Public records project
East Bridgewater Public Schools Public Records Project
Thirteen PDFs, 2,243 pages of district email, a 47-page blackout in the middle of one of them, and a 31-page School Committee letter the District says it does not have. What the Supervisor of Records decided, what it did not decide, and what is still open.
On April 27, 2026, Parent Data Force asked East Bridgewater Public Schools for every email containing the word “stapler.” The District produced 13 PDFs totaling 2,243 pages. A state supervisor then upheld some of the redactions, refused to accept the rest, and closed the question of a missing record without deciding whether that record existed. Fourteen months of production, and the dispute got narrower rather than wider. This project assembles the record from the District’s own responses, the Supervisor’s decisions, and the filings on both sides.
What this project evaluates. Whether a large public-records production actually answers a specific, itemized question — and what happens when a district says the remaining records do not exist. It examines three things separately: a 47-page redaction, a single identified document, and a set of attachments that appear by filename only. This project is not an accusation that East Bridgewater withheld records unlawfully, and it takes no position on the redactions as a whole. Two of those questions are live and undecided. Where the record is silent, this page says so rather than filling the gap.
Last updated: October 1, 2026
UPHELD IN PART / EXPLAIN MORE
The August 28, 2026 determination in SPR26/3207 resolved three questions and left a fourth open. The framing matters more than the headline, because a determination that upholds some redactions is not a determination that the production was lawful.
- Upheld. Where the School redacted student names and the names of a student’s parent under FERPA as it operates through Exemption (a), the Supervisor found “the School has met its burden to redact such information.”
- Not upheld, and not condemned. As to the remaining redactions, “it is unclear how the remaining redactions constitute personally identifiable information or education records.” The School “must further clarify this matter.”
- Resolved procedurally. On the missing-record question, because the District stated it holds nothing further and “this office has no authority to compel the School to create records,” the Supervisor found that portion of the appeal “resolved.” That is not a finding that no record was withheld.
- Still open. The School was ordered to respond within ten business days. It did so on September 14, 2026. The Supervisor has not ruled on that response.
The three open issues
The 47-page blackout
File 12, pages 73 through 119, is described in the July 28, 2026 filing as almost entirely blacked out: page 73 reveals only part of a student email header, pages 74 through 119 give essentially no usable information, and page 120 returns abruptly to unrelated content. The District’s own example for its fourth redaction category was “pages 73-119 of File 12 contain student assignments.” The Supervisor found the name redactions adequate and the remaining redactions unclear. On September 14 the District said those pages are student work in their entirety and cannot be redacted any less.
The unreconciled February 2025 record
On June 2, 2026 the District wrote that a letter from an employee to the School Committee dated February 2025 may have been produced, said it “should have been withheld and/or redacted,” and asked that it be deleted and destroyed. The August 28 supplemental submission identified it precisely: a 31-page February 11, 2025 letter to the School Committee, embedded in the copy preserved from the District’s own production under the file title “2025-02-11 School Committee letter final PDF.pdf.” The District’s September 14 letter, captioned to SPR26/3207 and SPR26/3203, does not mention it.
Attachments shown by name only
The April 27 request asked for complete threads. The July 28 filing identified attachment filenames appearing in the production without the attachments themselves — a Staples quote and a classroom-supply list in File 5, a treasurer’s report and an agenda in File 6, and delivery photographs in Files 9 and 10. No filing after September 14 addresses them.
What the records establish
- East Bridgewater produced 13 PDFs totaling 2,243 pages by secure link on July 27, 2026, after a partial production on or about May 28–29.
- The District invoked Exemption (a) and FERPA, citing four redacted categories: student names; the names of a student’s parent or other family members; a personal identifier; and information linkable to a specific student. The District’s own worked example was “pages 73-119 of File 12 contain student assignments.”
- The District stated on August 17, 2026 that it does not possess any additional records and is not withholding any records.
- The Supervisor found the School met its burden to redact student names and the names of a student’s parent under FERPA as it operates through Exemption (a).
- The Supervisor found it unclear how the remaining redactions constitute personally identifiable information or education records, and ordered the School to clarify the matter.
- The Supervisor found the missing-record portion of the appeal resolved on the ground that this office has no authority to compel the School to create records.
- The School was ordered to respond within ten business days, and the requester retained a ninety-day right to appeal the substance of that response.
- On September 14, 2026 the District stated the pages 73-119 documents “constitute student work/assignments in their entirety and were prepared by students,” and that no lesser redaction is possible without exposing the District to liability.
- The September 14, 2026 letter does not mention the February 11, 2025 School Committee letter identified in the August 28 supplemental submission.
- On September 11, 2026 the District submitted records for in camera inspection in SPR26/3208, with a decision due 15 business days from receipt.
- On September 28, 2026 the District answered a separate settlement-records request with an estimate of $350 — five hours of search at $25 and three hours of review at $75 — and sought 30 additional business days.
What the records do not establish
- It is not established that all redactions were improper. The determination upheld the name redactions and declined to rule on the others. Neither a clean sweep nor a clean bill.
- It is not established that the remaining redactions are lawful. The finding is that they were not adequately explained, which is narrower than either upholding or condemning them.
- It is not established that a record was withheld. The missing-record issue was closed procedurally; no one found the District was withholding anything.
- It is not established that the District’s “no additional records” statement is accurate. The determination accepted it as the District’s position and explained why the office could not test it.
- It is not established that the September 14 letter is correct. It is the District’s assertion, and the Supervisor has not ruled on it.
- It is not established that any student record was disclosed unlawfully. The District asked for the February 2025 letter to be deleted; whether the original production contained material it lacked authority to release is contested and undecided.
- It is not established that pages 73-119 are the only heavily redacted pages. The clarification order was general; the September 14 answer was specific.
- It is not established what the in camera review will find. Those records are unreleased by operation of the process that received them.
- It is not established why the September 14 letter does not address the February 2025 record. That is recorded as a question, not answered here.
- It is not established that the $350 fee estimate is unreasonable — or that it is reasonable. Both dockets are pending.
What can reasonably be assumed pending further records
Neither established nor refuted. These are the readings the current record supports as the most economical explanation of what is in front of us. No source states any of them, and none should be cited as a finding.
- The remaining redactions probably exceed the identity redactions. A district that had confined itself to names would not have drawn a clarification order. This is an inference from the shape of the ruling, not a count.
- The 47 pages are probably genuinely student work. The District has asserted this twice in writing and has a privacy interest in being right. That is not proof, and the Supervisor has not accepted it.
- The September 14 letter probably was written to close the clarification order rather than to open a negotiation. It answers two dockets in one document, restates the June 15 categories, and then defends the flagged example. The February 2025 letter may not have been on the checklist.
- The February 2025 record probably still exists somewhere in the District’s systems. A district does not ordinarily write to a requester about a specific document, describe its date and recipient, and ask for its destruction unless it has identified that document. The District’s IT team was, in its own words, reviewing what had been sent in error.
- The 47-page blackout probably spans more than one record. A run crossing the end of a student email header at page 73 and an abrupt return to a newsletter at page 120 spans at least a boundary.
- The in camera submission probably concerns Exemption (c) and attorney-client privilege claims rather than FERPA. The SPR26/3208 order concerns the 17 documents redacted under Exemption (c) and privilege — a separate track from the File 12 redactions.
- The attachments in Files 5, 6, 9 and 10 probably exist. Requesters routinely see filenames in productions where the attachments were withheld or overlooked. That pattern is common and proves nothing about these four.
Timeline
- April 27, 2026 — the request. An amended public records request for all emails sent to or from any district-controlled account in which the word “stapler” appeared in the subject line or body, covering April 27, 2023 forward, across the district’s known domains and subdomains, with complete threads including messages that did not themselves contain the word.
- May 14, 2026 — interim contact. The District stated it had located hundreds of potentially responsive emails, asked for an extension to May 29, and noted the search returned both staff and student emails.
- On or about May 28, 2026 — the first production. Records were produced, including email materials and .pst files inside a zip archive.
- June 2, 2026 — the acknowledgment. The District wrote that confidential personnel documents “may have been inadvertently disclosed,” identified a letter from an employee to the School Committee dated February 2025, said it “should have been withheld and/or redacted,” and asked the requester to delete and destroy it.
- June 15, 2026 — the written response. The District cited Exemption (a) and FERPA, listing four redacted categories, and offered to mail the documents or make them available for pickup.
- July 27, 2026 — the electronic production. A secure link to 13 PDFs totaling 2,243 pages, File 1 through File 13, with the June 15 exemptions restated as “remain applicable.”
- July 28, 2026 — the supplemental appeal. A filing in SPR26/2791 described the 47-page blackout page by page, identified the unreconciled February 2025 record and the omitted attachments, and requested in camera review of the unredacted File 12 pages.
- August 4, 2026 — the first determination. SPR26/2791 ordered the School to clarify how the redactions could be withheld under FERPA through Exemption (a), and to clarify whether any additional records existed.
- August 17, 2026 — the response that spawned four appeals. The School responded. SPR26/3203, SPR26/3207, SPR26/3208 and SPR26/3220 followed from that single response.
- August 28, 2026 — the determination. In SPR26/3207 the Supervisor upheld the redaction of student and parent names under FERPA, found it unclear how the remaining redactions constitute personally identifiable information or education records, ordered the School to clarify, resolved the missing-record issue on procedural grounds, and ordered a response within ten business days. A supplemental submission identifying the February 11, 2025 School Committee letter was filed the same day.
- August 31, 2026 — three companion determinations. SPR26/3203 on records responsive to a June 3, 2026 email and its attachment; SPR26/3208, which ordered the unredacted records submitted for in camera inspection; and SPR26/3220.
- September 11, 2026 — in camera records received. The Public Records Division confirmed receipt of records submitted for in camera review in SPR26/3208 and set a decision due 15 business days from receipt. The Division does not release in camera records to anyone, so this is a review, not a disclosure.
- September 14, 2026 — the District’s answer. A letter captioned RE: SPR26/3207, SPR26/3203, copying the Supervisor, arrived on the tenth business day after the August 28 order, counting Labor Day as a state holiday. It defended the pages 73-119 redactions and stated the District holds no other responsive records “including but not limited to metadata.”
- September 18, 2026 — a separate dispute begins. A new request for student settlement and resolution agreements from September 18, 2021 forward, expressly excluding employment and commercial records and disclaiming any request for student personally identifiable information.
- September 28–29, 2026 — the fee fight is appealed. The District answered the settlement request with a $350 fee estimate and a request for 30 more business days, justified by District Counsel’s workload at other districts. The estimate was appealed as SPR26/4068 and the time petition as SPR26/4069, both acknowledged September 29. Neither has a determination.
Key records from the appeal
Five unaltered crops of public filings: the determination header, the District’s quoted August 17 position, the appeal position as quoted, the holding and order, and the District’s September 14 response. The determination and response PDFs are crop sources only and are not published as downloads. No page of the 2,243-page production is reproduced here. The material in dispute is student work, student communications, and personnel correspondence, and a records-disputes page that illustrates itself with the records in dispute is not a records-disputes page.
What is still blocked
- No ruling on the September 14 letter. The Supervisor has neither accepted nor rejected the District’s account of pages 73-119.
- No ruling on the remaining redactions. The clarification order stands unanswered as a determination.
- The February 11, 2025 School Committee letter is unaddressed in the September 14 letter. Produced, withheld, inside the blackout, or not located — none of these has been stated in any filing.
- The omitted attachments in Files 5, 6, 9 and 10 are unaddressed since July 28, 2026.
- Whether pages outside 73-119 remain near-total redacted is unknown.
- The in camera determination in SPR26/3208 had not issued as of October 1, 2026. The Public Records Division does not release in camera records to anyone, so a favorable outcome would not itself produce public disclosure.
- SPR26/4068 and SPR26/4069, the fee and time dockets, are pending. No determination on the $350 estimate or the 30-business-day extension.
- No responsive document from the September 18, 2026 settlement request has been released.
- Whether an appeal of the September 14 response has been filed. None appeared in the docket as of October 1, 2026; the determination preserves a ninety-day window from that response.
Articles in this project
- What the Supervisor of Records Decided About East Bridgewater — the August 28 determination itself: what it held, what it sent back, and what “resolved” does not mean.
- East Bridgewater’s 47-Page Blackout and the Record It Says It Does Not Have — pages 73 through 119, the unreconciled February 2025 School Committee letter, and the attachments that appear by filename only.
- East Bridgewater’s Second Fee Dispute — the September 18, 2026 settlement-records request, the $350 estimate, and dockets SPR26/4068 and SPR26/4069. A separate fight from the redaction appeal, sharing a district and nothing else.
Earlier reporting on the separate fee matter:
- East Bridgewater’s $350 Fee and 30-Day Extension Are Now Under Appeal — the original report on the fee dispute.
- Two Districts, One Petition — the shared petition language, alongside Natick.
Add to this record
If you hold a record from this matter — an East Bridgewater response, a determination, a filing, a copy of the February 11, 2025 School Committee letter, or an attachment from Files 5, 6, 9 or 10 of the production — send it to us. The District’s position is that it holds no further responsive records. If that is wrong, the record should say so. Corrections to anything published here are welcome, and we will report the Supervisor’s rulings as soon as they issue.