By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — Tensions ran high during the School Committee’s discussion about Superintendent Tom Geary’s evaluation during a June 3 meeting.
Geary established four goals for the 2024-2025 academic year as part of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) state-mandated superintendent evaluation system that pertained to English/math/performing arts curriculum, technology, school culture and the fiscal year 2026 operating budget.
School Committee Chair Kristen Grieco Elworthy said all five members completed an evaluation of Geary as well as former School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Sheehan. She recalled that Geary presented the goals and action steps during a meeting last June.
After the six individual evaluations were undertaken, Elworthy said she and School Committee Vice Chair Jim Dillon developed the summative evaluation.
The Villager is publishing Geary’s evaluation in its entirety in this week’s issue. Elworthy read it during the meeting.
School Committee member Kim Baker Donahue said a Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) representative informed the panel in February that “the School Committee will be presented with an opportunity to make sure their voice was heard in the summation which you put together ahead of time.”
Elworthy said the MASC representative informed the school board “that would need to be done in an open meeting.”
“There isn’t a mechanism where I can give everybody the evaluation and have you give me feedback, similar to the (override) letter we did without it being in an open meeting, ” said Elworthy.
In response to a question from Baker Donahue, Elworthy said the School Committee could make adjustments to the evaluation “right now” if a member made a motion.
“I can’t make changes behind the scenes without a public meeting to have that discussion,” said Elworthy. “That is what this is.”
While Baker Donahue said Elworthy and Dillon “put the evaluation and the summary together,” she said they should consider making “adjustments if a person didn’t feel that their voice was heard.”
Elworthy said she used a spreadsheet to track School Committee members’ comments and “how frequently they were mentioned” in each individual evaluation. She said “anything that was mentioned two or more times” was included in the evaluation.
“Everyone’s point of view should be represented, but it is a summative evaluation of six people so it probably won’t feel like your evaluation or my evaluation,” said Elworthy.
School Committee member Jamie Hayman said he requested “several times” that Geary’s evaluation be delayed until after the $4.65 million Proposition 2 ½ override vote on June 4.
“Those requests were denied,” said Hayman. “I have a real problem with the fact that Tom is being held to a different and lower standard than any other superintendent in the last 15 years by not having to present his end of cycle report with evidence at a public meeting. This is about accountability. We model this behavior to empower the superintendent to hold principals to the same standards, which we saw reflected at the last meeting. In turn, it empowers principals to do the same with teachers and teachers with students. Accountability starts with us. I am simply asking Tom to follow the same process that has been in place for years. Frankly, I think he would want to present all of his accomplishments and supporting evidence.”
Hayman said Geary’s “goals were not SMART goals as expected and outlined and required by DESE.”
“While they were relevant, they lacked specificity, measurability and timeframes,” said Hayman. “This is not entirely Mr. Geary’s fault, as his goals were created when he was named interim superintendent and initially intended to help direct through this year. They were not intended to be the basis of this evaluation. The School Committee did Mr. Geary a disservice by not resetting his goals when the interim status was removed. I would also expect that a self-aware leader who is responsible for helping administrators set goals would want to have clear goals themselves. While Mr. Geary’s summative assessment narrative referenced work that had been completed throughout the district, he did not provide measurable results or clear evidence of specific contributions to the progress or achievements cited. A deeper look at the evidence presented is more of an indication on the strength of Lynnfield’s principals, curriculum directors, department heads and assistant superintendent than that of Mr. Geary’s accomplishments.”
Elworthy asked Hayman if he believes the school system has made progress this year.
“I agree that we made progress this year, but I did not see any evidence of Tom’s role in the narrative that was presented,” said Hayman. “Mr. Geary made no attempt to contribute meaningfully to academic discussions at School Committee meetings. He failed to provide context for presentations.”
Elworthy said Hayman’s concerns were included in his own evaluation.
“The reason why they are not in this narrative is because you were the only one who said them,” said Elworthy. “I understand you want to say them now, but I will say in fairness to a narrative evaluation, this is a bit out of line.”
Hayman disagreed.
“This is not out of line,” said Hayman. “This is my voice. This is what I have observed. These are things that happened at School Committee meetings.”
Baker Donahue defended Hayman for raising his concerns.
“Kristen, you just said that if we have a reason to think our voice wasn’t heard we could speak to it now,” said Baker Donahue.
Elworthy reiterated that a School Committee member could make a motion to amend the evaluation.
Hayman said the evaluation did not mention Geary’s “budget process violated our Town Charter.”
Elworthy, who previously served on the Finance Committee, said the “Town Charter budget process probably needs to be revised because it is almost impossible to meet at this point.”
Hayman said most of the School Committee was “ignoring lots of facts.”
“That is the problem I have,” said Hayman. “Do you think it is reasonable to expect that a superintendent provide no context for presentations and connecting them to district goals, a standard that has been met by every other superintendent before him? I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation.”
Dillon asked Hayman if he was “talking about the standards” that former Superintendent Kristen Vogel set.
“We are talking about the standards that have been in place for the past 15 years Jim,” Hayman fired back in response.
Dillon commended Geary for working to improve school culture, curriculum, policy and technology this year that has benefited students.
“I would say this Tom, I have worked with 12 superintendent of schools in my career,” said Dillon. “You are the best and most impactful superintendent I have ever worked with.”
School Committee member Kate DePrizio attributed Geary’s leadership to the School Committee being able to ratify three contracts with the Lynnfield Teachers Association at the start of the meeting (see separate story).
“Tom stepped into this position in an unprecedented time,” said DePrizio. “In every area, Tom has not only poured his acumen into it, but he has poured his heart into it. His leadership has been unparalleled this year.”
Baker Donahue said the school system’s “culture has vastly gotten better” this year.
“The overall culture with the staff is really what drives the experience for the kids,” said Baker Donahue. “I think that is something we of course have to acknowledge.”
In response to a question from Baker Donahue, Elworthy said the MASC representative told the panel a School Committee member could have requested Geary to “tweak” his goals earlier this academic year.
“We can’t move goal posts in June,” said Elworthy.
Hayman said he “did bring that up when Tom was appointed superintendent.”
“I also brought up the fact there was not enough data and not enough measurement during the formative assessment (in January),” said Hayman. “And you and Jenny both agreed with that. We can try to rewrite history, but those conversations did happen.”
Baker Donahue said some of Geary’s goals were “very narrow.”
Elworthy said some goals would be accomplished in a year while others would be completed over time.
“I think these are better than the ones I have seen in the past,” said Elworthy. “I think we will do better next year and should do better next year. There are some specific things in here particularly on the budget. I was on the Budget Subcommittee, and I put the criticism in. I feel that we can do better.”
Dillon noted that Baker Donahue will have an opportunity to weigh in on Geary’s next series of goals.
Baker Donahue stressed that Geary’s evaluation “doesn’t address every single aspect of a person’s job.” She said he should have provided more evidence about his work with family and community engagement.
Elworthy said she has had a “great working relationship” with Geary over the past year and said he is “open to feedback.” She also complimented Geary for the “team that you have built.”
Geary thanked the School Committee “for taking the time to give an honest evaluation.”
“I appreciate the praise and the constructive criticism,” said Geary. “I will honestly take it to heart.”
While Geary said the budget, curriculum and technology goals were important, he said, “If you don’t have culture, you don’t have anything in my opinion.”
“That has really been something I have tried to focus on,” said Geary. “You are only as good as the people who surround you. I feel that we have tried to surround ourselves with a highly functional team. As far as culture, I think we have made good progress with staff.”
After the evaluation was discussed, several residents spoke in support of Geary while others advocated for the School Committee to conduct a superintendent search. Two teachers also spoke in support of Geary.
Elworthy, Dillon and DePrizio voted to approve the superintendent’s evaluation. Baker Donahue and Hayman voted no.