At its June 3 meeting, the School Committee voted 3-2 to approve Superintendent Tom Geary’s summative evaluation. School Committee Chair Kristen Elworthy, Vice-Chair Jim Dillon and committee member Kate DePrizio voted in favor, while committee members Kim Baker-Donohue and Jamie Hayman voted no. The following is the evaluation, which may also be viewed on the Lynnfield Public Schools website at www.https://lynnfield.k12.ma.us/en-US.
GOALS:
Student Learning Goal: Identify and begin to develop practices that make citizenship central to school ethos to improve overall culture in the district.
Rating: Met
Professional Practice Goal: Work toward implementing recommendations from the technology audit and review the structure of the technology department for improved efficiency and stronger overall culture.
Rating: Exceeded
District Improvement Goal 1: Review and assess practices designed to improve teaching and learning in Mathematics, English Language Arts, and Performing Arts across the district to ensure vertical and horizontal articulation from K-12. This will be measured by working toward consistency in comparing our current curricula to the state frameworks, analyzing assessment scores, and by sharing our curricula status and updates at public presentations. Rating: Met
District Improvement Goal 2: Plan effective FY26 budget development process which prioritizes district needs in a fiscally responsible manner, while collaborating with and incorporating feedback from various stakeholders
Rating: Met
STANDARDS:
I: Instructional Leadership: Proficient
II: Management & Operations: Proficient
III: Family & Community Engagement: Proficient
IV: Professional Culture: Proficient
Overall Summative Performance: Proficient
Narrative:
The majority of School Committee evaluators commended Superintendent Geary for a highly effective first year, marked by visible progress on major district goals. Four of the six evaluators offered strong, positive assessments of his performance, highlighting both the scope of his leadership and the measurable impact of his initiatives on students, staff, and district operations.
Common themes across evaluations included praise for Mr. Geary’s strategic overhaul of the technology department, which resulted in increased functionality, greater transparency, and the district’s first long-term technology capital plan. Evaluators also noted improvements in school culture, citing clearer behavioral expectations, a renewed emphasis on citizenship, and Mr. Geary’s consistent presence and accessibility at school and community events.
Mr. Geary’s work to restore curriculum alignment and promote a data-informed instructional approach was seen by several evaluators as laying a strong foundation for long-term academic success. Multiple evaluators specifically noted the restoration of interventionist positions, which yielded measurable improvements in student outcomes. The establishment of lead performing arts and media roles was also cited as enhancing continuity in instruction, though one evaluator suggested clearer metrics to evaluate the roles’ effectiveness. Most evaluators praised the clear action plans presented for curriculum initiatives, along with regular updates from the administrative team that demonstrated how data — including MCAS, STAR, AP results, and state frameworks — informed decisions district-wide.
Several evaluators also highlighted Mr. Geary’s inclusive approach to staff development and hiring, describing it as a key factor in empowering educators and fostering a more collaborative professional culture. His work with the administrative leadership team — including new hires and clarified roles — was seen as driving student success and strengthening district leadership. His collaboration with public safety and implementation of the “I Love You Guys” protocols were cited as additional achievements.
There was broad agreement that school culture policies — including updated handbooks, dress codes, and phone use guidelines — had a positive effect on student focus and learning environments. Feedback from school staff and data shared in improvement plans affirmed this progress. Additionally, several evaluators commended Mr. Geary for revamping the new teacher induction program, which they viewed as key to establishing high expectations and culture alignment among new educators.
On budgeting, feedback was more varied. Evaluators acknowledged that Mr. Geary led the district through an especially complex and challenging budget cycle, and several commended him for producing a budget that won unanimous support from three town boards and ultimately passed at Town Meeting. At the same time, some evaluators identified opportunities for growth — such as earlier public education on budget constraints and greater clarity in explaining budget development and financial context. Two evaluators expressed concern that analysis of the financial situation was lacking, while others felt his frequent public presentations and successful advocacy demonstrated strong fiscal leadership.
It is important to note that two Committee evaluators diverged from the overall positive assessment. These evaluators rated several standards as “Needs Improvement” and raised concerns about Mr. Geary’s communication style during contentious discussions and public forums. One evaluator questioned whether improvements were attributable to Mr. Geary himself or to the broader leadership team.
A majority of evaluators explicitly credited Mr. Geary’s leadership — particularly his selection of and collaboration with the administrative team — as central to the year’s progress. They noted that his empowerment of school leaders has led to tangible improvements in both staff culture
and student outcomes, supported by teacher surveys, behavioral data, and academic performance metrics.
Feedback on community engagement was also mixed. Several evaluators praised Mr. Geary’s visibility, accessibility, and willingness to attend and host events across the district. Others expressed a desire for more formalized opportunities for stakeholder feedback, particularly from families. One evaluator noted that Mr. Geary can have a defensive demeanor when offered critical feedback.
In summary, while the presence of differing perspectives reflects the high expectations placed on this leadership role, the consensus among a clear majority of evaluators was that Mr. Geary brought clarity, strategic direction, and effective leadership during a year of substantial transition. Evaluators widely acknowledged his impact across operational systems, instructional improvement, and school culture — with opportunities for continued growth in community communication and public-facing processes.
