The School Committee discussed its goals for the upcoming school year, which are items within the Committee’s governance to support the work of the district, according to Chair Kristen Elworthy.
She noted that the process of discussing the Committee’s goals began last June, and there were three goals ready to be presented that night and will be voted on at the next meeting.
The first goal Elworthy introduced was on the District Strategic Plan. It stated that the Committee will support the superintendent in the development of the strategic plan by participating in the process as directed by the superintendent. The Committee will review and provide formal feedback on draft components as scheduled by the superintendent, and approve of the plan by June 30, 2026.
“We have two members already that are sitting on the Strategic Planning Committee. We’ll have progress reports in January and in the spring,” Elworthy said.
The second goal presented focused on strengthening public communication.
“By June 2026, the Lynnfield School Committee will strengthen public-facing communication about its work and priorities, resulting in a website that has clearer and more centralized locations for information and at least four opportunities for the community to meet with the School Committee members in casual settings throughout the year,” Elworthy said.
The Committee wants to work with the superintendent to create better access to centralized initiatives and a better archive of meeting documents. Also mentioned was delivering proactive public updates focused on district progress and budget transparency.
“The Town has made a lot of investment in the schools, and we want to be clear about how that investment is being spent,” she said.
Committee member Jamie Hayman said that he would like to see an increase in two-way communication.
“This is very one-way what we’re doing. I said it at the workshop; I’ll say it again. I think soliciting feedback from parents is a really important part that is being overlooked in this district,” Hayman said.
Committee member Kim Baker Donahue agreed with Hayman.
The third goal stated that the Committee will support a transparent and collaborative FY27 budget development process by improving stakeholder communication and engagement, resulting in the timely publication of meeting materials, participation in joint planning with Town officials, as evidenced by meeting attendance, and Committee participation in the Superintendent’s budget info sessions.
Elworthy noted that the Committee has already collaborated with the superintendent and Town officials to align on the budget development calendar.
Baker Donahue then brought up a fourth goal, focused on inclusivity, asking for it to be discussed during this meeting; however, Elworthy stated that the goal was not ready to be discussed and still needed workshopping.
“That goal needs to be workshopped like all the other goals… and that was my response when you asked for this. I’m in the process of scheduling another workshop with MASC for us early in the new year, and that would be the appropriate time to workshop that goal,” Elworthy said.
She noted that all the other goals have reached some sort of consensus, while the Committee has just seen this new version of the inclusivity goal, which now needs to be reviewed.
Baker Donahue said that it didn’t mean the goal couldn’t be workshopped in the public meeting.
“In fairness, all the other three goals were presented with the feedback from August taken and then presented in November. And this goal, the feedback was ignored… You presented the same goal twice,” Elworthy said.
Baker Donahue said that this wasn’t true and that when the feedback was given, “It didn’t mean we had to incorporate that feedback.”
Elworthy said that the goal was meant to be the School Committee’s goal, so feedback had to be taken.
Committee Vice Chair Jim Dillon agreed that he wanted to follow the process that the other three goals went through.
“I want to be really clear because at this point I’m trying to stay professional about this and be collegial about it, but I will say: In October you pushed to have the goals discussed again. I, despite the fact that the majority of the Committee didn’t want to do that, put an hour in on our budget workshop in November… A month before that, I asked, ‘Hey, everybody, turn your revisions in from the August goal on Friday, a week before the meeting.’ I didn’t receive anything from you or Jamie (Hayman),” Elworthy said.
She continued that she then received an email from Hayman stating that he and Baker Donahue were not changing the goal.
“I said there was feedback, and I don’t understand why we would workshop it again if you’re just going to ignore… There was no work done between August and November. And it’s not Jamie and Kim’s goal. It’s everybody’s goal. It was ignored,” she said.
Elworthy also noted that the goal was out of the Committee’s governance.
Baker Donahue said a few changes were made, and Dillon then asked for comments from the other members.
Committee member Kate DePrizio stated she respected the process that every goal was going through and that the other goals received input from all the other members.
“This goal I don’t feel has absorbed it. It is clearly outside of MASC recommendations and governance. I think this still needs a full conversation in the same way we have pursued the other goals,” DePrizio said.
Baker Donahue felt that Dillon was trying to shut down the conversation.
“We wanted to have a subsequent conversation in public about what the challenges are within an inclusion and belonging goal,” Hayman said. “The things that are in there, I don’t think are unreasonable. We want to have an inclusive district.”
Elworthy asked if Hayman’s decision to “blow off the feedback” was to force the public discussion.
“No, it was to actually have a conversation about what the problems are with it. There seems to be a real reluctance to talk about inclusion with this group,” he said.
Elworthy stated that the goal presented included creating a student program, which was out of the governance of the Committee.
“First of all, what I said in that workshop was that I feel we are talking about two very different things. When we drafted that goal, we (were) talking about what we want to do as a Committee,” Baker Donahue said.
DePrizio then said she finds it baiting that Baker Donahue and Hayman are trying to claim the other three members are not pushing for an inclusion goal.
“The three of us backed (Superintendent) Tom (Geary’s) culture goal and citizenship goal, which is an inclusion goal. And neither of you did,” DePrizio said. “… There is so much work to be done, and there’s governance to be done, so I find it disingenuous and disrespectful (to) the three of us to lobby this ‘we don’t prioritize inclusion’ angle because it couldn’t be further from the truth of the work that we have done.”
At the end of the discussion, Baker Donahue stated that she did support the goal, but abstained because she was still looking for additional information.
Dillon then expanded on Geary’s goals, which put emphasis on inclusivity in the district, including positive culture, core values, and citizenship, and he put focus on the social studies curriculum framework.
“That was revised in 2018… And there were a couple of reasons that was revised. The main reasons for that revision were one, increased emphasis on civics at all grade levels, including a new grade eight course on civics. The second bullet from the commissioner of education… Inclusion of standards that reflect the diversity of the United States and world cultures with particular attention to the contributions of women and men of all ethnicities and backgrounds in the United States and the connections among world cultures,” Dillon said.
He continued that this has been made a focus this year, and it has been made into a goal of Geary’s.
“To try to imply somehow that these goals somehow neglect that is absolutely outrageous,” Dillon said.
Baker Donahue said that is not what they are doing.
“You keep accusing us of undermining what our administration is doing. I have said out loud to them individually that that is absolutely not the case. They are absolutely doing a great job. What I am talking about, and what I keep saying… is that this is a goal for us, not for the district,” she said.
Elworthy said the goal Baker Donahue has sent over needs to be line-by-line workshopped and that the meeting was not the time and place, but Donahue said it could be.
“We haven’t done that… If we had done that with every goal, I would agree with you on that. Process does matter. If I do that for one person I have to do it for everybody,” Elworthy said. “… When I said in August it sounds like we all have some work to do on these goals (and) would everybody be open to meeting on them again… Everyone said yes to that. That was the agreed-upon process.”
Elworthy reiterated that Baker Donahue and Hayman did not make any edits to their goals, so the same feedback was given again.
“That’s why this goal is behind. And I didn’t even want to talk about it today… It should have just gone with the process,” she said.
Baker Donahue said that if you think about the goal in the lens in which it was drafted, it could be under the Committee’s purview, but Elworthy immediately said that it could not.
“I ran this by experts. It is not under purview. It’s outside of our governance. We can’t do it,” Elworthy said.
Baker Donahue said it has now been reworked, and Elworthy said that this reworked goal now needs to go through the workshop.
