Arlauskas, John v. Winthrop, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260088)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0088 Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. Superintendent Winthrop Public Schools 1 Metcalf Square Winthrop, MA 02152 Dear Superintendent Howard: I have received the petition of John Arlauskas appealing the response of the Winthrop Public Schools (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 15, 2025, Mr. Arlauskas requested the following: [1] Any and all records, documents, emails, memos, slide decks, internal guidance, training materials, protocols, or communications referencing implementation of DESE Dyslexia Guidance (2018, 2021, 2023)[;] [2] Any internal documents guiding early identification of students at risk for dyslexia in grades PK–3[;] [3] Any records related to early literacy screening procedures, tools, schedules, or processes used by the District[;] [4] Any internal guidance, written or electronic, describing how dyslexia risk indicators are monitored, tracked, or escalated[;] [5] Any documents describing typical minutes, frequency, duration, or structure of Tier 3 or IEP-based structured literacy interventions (K–5)[;] [6] Any guidance documents, templates, schedules, flowcharts, or manuals related to MTSS literacy decision-making[;] [7] Any documents describing escalation procedures when a student does not respond to Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention[;] [8] Any internal communications referencing MTSS literacy implementation, inconsistency, staffing, or decision processes[;] [9] Any records, logs, spreadsheets, lists, certifications, practicum documentation, renewal dates, or training records for staff who deliver dyslexia or structured literacy interventions[;] [10] Any documents describing the District’s standards, criteria, or requirements for determining whether a staff member is qualified to provide structured literacy One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR26/0088 Page 2 January 27, 2026 or Orton-Gillingham instruction[;] [11] Any internal communications discussing staff qualifications, shortages, training needs, or credential requirements related to reading intervention[;] [12] Any onboarding materials describing expectations for providers delivering reading interventions to students with dyslexia[;] [13] Any fidelity monitoring tools, checklists, observation protocols, walkthrough rubrics, coaching notes, or implementation logs used to assess fidelity of structured literacy instruction . . .[;] [14] Any internal documents describing how fidelity is monitored, supported, or evaluated[;] [15] Any emails, memos, or reports discussing fidelity concerns, monitoring procedures, or teacher support related to structured literacy programs[;] [16] Any documents describing administrative oversight responsibilities regarding dyslexia services, structured literacy, or MTSS literacy supports[;] [17] Any documents describing how structured literacy providers are assigned to students . . .[;] [18] Any documents showing actual caseloads for reading interventionists, structured literacy providers, OG providers, and reading specialists[;] [19] Any internal communication regarding staffing limitations, caseload challenges, or gaps in qualified providers for structured literacy[;] [20] Any multi-year planning documents or discussions related to increasing capacity in structured literacy or dyslexia services[;] [21] Any training requirements, memos, or internal documents describing prerequisites for staff to implement specific reading programs. . .[;] [22] Any documents showing how the District selects specific programs for individual students or groups . . .[;] [23] Any documents received from vendors or trainers describing expectations, training requirements, or implementation guidance for district staff[;] [24] Any documents describing tools used for early literacy or dyslexia-risk screening (K–2)[;] [25] Any documents describing the referral process when a student demonstrates risk indicators or persistent difficulty in phonological awareness, decoding, or fluency[;] [26] Any communications or memos related to early referral procedures, dyslexia risk flags, or screening outcomes[;] [27] Any documents identifying district or building administrators responsible for oversight of dyslexia, MTSS literacy, or structured literacy implementation[;] [28] Any internal presentations, reports, communications, or updates to the School Committee or district administration discussing dyslexia, literacy capacity, staffing, training, program implementation, or compliance with DESE literacy guidance.

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR26/0088 Page 3 January 27, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3555 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2025). In my December 16th determination, I found that the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The School responded on December 16, 2025, providing further explanation of its fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Arlauskas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0088, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the School provided additional information in an email to this office on January 12, 2025. Fee Estimates – Municipalities If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two (2) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his January 9, 2026 appeal petition, Mr. Arlauskas notes that he is, “not satisfied with this response to request number SPR25/3555. . . .” He states, “[m]y questions were related to district records about dyslexia policy and implementation, not about student records.” The School’s December 16th Response In its previous December 2, 2025 response, the School cited a total fee estimate of $7,400.00 and confirmed that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR26/0088 Page 4 January 27, 2026 hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks. In its December 16, 2025 response, the School provided a revised fee estimate of $6,650 and confirmed that it would assess a fee for the first two hours of work where, “Winthrop is a town of less than 20,000 people[.]” The School additionally provided the following regarding its fee estimate: The hours required to comply with the record request relate, at least in part, that you are requesting records over a period of decades and decades. In order to search records dating that far back the district would need to review documents in storage or not in electronic format. Furthermore, where records are not organized in such a manner as to clearly know whether a record will or will not relate to one of the request categories, this would require the district to search an incredibly large swathe of records to review what is or is not responsive. As a conservative assessment, the amount of records that would need to be reviewed would certainly exceed 40,000 pages. The district agrees to reduce the fee assessment of 60 hours to segregate and redact to 30 hours to reflect that some of those redactions would relate to privacy, not statutory exemptions. Therefore, the new fee would be $6,650. Pending Administrative Matter 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office on January 12, 2026, a representative for the School confirmed that an administrative proceeding relating to the records at issue in Mr. Arlauskas’ request is currently pending before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). See In Re: Student and Winthrop Public Schools (BSEA Nos. 2604116, 2510540, 2511137, and 2604122). In light of the pending administrative matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of the administrative action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR26/0088 Page 5 January 27, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John Arlauskas Tom Delmar, Esq.