Belmont, Math Parents v. Belmont, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260458)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0458 Artemis Tingos Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Belmont Public Schools 644 Pleasant Street Belmont, MA 02478 Dear Ms. Tingos: I have received the petition of Belmont Math Parents (requestor) appealing the response of the Belmont Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 11, 2025, the requestor sought the following: With regard to i-Ready, all records related to: [1] all dates that an i-Ready test was given to students from January 1, 2022 to the present, specifying the grade level and subject matter of each administered test [2] the amount of time in minutes that students were provided to complete each of the foregoing i-Ready tests and if time was unlimited, please provide the time in minutes that was blocked off for the majority of students to complete each test [3] all records of the de-identified and/or anonymized individual and/or aggregate results of students who have taken the i-Ready test, by grade level and subject matter, including but not limited to the i-Ready Prerequisites Reports generated from students’ i-Ready Diagnostic data, during the 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years. The School assigned reference number 25-982 to this request. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3162 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 7, 2025). In my November 7th determination, I ordered the School to clarify whether it possesses additional records. The School responded on November 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0458 was opened as a result. 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

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0458 Page 2 February 20, 2026 The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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. Current Appeal [2] Time Records … The request, however, sought the specific “amount of time in minutes that students were provided to complete each of the foregoing i-Ready tests.” The RAO did not produce any records supporting her statement, and did not state the exact amount of time provided for each identified test. It is unclear whether this response was based on actual records or whether it was an unsupported general statement. Clarification is required…. [3] Electronic Records Our original appeal raised critical issues pertaining to the RAO’s response to our request - namely, that the RAO’s responsibility to search for and extract electronic records does not constitute the creation of a new record. … In this case, the RAO acknowledges that i-Ready data can be accessed, exported, and summarized at the individual, school, and district levels. … The RAO’s response confirms that they are able to furnish/extract responsive public records from the i-Ready platform and that they have failed and refused to do so in response to this and other requests. The RAO erroneously asserts that if an electronic record is not generated, printed, exported, shared and/or saved at the time of the request, then it does not have to be produced as a public record.

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0458 Page 3 February 20, 2026 … Additionally, the RAO already produced two anonymized extracts from the i- Ready platform that did not require redaction, confirming that it is possible to segregate the records requested. Where aggregate, class and grade level summaries can be provided without personally identifiable information, they must be produced. … The School’s November 19th Response In its November 19, 2025 response, the School explained: [2] The requester asked how much time was provided to students to complete each iReady test and the ROA [sic] responded “90-120 minutes with additional time as needed[.]” The question was answered and there are no additional records. [3] Requester’s statement that “no records were produced for the 2022-2024 school years[.]” The requester is unfamiliar with how the iReady system is configured for Belmont Public Schools. The reports iReady is capable of creating are not auto-generated. A user must organize and create new datasheets and printouts. While the iReady software is capable of creating many reports and graphics with testing data, the system is not centralized. A user may view information on an individual, school or district level depending on their permissions, and then can either print screen graphics or export to a .pdf or .csv file onto their desktop. BPS does not have a server that saves all reports or inquiries that are created in iReady from the various users, nor does one user know what another user may have created. Please see the message from iReady below which indicates “…export will only be available for 96 hours after your request has been completed[,]” which indicates reports are not saved within the system. The iReady system is capable of creating thousands of different reports. The individual reports will have student identifiable information that would need to be redacted. It is unreasonable that the blanket request below is put forth and expected to be fulfilled. Based on the School’s November 19th response to Item 3 of the request, it remains unclear why the School claims that extracting information from a database to provide the requestor with the responsive records is a creation of a record. Specifically, where the School may extract some or all of the responsive information to satisfy the request, the School is advised that extracting records or information from records that are already in existence and in its possession, custody, or control, is not creation of a record. The duty to comply with requests for

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0458 Page 4 February 20, 2026 records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). The School is directed to a 2020 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Court) decision relative to creating a record versus extraction of information from databases in order to produce records or information in response to a public records request. In Att’y Gen. v. Dist. Attorney for the Plymouth Dist., et al. (Plymouth Dist.) 484 Mass. 260 (2020), the Court stated: …where public records are in electronic form, as they increasingly are and will be, a public records request that requires a government entity to search its electronic database to extract requested data does not mean that the extracted data constitute the creation of a new record under the public records law. This interpretation of the public records law is supported by the regulations promulgated by the supervisor, who is required to adopt regulations to implement the public records law. Plymouth Dist., 484 Mass. at 275. The School is advised that, 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(f), also provides that “[f]urnishing a segregable portion of a public record shall not be deemed to be creation of a new record. This applies to a responsive record in the form of an extract of existing data, as such data exists at the time of the request and is segregable from nonresponsive and exempt data.” Based on the School’s November 19th response, I find that the School did not meet its burden in responding to this request. Consequently, the School must clarify whether the requested records can be extracted from its iReady system. No Duty to Answer Questions Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Regarding Item 2 of the request, where the School stated that, “[t]he question was answered and there are no additional records[,]” and the School is not required to answer questions or create records in response to a public records request, I find that this portion of the appeal is resolved. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0458 Page 5 February 20, 2026 (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Belmont Math Parents