Burlington Superintendent Buries Survey Investigation, School Committee Leaders Fail at Policy Reading 101
From sex questions for kids to administrative failures galore, the BPS has some explaining to do. Will the school committee finally fix this?
We’ve been keeping you updated on Burlington parents’ ongoing fight for accountability and policy change following the administration of the explicit Youth Risk Behavior Survey last March. To read our previous coverage, click here.
The Middlesex League YRBS, a survey that featured questions about sexual activity, drug use, suicide - and even referenced sex toys - was given to students as young as sixth grade. Some children were forced to take the survey even after their parents had opted them out! Parents were livid, and the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center stepped in to help. The MLLC has now filed three federal complaints on behalf of parents, the story has made national news, and local parents are still pushing hard for change. As of our last update, the Burlington School Committee and Superintendent Dr. Eric Conti had gone quiet following the solicitation of an independent investigator. They declined to comment any further or update their survey policy, which they had promised to change, until the investigative report was finished. While the school committee stayed silent and Superintendent Conti kept mum, parents continued to use their voices, speaking up at the May 13th meeting and using their comment time to demand answers, raise questions about the YRBS’s connection to Lahey Clinic, and reveal Dr. Conti’s role as a key organizer of the survey. You can watch those comments here.
We were keeping an eye on Burlington, and that’s why we noticed that on May 19th the BPS had quietly uploaded the long-awaited results of the independent investigation to the YRBS page on the district website. This 14-page document, written by Attorney Jeffrey Sankey, was dated May 14th, 2025. You can read his report here.
Neither Dr. Conti nor the Burlington School Committee had released a statement or letter to the parents or community concerning the now-posted investigation, but since during the May 13th meeting School Committee Chair Melissa Massardo had said that “Per the advice of our counsel we will not be making any additional statements until (the investigation) is completed,” we expected to see the document on the agenda of the following school committee meeting, which was to be held on May 27th.
In the meantime, we read Attorney Sankey’s report, which went through the timeline of the history of the YRBS in Burlington as well as what happened during the 2025 administration of the survey that led to controversial questions being posed to kids as young as 12, in violation of federal law. It paints a picture of administrative failure at multiple levels. The Wellness Committee failed to give meaningful input when given the opportunity to vet the questions. The Director of Health and Physical Education and the Director of Mental Health were notified by JSI, the survey company, that changes had been made to survey questions and definitions after the original survey was agreed upon (including updating the sexuality-related questions “to be more inclusive,” thanks to advice from the Trevor Project), and they never notified the Wellness Committee or objected to these changes. A middle school assistant principal failed to send the pre-survey script to the teachers. Because this script was not read, some students mistakenly believed they were required to take the survey. These are only a few of the failures and examples of poor practice that contributed to the debacle that ultimately occurred.
Attorney Sankey also made recommendations, including for the full school committee to determine whether or not the district should participate in such surveys, and “for a notice to the public to be made and the opportunity for open discussion to occur.” He also recommended that the school committee consider the pros and cons of an opt-in or opt-out policy, should they decide to continue with the survey.
This report, while useful in some ways, left many unanswered questions. It did not contain any documentation for its claims or conclusions. It referenced many written communications, but did not include those communications. It never said who will be held accountable for these failures, or how. It never explained who approved of JSI’s involvement in the first place, or who created the administrative structure that ultimately failed so badly. In short, Attorney Sankey only answered the questions that the school district paid him to answer.
While waiting for the May 27th meeting, we received a credible report that the Burlington Educators Association, the local teacher’s union, had shared during a recent union meeting that they had received assurances that “once the lawyers have completed their investigation, teachers will be completely exonerated, and no person in admin will be required to resign and no person will lose their job.” They also stated that “Eric is committed to continuing surveys that provide valuable data for our social-emotional services…”. Since it seems Dr. Conti had been communicating internally regarding the survey and the investigative report, surely, he would share these same sentiments with the community at the next meeting.
Yet when the agenda for the May 27th meeting was posted a few days in advance of the meeting, Attorney Sankey’s investigation was not on it. The only thing on the agenda related to the YRBS controversy was item 8b: “Survey Policy – 1st Reading.” Introducing the policy as a first reading is a violation of the Burlington School Committee’s own policy on policy adoption, Policy BGB, which expressly requires that a new policy or policy amendment be put on the agenda as an information item first, “to provide an opportunity for interested parties to react.”
Many wondered - why didn’t the school committee follow Policy BGB and provide the transparency it requires, which seems even more important given that the issue has been so contentious? And why wasn’t Attorney Sankey’s investigation – the very answers that the district paid to receive, and had claimed would result in future discussion – on the agenda? On the day of the meeting, a Burlington parent reached out to the members of the policy subcommittee with these questions. In reply, longtime school committee member Christine Monaco sent a series of comments that muddied the water.
In a response that fails to demonstrate that she read the parent’s questions fully, Monaco stated: “That means discussion by members of the school committee. We have no obligation to have public discussion.” (Emphasis ours.) This is a striking statement from any elected official, but especially from the senior member of the committee who has been in office since 1992 and was chair when the 2025 YRBS was administered. (Monaco’s intent was unclear, but her statements made us wonder - is the Burlington School Committee following open meeting law?) Regarding the steps outlined in Policy BGB, she stated that the discussion of the proposed survey policy started on April 8th when she motioned to suspend all current surveys until a new policy could be approved.
Monaco’s explanation did not align with what Policy BGB actually says, so seeking clarification, the parent then reached out to Chair Massardo with the same questions. Her response led to even more confusion. Massardo claimed that the draft policy being distributed privately to school committee members prior to the meeting counts as an “information item,” an explanation different from Monaco’s - and neither explanation aligns with Policy BGB. She ignored the question about the investigation completely.
You can read those emails here.
(Why would the most senior member of the Burlington school committee and its current chair give two different explanations for what Policy BGB requires, especially when the policy language is clear as day? Are there any other policies they are following inconsistently, or not following at all? We can’t say. But we do know that Burlington taxpayers deserve accuracy, especially from longtime school committee members. )
Finally, it was time for the May 27th meeting, and community members were ready once again to raise their voices with public comment. Chair Massardo broke the public comment into multiple sections, with comments on the survey policy only being permitted during the second section. During the first comment section, parents, a student, and a town meeting member called out Dr. Conti for his failure to communicate with the community about the results of the investigation and the academic failures of the district despite its high cost to taxpayers. “There are different kinds of mistakes, and some you don’t get to walk back,” the town meeting member said. Referring to Dr. Conti, he said, “He is ultimately responsible.” See highlights of these comments here.
Paper copies of the proposed survey policy were distributed to those in attendance at the meeting. When the time came for that item on the agenda, Dr. Conti stated that the draft policy was written by Attorney Darren Klein and focuses on an opt-in format. Some school committee members expressed that they felt the wording of the policy was unclear. After much discussion, it became evident that of the five school committee members, two support an opt-in policy and three support an opt-out. Per Policy BGB, a two-thirds vote is necessary to adopt a policy – which means that four school committee members would need to agree before it could move forward. Given the impasse, Chair Massardo suggested that the policy subcommittee hash out a “draft #2.” Monaco said, “Sure, we’ll let Darren do it,” referring to Attorney Klein. “With Darren,” said Chair Massardo, “or like, review with Darren.” With that, the discussion on the proposed policy ended, and no action was taken. You can read the proposed survey policy here.
During the second public comment section the parents went on to make strong comments about the survey policy, calling for no more surveys or an opt-in policy, and highlighting again Dr. Conti’s key role in the involvement of JSI and the administration of the survey. See highlights of these public comments here.
By the end of the evening, other than revealing the first draft of a questionably-worded opt-in policy, the May 27th meeting offered none of the answers, progress, or accountability that Burlington parents deserved. No public statement was made about the long-awaited independent investigation. Why didn’t Dr. Conti, who had promised transparency to the people of Burlington, insist that the investigation be discussed at the meeting? Why was it buried on a website, with no announcement, and no explanation?
As of writing, Dr. Conti and the school committee still owe the community an answer to these questions.
What is next for the Burlington YRBS saga? We know that the survey policy discussion will be ongoing, yet as of today, no meetings of the policy subcommittee have been posted. This means that either discussions have been occurring privately, or that the subcommittee has not discussed it. The agenda for the next meeting, to be held tonight (Tuesday, June 10th, 2025), has been posted and the survey policy is not on it. As it stands right now, all surveys in the Burlington Public Schools are suspended until a new policy can be passed, and there is not sufficient agreement on the committee for this to happen. We encourage the committee members who support an opt-in policy to insist that any discussion on the survey policy happen in public, and to stick to their proverbial guns on demanding an opt-in. Or even better, adopt a policy that does away with sex-related surveys altogether. Here’s the one we recommend, which can be found on the Massachusetts Education Resource Center (MERC) website. For an opt-in policy, here’s MERC’s version, which we also recommend. MERC’s opt-in policy avoids some of the ambiguous and possibly problematic language in the draft policy presented to the school committee last month. We think Burlington parents should ask their school committee to pass one of these two policies.
In addition to passing a better policy, Burlington parents should continue to demand an explanation of Attorney Sankey’s investigation and accountability for Dr. Conti and his YRBS fiasco. Despite the fact that the investigative report barely mentions Dr. Conti, not only is he ultimately responsible as superintendent, he was a driving force behind the survey itself.
Thanks to documents received via public records request from the Wilmington Public Schools, we have evidence that Dr. Conti was - and continues to be- a key figure in organizing and securing financing for the Middlesex League YRBS. His role isn’t passive - he’s at the heart of making it happen. He contacts JSI. He reaches out to Lahey Clinic to pay for the survey. He’s been involved with these groups for close to a decade. You can read the evidence below.
We will continue to track this story and let you know when substantive updates and developments occur. Dr. Conti is still stonewalling the release of documents to Massachusetts Family Institute following MFI’s April records request. He publicly pledged transparency and then tried to charge MFI $875 for information, all the while apparently providing some of those same documents to Attorney Sankey for free. Is Dr. Conti afraid of releasing the documents MFI requested on behalf of Burlington parents? If so, why?
Burlington parents, keep the pressure on. Keep showing up at school committee meetings, like the one tonight. Keep pushing for policies that will protect your kids from creepy sex surveys and preserve their safety and innocence. Keep shining a light when school committee members don’t follow their own policies. Keep reminding them of their responsibility to discuss matters before the school committee in public. Keep demanding accountability for highly-paid administrators who seem to think they can get away with providing assurances to the union, but not answers to parents. Keep submitting public records requests until everything is exposed. Keep it up until change comes.
Burlington school committee, remember your charge. According to your own policy manual, “the Committee is responsible for the development of policy as guides for administrative action, and for employing a Superintendent who will implement its policies.” In short, developing policy is your responsibility. So is hiring or firing the superintendent. You must pass sound policy that reflects the will of your constitutents. And you must hold Dr. Conti accountable for the egregious handling of the YRBS, the violations of federal law, and the failure of his employees to protect the safety and innocence of students.
The public is watching. And they aren’t going away until change comes to Burlington.
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!
Your meme implies that the school board has been addressing questions about the survey in order to avoid discussing MCAS scores. I don't think that's what you want it to imply.