Parents and committee clash over YRBS survey; Burlington debate centers on opt-in, committee approval and wellness-committee process

At Tuesday—s Burlington Public Schools School Committee meeting, public comment focused on the district—s use of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and an independent administrative review by consultant Jeffrey Sankey.

Several parents and town members said the 2025 survey included inappropriate or invasive language and that the review showed insufficient review by the district—s wellness committee. Jenna Lloyd, a parent who identified herself during public comment, summarized the report—s findings and asked why more wellness-committee members had not reviewed the draft before the survey was approved for administration.

"After reading the YRBS administrative report and recommendations from Jeffrey Sankey, I have a few questions," Lloyd said. She said the report indicated only two wellness-committee members attended a January meeting to review draft questions and that parents had raised complaints after the 2023 administration.

Other public speakers echoed those concerns and urged the committee to require stronger approval mechanisms and accountability. Bob Young, a town meeting member, told the committee that the superintendent bears ultimate responsibility for district operations.

District staff and committee members discussed procedural changes recommended in the independent review. The draft policy language presented to the committee (prepared with the district attorney) would require parental opt-in for nonacademic surveys and would route any future nonacademic survey to the full school committee for review and approval before administration.

Committee members were divided on opt-in versus opt-out. Some members said opt-in would meaningfully reduce participation and render the survey data less useful; others cited parental concerns and the prior administration—s problems and said opt-in was the only acceptable approach.

"If it is a valuable survey, then it should be opt out," said one committee member arguing for the opt-out approach; another member said opt-in is preferable because opt-out had not protected students in the prior rollout.

The committee agreed to ask the policy subcommittee to draft a revised second reading. Members named Megan and one other committee member to the ad hoc policy drafting group and asked the district attorney to refine the language, including: a clear opt-in statement, a required number and variety of parent notifications (ParentSquare, email and other channels), availability of a full survey preview for parents before administration, and clearer rules about grade levels affected.

The meeting record shows a standing motion passed on April 8 remains in effect: no further nonacademic surveys will be administered until the committee adopts a new policy. Several public comments also said parents have filed legal complaints (the transcript references a PPRA filing) and requested clearer accountability steps for administrators who failed to catch changes to the survey.

No final policy vote occurred; staff and the policy subcommittee were asked to return with revised language and recommended notification procedures for a second reading and possible vote.