahmoud v. Taylor.

And rights in school aren’t just for parents - they are for students, too! One such right is the ability to hold a religious club, like a Bible club, in Massachusetts public schools. To learn more about these rights, see this legal advisory letter.

This is not an exhaustive list of parent and student rights in the public schools. If you have questions about anything not mentioned here, drop them in the comments below! We also encourage you to check out the list of rights-related resources on the MLLC website HERE, and watch the (brand new!) video below for more info:

✅ Note your school calendar (and Sex on the School Calendar!)

Paying attention to your child’s school calendar is important. No parent wants to be surprised by a child getting dropped off when nobody is home due to an unexpected half-day, and it’s always good to know when the next three-day weekend or school vacation is coming so you can plan accordingly. But in addition to your child’s school calendar, there’s another calendar that may impact your child’s education - and you won’t find it on your district website.

For many years the activist organization GLSEN has been pushing sexuality-related observances into schools nationwide through their GLSEN School Calendar, encouraging school districts to celebrate events like National Coming Out Day and International Pronouns Day. As we began to see more and more observances from this calendar and other similar observances pop up locally, we decided that Massachusetts parents needed their own calendar to help them be aware of what sex-themed days might be coming to their child’s school.

Introducing MIP’s “Sex on the School Calendar,” 2025-2026 edition.

You can download a pdf version of this document below, or link to it directly HERE.

MIP's "Sex On The School Calendar" 2025-2026

290KB ∙ PDF file

In some Massachusetts schools many of these events may be observed, where in others there might only be one or two. Familiarize yourself with these dates so you know what to look for, so that if these events are happening you can decide how to engage it. And if your school celebrates a sexuality-themed event not on this calendar, let us know and next year we’ll make sure to include it.

✅ Be book aware

Earlier this week rapper Snoop Dogg went viral for comments he made on a podcast about a same-sex relationship being portrayed in the Disney movie Lightyear. He had taken his grandson to see the ostensibly child-friendly movie, not expecting it to include a depiction of a lesbian relationship. One of the women was pregnant, which resulted in his inquisitive grandson asking him how two women can conceive a child… in the middle of the movie theater.

“It f‑‑‑ed me up. I’m, like, scared to go to the movies now. Y’all throwing me in the middle of s‑‑‑ that I don’t have an answer for,” Snoop said. “These are kids,” he added. “We have to show that at this age? They’re going to ask questions. I don’t have the answer.”

Snoop expressed the same frustration felt by many Massachusetts parents who have taken their children to the library or the local bookstore to pick out a new book, only to find out afterward that the book that looked innocent on the cover includes unexpected themes of gender confusion or sexuality. The same thing has happened with books that (even elementary-aged) kids have brought home from the school library - a book that looks like it’s about tennis or penguins turns out to have references to same-sex relationships, or a book with a teddy bear on the cover is actually about gender transition!

This is where MIP’s Parental Advisory Book List comes in. Our book list gives parents a heads-up on some of the most popular titles found in Massachusetts schools and libraries that contain themes parents may want to avoid - even when those themes aren’t visible on the front cover.

Sample page from the MIP Parental Advisory Book List. Read it in full below.

Download the book list below, or read it online HERE.

Parental Advisory Book List 2025

490KB ∙ PDF file

Once you know which books you want to avoid, you can see if these books are being used in your child’s classroom. You can also find out if these book are in the school library by looking your school up in the GoFollet database HERE. If there are books that you don’t want your child to take out of the school library, you can email your school librarian and let them know.

✅ Opt your child out

Now that you know your rights, be sure to submit your opt out letter! We suggest submitting your opt out letter as early as possible in the school year, sending one copy to your child’s teacher and another copy to the principal.

The updated opt-out letter below from the MLLC equips Massachusetts parents to exercise their rights under state and federal laws to remove their children from sex education and intrusive school surveys. In addition, in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, it also opts children out of instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity and name/pronoun changes related to social transition, based on sincerely held religious beliefs and fundamental parental rights.

This letter can be modified to fit your family’s needs. Cut and paste the text below into your own document, or download the letter directly from the MLLC HERE.

[Insert Date]

Dear [principal name],

Our child, [name], is very excited for the [insert year, i.e. 2025-2026] school year. We are writing to notify you that we will be exercising our right to opt our child out from the following:

1. Please exempt our child from all lessons, events, school assemblies or other instructional activities and programs which cover sex education or human sexuality issues, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71, Section 32A. Please also notify me in advance when such lessons, events, activities, etc. are scheduled.

2. Please exempt our child from lessons, events, school assemblies or other instructional activities and programs which normalize or promote LGBTQ identities, relationships, or lifestyles, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Please also notify me in advance when such lessons, events, activities, etc. are scheduled. The school’s views on these issues conflict with our religious beliefs and instructing our child on these topics at school would substantially interfere with our constitutional right to instill our religious values in our child, as well as our fundamental parental rights.

3. Please exempt our child from any surveys, whether formal or informal, that ask about our child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, mental health, religion, political beliefs, sexual behavior, drug use, family issues, or racism or racial attitudes, pursuant to the PPRA, 20 U.S. Code § 1232h. Please notify me in advance about any such surveys.

4. Do not use an alternate name or pronouns for our child to reflect a different gender identity at school. Doing so would violate our religious beliefs and substantially interfere with our constitutional right to direct our child’s religious upbringing, as well as our fundamental parental rights.

As we are sure you know, state law also requires that no student shall be penalized by reason of any exemptions allowed by law, for example by denying him or her course credit. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education further advises that, “In order to ensure that all students receive the structured learning time due them, the school should make efforts to accommodate the exempted student in another class, assign an alternative educational project, or provide the student with a directed study period for the duration of the exemption.” See Commissioner of Education’s April 7, 1997 “Advisory Opinion on the Parental Notification Law.”

Thank you for understanding our position and for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding this letter, you can contact us at [phone number] or [email]. We are looking forward to a great school year!

Respectfully,

[Insert parents’ names]

Note: MIP has learned that some Massachusetts schools are instructing parents to use a district-provided online form to submit opt out requests. While the school is free to request that parents use a specific form, and parents are welcome to use the form provided, neither party is legally required to do so. If the school does not provide an opt-out form, or if the form provided by the school asks questions that the parents are not comfortable answering or does not provide space to delineate all of the requests that the parents wish to make, we recommend that parents submit the letter above. Regardless of how you submit your opt out, if you have any problems with your school not honoring your request, let us know!

✅ Subscribe to Massachusetts Informed Parents

This one’s easy - hit the button below! If you’ve already subscribed, share MIP with a friend.

Visit MERC and Join the Network Today!

If you’re on Facebook, join the MIP facebook group here!

Join MIP on Facebook

✅ Join the MERC Network

The Massachusetts Education Resource Center, or MERC, is a new resource for Massachusetts school committee members - but educators, parents, and school committee candidates can join too.

MERC offers sample policies, training, tools for professional development, and more. Joining the MERC network is free, and when you join, you will receive email updates to keep you in the know when new resources or upcoming events are posted. School committee members who join the network also receive priority access to free legal and strategy support, and they even get a free gift!

Click the button below to see what MERC has to offer, and be sure to join while you’re there. After you’re done, share MERC with any Massachusetts school committee member who would appreciate this resource.

Friends, keep in touch with MIP this school year. Tell us what you’re seeing in your local district, send us tips or suggestions for our next investigation (email us anytime at massinformedparents@gmail.com), and let us know how we can support you as you protect your kids from indoctrination and sexualization in Massachusetts public schools.

Let’s have a great school year, everyone! 🙌

Did you love this list? Check out these related resources from trusted partners!

Defending Education’s Back to School Checklist
Freedom in Education’s Back to School Toolkit
WILL’s Parental Toolkit (This just released document takes a deeper dive into many of the topics discussed in this post. We recommend it!)
First Liberty’s Religious Liberty Protection Kit for Students
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment: A Toolkit For Parents by America First Legal

Federal Department of Education Announces Investigation into Burlington Public Schools Based on MFI Complaints

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Mon, 25 Aug 2025 20:09:23 GMT

Graphic courtesy of US DoE on X

We told you back in April about the Burlington (MA) Public Schools where, outrageously, middle school students were given a sexually explicit survey - and some were forced to take it against their parents express wishes. This was an egregious violation of parental rights and the innocence of children. But not just that, it was also a violation of federal law.

(Not sure what we’re talking about? Read our coverage below.)

Today the U.S. Department of Education has announced that they are initiating an investigation into the BPS as a result of this violation, thanks to legal complaints filed by Massachusetts Family Institute’s legal arm, the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center on behalf of multiple Burlington parents. See MFI’s press release below, or read it on the MFI website HERE.

We applaud the U.S. Department of Education for taking the concerns of MA parents and the innocence of MA children seriously. We will continue to track this story and keep our subscribers updated (not a subscriber? Click this button!).

Read the US DoE Press Release Here

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 8.25.25
Contact: Mariah Newell, media@mafamily.or g
Direct: 781.569.0400

Federal Department of Education Announces Investigation into Burlington Public Schools Based on MFI Complaints
Complaints filed by MFI’s Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center have prompted a U.S. Department of Education investigation into Burlington Public Schools, marking a significant step for parental rights and school accountability.

We are pleased to report that based on complaints that MFI’s Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center filed on behalf of multiple Burlington parents, the Department of Education has launched an investigation into Burlington Public Schools. The investigation will cover the incident involving a grotesque sexually explicit survey that was given this past March to children as young as 11 years old in Burlington against the express wishes of their parents. This survey delved into students’ sexual history, drug use, self-harm, and other sensitive topics, and described sex acts, including oral and anal sex and sex with “toys or props,” in graphic detail.

This massive violation of parental rights and the innocence of minor children was also a violation of the federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, and we applaud the DOE for taking this step to hold Burlington Public Schools accountable. We anticipate that the investigation will ultimately conclude that Burlington violated federal law and that the DOE will require the school district to take swift corrective action. We continue to call on the Burlington School Committee to end its use of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and to adopt an opt-in policy with regard to these kinds of surveys. We also urge the Committee to ensure that superintendent Eric Conti and any other responsible staff members are held accountable for this egregious incident. No one is above the law, and MFI will continue to fight for the rights of Burlington parents until they are vindicated.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

Longmeadow Middle School Librarian Arrested for Child Porn while MA Reps Advance Bill that Protects Porn in School Libraries

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:28:05 GMT

From the FB page of the arrested librarian. Libs of TikTok also published it here.

That thing that we are told never happens, happened again - and this time, in Longmeadow. On Wednesday August 13th, 2025, a public school employee - a school librarian who worked at Williams Middle School and Glenbrook Middle School - was arrested for the alleged distribution of child pornography. Scott McGinley, 55, of Holyoke, MA was charged by criminal complaint with one count of distribution of child porn (and by some accounts, that may just be the beginning). According to the FBI:

“It is alleged that, in July 2025, McGinley distributed CSAM to a group called, “Little boyz only,” on an encrypted messenger application. When contacted by undercover law enforcement posing as a fellow user on the app, McGinley allegedly disclosed his sexual preference for “boys age 2-12” and “especially 4-7.” It is further alleged that, in the conversations with undercover law enforcement, McGinley stated he had “students” who were “11-14 years old” but, “ha[d]n’t touched them sexually,” and that he sat “hot boys strategically so [he could] see under their desks, and close to [him],” and made graphic sexual statements about the boys.”

Also according to the FBI, a search of McGinley’s basement yielded a locked Pelican case alleged to have contained a medley of items for children approximately five to seven years old – including but not limited to, assorted children’s clothes, a Santa costume, diapers, diaper cream and apple sauce packets. The case also allegedly contained a toolbox with boys’ underwear and bedding stuffed inside.

You can read the FBI’s full press release in its entirety HERE.

McGinley’s texts (allegedly). From Western MA News.

Longmeadow parents, rightfully horrified, began speaking out. According to the Boston Globe, in a letter to families on the same day the news broke, Longmeadow Superintendent Martin O’Shea said the district is cooperating with investigators and is in contact with the state Department of Children and Families.

“Our highest priority is and always will be student safety and well being,” O’Shea said. “LPS has policies and protocols in place to protect students through student education, staff training, and the use of background checks and mandatory reporting.”

Read Superintendent O’Shea’s full statement HERE.

The very next evening - Thursday the 14th - the Longmeadow Public Schools hosted an information session for parents, caregivers and staff with local and federal law enforcement to answer questions and listen to concerns. According to The Reminder, approximately 100 people attended - and some in attendance indicated that this arrest wasn’t the first time they thought something might be ‘off’ with McGinley.

As reported in The Reminder:

“Several people said it was “widely discussed” among students that McGinley was “creepy.” One parent said there was a “school culture of hiding things under the rug,” another said McGinley “had been warned” about his behavior and a third asked if the School Department had a file detailing his behavior. O’Shea confirmed that the administration keeps files on employee disciplinary issues…”
“Some people asked about McGinley’s role as the advisor for the middle school LGBTQ+ club, with one person calling it “predatory.” Others mentioned an incident a few years ago in which middle school students found McGinley’s account on the dating app Grindr, which caters to LGBTQ+ individuals. A parent said a student who was circulating the information was punished, but McGinley was not. O’Shea said, ‘You don’t know that.’”

While we don’t know the details of the concerns mentioned by parents, we were able to find evidence that seems to support some of their statements. This screenshot allegedly showing the librarian’s Grindr profile was shared in the Facebook comments on a news article about the story.

This graphic, and a photo of a poster for the same club, were also shared in the comments elsewhere on Facebook.

McGinley’s name does not currently appear on either the Glenbrook Middle School or the Williams Middle School website connected to this club, but we did locate archived pages showing McGinley as an advisor for the “Reality Club” at Williams MS from at least 2019-2022.

Now of course having a Grindr account, or advising a sexuality-themed club, does not make someone a criminal. However, whenever an adult’s sexual preferences begin to show up at work, and that adult works with children, it’s wise for parents to question it. That’s especially true when that person works in a position where they can have a great deal of influence over the hearts and minds of children by putting sex-and-gender related books into their hands, without the oversight or scrutiny that might be experienced by a classroom teacher.

What books was McGinley stocking for his students specifically? The Williams Middle School Library webpage seems to have been taken down, but fortunately through GoFollett, we can still see the full WMS collection.

McGinley had also created a variety of resource lists for students, including the two sexuality-related ones noted below.

You can see the content of his LGBTQIA+ Books @ WMS Library list here.

While thankfully this list, and the overall catalog, does not include some of the worst offenders like Gender Queer or Let’s Talk About It, it certainly contains some books that are far too sexual for kids as young as 11. One such example is the Heartstopper series, which catalogs the relationship of two young men, including their sexual debut.

From Heartstopper Vol. 5, part of McGinley’s list above, made available to Longmeadow middle schoolers.

Books like the Heartstopper series are often included in public school libraries in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion.” They are recommended by the American Library Association and School Library Journal, frequently for these stated reasons. We don’t find this justification compelling - it’s quite the opposite. We believe putting books like the one above in the hands of 11 year olds discredits the organizations that recommend them, and it casts doubt on the judgment of the “expert” school librarians who select them.

We don’t know what will ultimately happen with the case against McGinley, but since it has been reported that he has already filed for retirement benefits (and is facing very serious charges), it’s safe to say he won’t be back in the LPS. Longmeadow parents should continue to pressure their district, however, to ensure that the truth comes out about what red flags may have been ignored so that something like this does not happen in their community again. We also encourage anyone with additional information, or anyone who needs support, to reach out to the contacts provided in this article. MassLive has reported that another discussion like the one that happened last night will take place this coming Monday (August 18th), but this one will be on Zoom. If we receive information on how the public can access that session, we will post it here.

There is also a meeting of the Longmeadow School Committee scheduled for Tuesday August 19th at 6:30. There is time for public comment, and “District Response to Criminal Matter” is under new business. Longmeadow parents are strongly encouraged to attend this meeting and let your leaders know that you demand better protection for your children and strong accountability if any rules were violated or red flags ignored. See the agenda HERE, or click below to download it.

08/19/25 Agenda for Longmeadow School Committee Meeting

136KB ∙ PDF file

Say NO to Library Porn Bills!

We will keep an eye on the situation in Longmeadow, not only because we think MA parents need to know, but because what happened with McGinley points to a larger problem. And it’s a problem that the MA legislature is poised to make much worse.

Last Wednesday, on the same day Longmeadow parents were learning the terrible accusations against their trusted Library Media Specialist, the Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development favorably advanced bill S.2328 to Ways and Means. This bill, one of the “Library Porn Bills” that Massachusetts Family Institute has been warning parents about, would make it drastically more difficult for parents and school committees to intervene if a school librarian provided students with objectionable material. It makes “receiv(ing) information, including through materials determined to be educational and age-appropriate for inclusion in a school library by the school library teacher in the district licensed by the department” into a new “right” for students, and it even opens school districts up to potential lawsuits if they remove a book that a librarian has selected!

To learn more, listen to MFI’s Director of Research and Engagement Jess Richardson’s testimony against this bill below, which had a hearing back in July.

Voices like Richardson’s were the minority at the hearing, which you can listen to in its entirety HERE. In fact, the hearing was full of librarians, including school librarians, who seemed to operate under the assumption that their judgment should be considered unimpeachable because of their credentials and training. They no doubt would have demanded the same deference for their colleague, Mr. McGinley. We certainly hope they would see things differently now.

A common-sense legislator not swayed (or driven) by progressive ideology should immediately see that a bill that protects the rights of librarians over the innocence of students must be rejected. Perhaps the Committee that advanced this bill didn’t understand the urgency, but now that the news is out about McGinley, his position in Longmeadow, and the accusations against him, all legislators must act accordingly.

Not all school librarians get arrested for child porn. But some people who get arrested for child porn are school librarians. This is one more reason - and an example in our own backyard! - for why parents should never be asked to unequivocally accept the judgment of a school staff member over their own, and legislators should never pass laws that pressure them to do so.

According to child sexual abuse prevention expert Adrianne Simeone of The Mama Bear Effect, who also testified against S. 2328, “I cannot stress enough how vigilant and protective parents need to be when it comes to children being exposed to sexual content. Regardless of the rhetoric, many of these explicit books that are allowed and are being promoted in school libraries normalize sexual behavior with youth, making it easier for those who seek to sexually abuse children to groom them.”

Mom and dad, now is the time to act. Contact your legislator today and tell them to reject S. 2328, and any other bill that prioritizes the feelings of school staff over the protection of children. Send them this article, or other articles about the shocking arrest in Longmeadow. Tell them that if they support a bill that codifies protections for school librarians, they are extending those protections to EVERY school librarian in MA.

In light of the news this week, they simply cannot do so.

To contact your legislators today to tell them to reject S. 2328 and other bills like it, click below.

Click HERE to read and download MFI’s brief on why you should reject these bills.

If you live in Longmeadow and have additional information about this situation that you would like to share with us for possible publication in future posts (or for updates to this one), please email us at massinformedparents@gmail.com.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

New Resource Alert! Mahmoud v. Taylor Legal Advisory and Sample Opt Out Letter for MA Parents (Updated 1/26)

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Fri, 25 Jul 2025 17:29:22 GMT

Image credit: Grok AI

We told you last time about Mahmoud v. Taylor, the recent US Supreme Court case brought by Montgomery County, MD parents who had been denied an opportunity to opt their children out of LGBTQ storybook lessons in their local elementary schools. At MIP, we had been watching this case for months because we knew that many MA parents had faced a similar situation in their own schools and that, for better or for worse, what happened in Mahmoud would have ripple effects here in MA. Who would ultimately have the court on their side - the parents, or the school?

Last month we got the good news - SCOTUS decided on behalf of the parents! The highest court in the land recognized the fundamental constitutional right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children - even while attending public school. They agreed with the plaintiff parents that forcing children to read books promoting ideas about gender and sexuality at odds with their family’s religious beliefs was a violation of that right.

Following the decision we blew the whistle on Newton Public Schools, where their past history of denying parental opt outs of these types of books is a verifiable fact. Their own documents highlighted their opt-out-denying position, and they were even using some of the same exact books that were at the center of Mahmoud! You can learn more about what we found in the NPS HERE.

Newton’s anti-parental-rights posture was documentable (and egregious), but we knew the NPS wasn’t the only school district guilty of running roughshod over the religious beliefs of MA families. We also knew that if a school district had already made a habit of denying parental rights, they probably wouldn’t be eager to notify parents of the outcome of a new SCOTUS decision that would limit their power. Parents would need meaningful resources to help them understand Mahmoud - what it means for their district, and what it means for their family. And today we are thrilled to provide those very resources.

The Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center has now released two important documents: the Massachusetts Legal Advisory: Mahmoud v. Taylor and the Constitutional Right to Religious Opt-Outs in Public Schools, and an updated opt-out form that religious parents can use to opt their children out of sex ed, instructional activities and programs covering issues of sexual orientation or gender identity, surveys, and name/pronoun changes related to social transition. (Note: the opt out form in this post was updated on 1/26 to reflect a recent legal victory. If you have downloaded an older version of this form previously, we recommend using this new one instead.)

Read the legal advisory here:

And the sample opt out letter here:

You can download these resources here.

MLLC Mahmoud v. Taylor Legal Advisory 7/2025

236KB ∙ PDF file

MLLC 2025-2026 Updated Sample Opt Out Form

80.3KB ∙ PDF file

And find shareable links here:
MLLC Mahmoud v. Taylor Legal Advisory Letter
MLLC 2025-2026 Updated Sample Opt Out Form

Share these important resources far and wide! Send the legal advisory letter to your local school committee and superintendent to make them aware of what Mahmoud means for their district. Organizations like Massachusetts Association of School Committees and the MA Attorney General’s Office may have already contacted your school leaders with their one-sided view (click HERE and HERE to see what they are saying about Mahmoud). Equip your local officials with the MLLC’s legal advisory so that they can have the full picture and can be better prepared to respect the rights of religious parents when school starts in the fall.

Mom and dad, we recommend that you submit this opt out letter on the first day of school. Submit the letter by email to your child’s teacher and building principal, and request confirmation so you know they received it. Keep a friendly and open dialogue with your child’s teacher so that if there are any questions about a specific issue that comes up, you can resolve them. If at any point during the school year your child’s school does not respect your rights, or if you aren’t sure if your rights are being properly respected, the MLLC wants to hear from you! You can contact an attorney for free anytime at www.malibertylegal.org. The MLLC stands ready to help parents ensure that their rights under Mahmoud are protected.

We also encourage you to visit the Massachusetts Education Resource Center (MERC), a new initiative of Massachusetts Family Institute. MERC offers supports and resources for MA school committee members such as tools and trainings to equip and grow your local leaders, and model policies that your school committee can adopt for free. Within the upcoming weeks MERC’s sample policies will be updated to reflect school district responsibilities under Mahmoud. Visit MERC today at www.MassEdResource.org and click “Join the Network” to be notified when these updated policies are available, and then share them with your local school committee!

MIP will continue to track this issue throughout the upcoming year, so when school starts up, keep us in the loop. Did your district notify you of your rights under Mahmoud? Are you seeing more notifications from teachers concerning LGBTQ storybooks and other similar materials, especially at the younger grades? Do you notice any changes in curriculum from previous years? Let us know what you are seeing in your school district by emailing us at massinformedparents@gmail.com.

Screenshot from a MA teachers facebook group post made after the Mahmoud decision was released. This was in our last post, but it’s worth reposting. Want to see what the folks in the MIP Facebook group had to say about this? Click HERE.

“‘Massachusetts Informed Parents’ types,” we look forward to hearing from you.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!

On LGBTQ Storybooks, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the Newton Public Schools

Massachusetts Informed Parents — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:54:54 GMT

A slide from an Newton Public Schools containing one of the same books that appeared in Mahmoud v. Taylor.

Ever since the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) announced back in January that they would hear the case of a group of religious Maryland parents whose public school denied their right to opt their elementary-schoolers out of classroom lessons involving sexuality and gender-themed storybooks, we knew the ruling would be important. The outcome of this case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, wouldn’t only matter because the Muslim, Jewish and Christian plaintiff parents involved deserved to have their rights respected. It would matter because we know that the same disrespect and disregard experienced by those parents happens to parents in MA as well.

Oral arguments were heard in April, and we tuned in (If you haven’t listened, it’s fascinating, and you can still hear them here). We thought the better arguments were on the side of the parents, but we still had to wait until the end of June to see how it landed. How would SCOTUS rule? Knowing what a pro-parent ruling could mean for MA families, we were on pins and needles waiting for the ruling. For better or for worse, the outcome of Mahmoud v. Taylor would matter for Massachusetts.

As we waited, we continued to learn of more examples of MA parents who, just like in Mahmoud v. Taylor, were at loggerheads with their local schools over whether or not teachers should be allowed to sneak gender confusion into storytime without their consent (or even advance notice). One example that popped up just last month, shared in the Massachusetts Informed Parents Facebook group, was from a Newton, MA elementary school where the second graders were being read “nonfiction texts” about Pride Month.

The teacher email depicted didn’t name the Pride-related texts in question, but the group member who posted it also shared a photo from inside the classroom that clearly depicted multiple sexuality and gender-related books.

Some of these books are wholly unobjectionable, of course. But then there are others, like Twas the Night Before PRIDE that contains lines like: “So Pride’s not just about tutus and rainbow suspenders. It’s about rights for queers and all our beautiful genders,” and PRIDE: The Story of Harvey Milk and the Rainbow Flag, a boring book that lionizes a troubled man who had at least one sexual relationship with a teenage boy (a fact thankfully not mentioned) and was assassinated (a fact which was). Are these the books referred to in the email? If so, surely parents should have a right to weigh in on whether or not their 7-year old is taught these things, yes? But according to the parent involved (and evidenced by the fact that the teacher’s email only notified parents after they were in the “middle” of reading one of the books), the Newton Public Schools said no.

This was outrageous, but not totally shocking. If you have followed public education in MA over the last several years you probably already know that Newton is a hotbed of radical woke nonsense. Newton has raised eyebrows for having a drag queen perform for minors during the school day (more than once), promoting racially segregated affinity groups, students losing valuable class time due to an illegal teacher strike, and so much more. Defending Education’s Indoctrination Map has 26 entries for Newton, which would probably earn the NPS some sort of medal in the indoctrination olympics, if such medals were given. But while the NPS’s well-earned bad reputation includes a variety of leftist shenanigans, this particular issue with storybooks wasn’t new. We know this isn’t the first time the NPS has read books about sexuality and gender identity to young children without advance notice or consent from parents. Another Newton parent posted the classroom newsletter below in the MIP Facebook group last year, with the question: “What is the process for opting out my six year old from such material?”

After receiving this newsletter the parent, blindsided by gender identity being brought into the first grade classroom under the banner of “social justice,” had requested an opt out from the following week’s lesson. The district sent this response, which they shared in the comments.

So in other words, the Newton Public Schools said no. The NPS’s version of “inclusion” meant forcing impressionable 6-year olds at one of their elementary schools into confusing and destructive lessons about girls-in-boy-bodies and they/them pronouns against the express wishes of their parents.

A slide from the lesson referenced above, which was forced on Newton 1st graders.

We learned that the school where this happened was was Bowen Elementary, and thanks to a public records request by Massachusetts Family Institute, we obtained the whole lesson. This lesson, titled “Diversity: Gender Identity,” features a reading of the book Introducing Teddy, an introduction to the concept of “identifying as both genders,” and instructions to children to discuss their gender identity with a partner. You can download it and read it for yourself below.

SJ Lesson Diversity 4 (Gender)

369KB ∙ PDF file

While this lesson was given at Bowen, we know using this book wasn’t limited to one classroom or one elementary. It was based on guidance given to staff for K-5 students districtwide.

As part of the same records request, MFI also uncovered an indoctrination how-to manual geared towards the NPS’s youngest students. Newton’s K-5 Gender Anti-Bias Library: Book Discussion Guides and Virtual Read Alouds is one of the worst examples of district-sponsored gender ideology brainwashing we’ve seen in MA so far - and it includes the lesson on Introducing Teddy.

This 70-page “library” contains a potpourri of leftist critical theory-infused schlock (“decolonizing gender,” “anti-oppressive,” etc.), a twisted statement on student rights that includes granting all students access to LGBTQ “educational websites,” an introduction to pronouns and neopronouns, and gender ideology-focused storybook lessons for every grade. All of this is prefaced with a statement that clearly demonstrates that refusing parent opt-outs for these types of topics, including the lessons with books like Introducing Teddy, is the rule, not the exception. The NPS claims to “respect parental rights in accordance with Massachusetts state (opt out) law,” but then go on to interpret that law in the most restrictive and anti-parental-rights way possible, making opting out impossible by inserting curriculum and lessons related to gender and sexuality education “across all grade levels.”

The books used in lessons provided in this guide are:
Red
Pink is for Boys
Introducing Teddy
They, She, He: Easy as ABC
I Am Jazz
Jacob’s School Play
When Aiden Became a Brother
My Rainbow
It Feels Good to Be Yourself
Calvin
What Are Your Words? and
Who Are You?

All of these books unmistakably promote a view of gender and gender identity that contradict the convictions of many families, especially families of faith.

But the NPS didn’t care about that. Not only does the guide fail to make any provision for these families, it overtly sets the tone that opt outs will not be granted. It also undermines parents by appealing to student “rights,” and inserting subversive nuggets into the curriculum like the video on the left below which contains an extra helping of gender ideology to affirm the synthetic identities of gender-confused kids “who do not feel supported at home.”

To read the entire elementary gender indoctrination “library,” download it below.

NPS K-5 Gender Anti-Bias Library

2.22MB ∙ PDF file

Having seen the NPS’s true colors in the document above, we weren’t too surprised when a social media post went viral last November with yet another claim of Newton forcing gender brainwashing on little kids. According to the post, a Newton elementary school had declared “transgender week,” and a parent was informed that the teaching was mandatory - no opt outs.

Had the NPS’s cramming down of gender insanity on littles finally gone so far that it even upset a parent who self-identifies as a “strong advocate for transgender and acceptance?” It seems it had.

As the post gained traction online, it prompted an excellent deep-dive report from national outlet The Daily Signal. According to their report, in October 2024, the Newton School Committee officially adopted guidance stating that parents whose children are enrolled in Newton Public Schools can’t opt them out of lessons on sexual orientation or gender identity. NPS’s Guidance on the Basis of Gender Identity can be read in full online here, with the sections relevant to opt-out below.

Transgender Awareness Week is a real observance (we’ve reported on it before through our Sex on the School Calendar), but we didn’t have any details about what that looked like in Newton. Was what this anonymous parent said true about the NPS? It wasn’t just the Daily Signal that wanted answers - many people in the community did, too. Some of them decided to pose their questions on the original post, which was still up in the Newton Community Facebook group. The discussion took an interesting turn as Anna Nolin, NPS Superintendent, chimed in.

So were there plans for Transgender Awareness Week, or weren’t there? Who was correct, the building principal or the superintendent?

In the same thread, which grew to hundreds of comments, Superintendent Nolin responds to one person by saying: “There is no such thing as trans lessons.”

This was a curious statement, especially given the fact that MFI’s public records request had revealed gender identity lessons. Wouldn’t that count as a “trans lesson?” What was actually going on in Newton? To find out, MFI did another public records request, this time specifically for items related to the November 2024 Transgender Awareness Week.

The results of this request, which you can download in its entirety below, revealed two key findings relevant to Nolin’s claims. She may have been correct that there weren’t any “specific lessons planned for transgender week.” But her claim that there is no such thing as “trans lessons” was, for all intents and purposes, demonstrably false.

Nov 2024 PRR: Email, Lessons Or Materials And Newsletters Redacted (Transgender Awareness Week, NPS)

13.1MB ∙ PDF file

From Bowen Elementary’s June 14, 2024 parent newsletter, where they spell out their intent to do the same during Pride Month (but even moreso!).

The documents also revealed that quite a few Newton parents, concerned about the claims in the viral post, had emailed their child’s elementary school. The responses to these emails showed no evidence of specific lessons planned for Transgender Awareness Week. Some did, however, avoid the larger question of that type of instruction in general. Here is one example.

This parent emailed a first grade teacher at Bowen Elementary to let her know that they didn’t want their child being present for discussions on transgenderism.

The parent’s email then appears to have been forwarded to Bowen Principal Diana Guzzi (she/her/hers), who responds with an impersonal (and now all-too-familiar) woke word salad disclaimer telling the parent why their opt out request will not be honored.

The parent follows up with a point-blank question, “Can you please let us know what you will be teaching in his classroom this week.” The teacher responds, “There are no plans to teach about transgender week in class this week.” (Emphasis ours.)

So in other words, we don’t have any plans to talk specifically about transgender week (this week!), but even if we did, you couldn’t opt your kid out. Which is pretty much what the parent in the viral Facebook post said.

This PRR also contained a second grade lesson on gender identity, which while not directly tied to Transgender Awareness Week, would certainly fall into anyone’s common sense definition of what a “trans lesson” would look like.

Portion of the newsletter sent to families whose children were taught the above lesson. Full document in PRR file.

This lesson is a perfect example of how the NPS plays their semantic shell game. It’s not a “trans lesson,” it’s understanding the dimensions of gender. It’s not sex ed, it’s social studies. We aren’t teaching lessons for Transgender Awareness Week (that Facebook post is fake news!) - we are teaching gender identity all year round.

Bowen Elementary is disproportionately represented in the PRR documents, and in the parent complaints we have seen. Newton has 15 elementary schools, yet Bowen comes up over and over. If you are a Bowen parent and you aren’t already paying attention to the pervasive indoctrination happening at your child’s school, here’s your friendly tap on the shoulder. Get tuned in, or pull your kid out ASAP.

Don’t take it from us. Take it from Arrow the Bobcat, Bowen’s mascot.

But as egregious as the indoctrination is at Bowen, we know this is a districtwide issue. When Superintendent Nolin, who has only been in Newton since 2023, said there were “no such thing as trans lessons,” was she unaware of what was being taught in her own district? Or did she know, and she thought it was okay to play misleading word games with parents and gaslight them about what’s actually being put in front of their kids?

Regardless of who knew what when, and what does (or does not) constitute a “trans lesson,” as of the end of the 2024-2025 school year, parental rights were still being denied in Newton and NPS students were still being indoctrinated with gender ideology under the watchful eye of Superintendent Nolin and the Newton School Committee. It’s their responsibility, and now thanks to some brave parents in Maryland, it’s their problem.

Back to Mahmoud v. Taylor. When we first heard that SCOTUS was going to weigh in on a case related to LGBTQ storybooks and parental rights, we instantly thought of what we knew was happening in Newton. Newton is not the only MA district that does this, for sure, but it may be the most overt. Just like in Mahmoud, the NPS crams these same types of books down on elementary school students with no opportunity for parents to opt out. We have the receipts for this. In fact, some of the very same titles mentioned in Mahmoud, My Rainbow and What are Your Words?, are the subjects of lessons from the NPS’s K-5 Gender Anti-Bias Library! And while the parents in Mahmoud were objecting on religious grounds, we have no reason to believe Newton would make an accommodation for religious people, either. We know that many Newton parents are demoralized by their districts’ dogged determination to pour the kool-aid of gender confusion down their children’s throats. We were hoping SCOTUS, through Mahmoud, would give them - and parents in similar districts nationwide - a tool to fight back. And on June 27th, SCOTUS came through.

By a 6-3 majority, SCOTUS decided on behalf of the Maryland parents who had been denied the opt out. The court reaffirmed the rights of these parents to the free exercise of religion, which in this case, means the school can’t force their kids to read these types of books. The broader legal ramifications of this decision and the details of how it will specifically impact policy in local schools remains to be seen. But the big picture is, SCOTUS has affirmed that when it comes to directing the faith development of children, parents still have the final say, even - and perhaps especially - when it comes to gender identity and sexuality.

Newton Public Schools, and other MA districts that have shamelessly stepped between parents and their children, consider yourself on notice. You have been playing fast and loose with the opt out law, and with parental rights. That changes now. You have the rest of the summer to get your houses in order. We will be watching to see that you do.

A recent post from MA teachers FB group. If woke MA teachers consider expecting schools to follow the Mahmoud decision = “coming in ready for war,” then that’s a badge us “Massachusetts Informed Parents types” will wear proudly.

Mom and Dad, this Supreme Court decision serves as a powerful reminder that standing up for your kids matters. Your voice can make a difference. The parents at the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor probably didn’t think their effort to protect their kids would end up at SCOTUS, but they just kept moving forward, and didn’t take “no” for an answer. If they had given up, we wouldn’t have this decision today. We owe them, their attorneys, and six common-sense SCOTUS justices a huge debt of gratitude.

In preparation for the coming school year, the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center is working on some helpful tools that you can use to make sure your school district respects your opt out rights under Mahmoud v. Taylor. We will share those tools here when they are ready. Make sure to subscribe to this substack to get this information delivered straight to your inbox!

It’s a shame it took a SCOTUS decision to get some MA districts to tap the brakes on shoving gender confusion down the throats of little kids, but it is a victory we will gladly celebrate.

UPDATE 7/25/25 - The MLLC legal advisory letter and sample opt out letters are here! Check out our new post to read and download them today.

Was this post forwarded to you by a friend? If so, subscribe today!