By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — Three School Committee members voted in favor of Superintendent Tom Geary’s goals for the 2025-2026 academic year while one member voted against them and another abstained during a Sept. 10 meeting.
Geary established four goals as part of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)-mandated superintendent evaluation system for the 2025-2026 academic year. He established two district improvement goals, one of which entails having him lead “the process of developing a five-year strategic plan for the district.”
The second district improvement goal Geary developed seeks to “improve the effectiveness of the budget process by increasing community understanding and communication.”
Geary’s professional practice goal once again entails prioritizing “a shared educational vision of furthering positive culture in the district (by) making citizenship central to school ethos.” The goal builds on a similar goal Geary developed last year.
The student learning goal Geary developed entails reviewing and assessing the district’s social studies and visual arts curriculum for grades K-12.
Geary, who presented a draft version of his goals during an August meeting, informed the Villager that the only change he made to them was “breaking out specific evidence that will be provided at the end of the year from the action steps that will be taken during the year.”
“This had previously been together,” said Geary.
Geary said during the School Committee’s meeting that, “Nothing was added in terms of evidence.”
“There was nothing significant added,” said Geary. “That is pretty much it. The goals are the same. Nothing in the big picture really changed.”
School Committee member Jamie Hayman said he told Geary in an email that he appreciated him “pulling out the evidence.”
“I still remain concerned,” said Hayman. “One is the lack of quantitative measurability in these goals. I don’t see an alignment with the DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) rubric. They all don’t align with the S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) framework. Those concerns are still there.”
School Committee member Kate DePrizio said Geary’s four goals are “very ambitious.” She thanked School Committee Chair Kristen Grieco Elworthy and School Committee Vice Chair Jim Dillon for helping Geary develop the goals as part of an internal working group.
“I see these goals as not only being quantitative but also very qualitative,” said DePrizio. “They will absolutely move the district forward. I appreciate your work on it.”
School Committee member Kim Baker Donahue suggested that the panel incorporate “some of the actual elements that directly come from” DESE’s superintendent rubric into Geary’s goals.
“That is where some of these questions might be more easily cleared up,” said Baker Donahue.
Geary asked Baker Donahue to clarify her suggestion.
“Can you give an example?” asked Geary. “I have read the rubric and I have identified which standard it aligns with.”
While Baker Donahue said she could not provide “an exact example” because she didn’t have the rubric in front of her, she suggested that Geary include definitions that are “defined in the rubric in your goal or as part of your evidence.”
Elworthy said Baker Donahue’s suggestion “doesn’t translate that way because evidence” can be something such as a presentation. After one of the School Committee’s summer workshops, Elworthy said she and Geary decided to incorporate “some specific language” from the DESE rubric into his goals.
“I have gone through 10 or 12 other districts’ superintendent’s goals,” said Elworthy. “These elements are fairly standard. I think the addition of evidence was a really solid piece that helps clarify and put everybody on the same page. I think these goals, compared to other districts and comparable districts to ours, are ambitious.”
Elworthy said the evidence Geary will be providing as part of his goals is “very similar to evidence I have seen in districts like North Reading, Dover-Sherborn and our own district in prior years when we looked at goal structure.”
“I just Googled them and looked at as many as I could,” said Elworthy. “They are all over the map in terms of how folks format them for sure. In terms of what evidence folks are looking at, unless a school was in receivership that had specific metrics they had to meet to come out of receivership, this is fairly standard.”
Dillon expressed his support for Geary’s goals, particularly the student learning goal’s component that will be assessing and reviewing the district’s social studies curriculum. He said DESE updated the History and Social Science Framework for preschool to grade 12 in 2018, which he said “attempts to include all students” in addition to increasing civics education.
“The final summary report will be identifying strengths and weaknesses and gaps, and there will be identified places where you filled those gaps,” said Dillon. “That attempt is also going to satisfy some of the things that we have talked about in terms of belonging for students. The 2018 revision was also about that.”
Dillon also said the school culture goal that Geary developed encourages students to be “good citizens every day.”
“I think these are very positive goals for the kids in Lynnfield,” said Dillon. “I think they will make a positive difference.”
Baker Donahue said Geary developed “great goals.”
“To have four goals that have a lot of the things that we need and are building I think is great,” said Baker Donahue.
“I was just suggesting that when we get to that evaluation piece to sort of prevent the poking of holes and the questioning, is there a way for you to just solidify that with different language? That is what I was suggesting. It was not that the goals were not good.”
Elworthy said the School Committee has “had lots of opportunities to discuss this.”
“Tom did send this to all of us last week and asked us for feedback prior to the meeting,” said Elworthy. “He needs these goals to move forward with the work here. If we need to take more time, we can. Whatever we vote on here is going to be what we evaluate at the end of the school year. There were specific things I felt like I wanted to see, so I gave that feedback. If there are specific things missing at this point, in fairness, those specific things should be spelled out.”
Elworthy, Dillon and DePrizio each said they were satisfied with Geary’s goals and the evidence he will be providing to the School Committee as part of his evaluation at the end of the academic year.
After the discussion, Elworthy, Dillon and DePrizio voted in favor of Geary’s goals. Hayman voted no and Baker Donahue abstained.