The Lexington Public Schools superintendent will receive about $350,000 this year in compensation and benefits under her new contract.
Lexington’s School Committee voted on and approved the new contract for Julie Hackett, the superintendent of LPS, on Sept. 29. The contract has not yet been signed, but only because Hackett and School Committee chair, Larry Freeman, have not gotten around to signing. “No additional changes are anticipated,” Hackett told the Observer.
Her new contract, which adds one year onto Hackett’s existing five-year contract, will be in effect from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2032. Hackett will be paid a $319,037 salary plus $2,000 in disability insurance this year, totaling $321,037. She will also receive insurance plans such as health, life, dental, and more.
Lexington will also pay $23,000 to Hackett’s deferred compensation plan, which is her retirement plan. The town will also contribute $4,000 in retroactive pay annually to her retirement account.
Those benefits are in line with what some other municipal employees get. Town Manager Steve Bartha’s new contract, which the Select Board passed on Aug. 31, includes a $24,500 contribution to his retirement account and $2,000 disability insurance annually. He also gets health, dental, and life insurance. Bartha’s salary is about $60,000 less than Hackett’s, at $$264,569.
To compare to surrounding towns, Bedford Public Schools’ superintendent, Cliff Chuang, earns a $230,000 salary, though he was hired just three years ago. Hackett started in Lexington in 2018 and has 19 years of superintendent experience. In Belmont, the public school superintendent, Jill Geiser, makes $232,000 under her new contract. A bit further south, the superintendent of Wellesley Public Schools, David Lussier, makes over $311,000. And Anna Nolin, the superintendent of Newton Public Schools made $307,536 in 2025.
Hackett’s salary falls just shy of what Boston Public Schools superintendent, Mary Skipper, made last year. Skipper totaled $393,943 between $324,643 in base pay, a $60,000 annuity, $7,800 for transportation costs, and $1,500 for dental care.
An earlier version of this article linked to Steve Bartha’s 2024 contract. He has a new contract, as of August 2026, that is now referenced and hyperlinked.
Could the Observer please include the actual votes in the stories about committee votes? Was Dr. Hackett’s contract approved by the SC unanimously, or do we have any SC members who pay attention to LPS finances?
Yes.
No.
You’re mistaken, Patrick.
As I’ve written previously, the superintendent’s compensation is in line with that of comparable towns: https://tmmalex.groups.io/g/TMMAList/topic/121509980?msg=2968#msg2968
The duration of the contract is unusually long, but the town has had a very long time to decide whether they want Dr. Hackett to be around for the long term, and they decided yes. Many other districts would kill for the opportunity to have their superintendent stay for a full 6 years (ask Sudbury or Wayland).
To Mr. Patel’s question, I believe the school committee voted unanimously in favor of the contract, which was not the case for, say, Wellesley, where they’re still paying about the same in a contract that 2/5 of the school committee opposed.
I apologize. I should have confirmed before sending! The Lexington school committee’s vote was actually 3-1. I’m having trouble getting access to the minutes, but video is available here: https://u.peg.tv/s/vyyhss (starts at 47:30; vote is at 58:50).
Thanks for the link. Apologies, I was wrong, the vote was not unanimous. Larry Freeman, Sarah Carter and Eileen Jay voted YES; Mona Roy voted NO (she wanted to wait for the 2-year evaluation cycle of the Superintendent now underway to be over before voting); Kathleen Lenihan was absent.
I do not understand why a contract renegotiation in 2026 was even considered by the SC. My comment below should not be interpreted as any judgement on Dr. Hackett’s performance. Dr. Hackett’s current contract was to expire in 2031 – 5 yrs from now. Her compensation in that contract was somewhat above most of her peers. What the SC did in the new contract is to saddle the town with an additional $440,000+ expense over the duration of the contract. Worse, it sent a message to all of our unions that they should demand equally generous settlements as their leader was given. Only one SC member, Mona Roy, voted NO on the new contract. How do we make the remaining SC members realize that part of their job is to manage the LPS finances so that we can spend the funds we have on providing excellent education to our kids. Unnecessary increase to Town’s expenses at this time of financial stress is extremely irresponsible.
I am also very disappointed by this contract extension. $350,000 in annual spending for six years is a significant financial commitment, especially considering how tight the school district’s budget is. Having a guaranteed high-paying position for at least six years is extraordinary in the current economy.
Has Dr. Hackett demonstrated extraordinary performance to justify such an extraordinary contract? If so, Dr. Hackett and the School Committee have not communicated that clearly to the community.
A decision of this significance should have been given more time for public discussion and community input. I am disappointed in the elected members of the School Committee for the lack of transparency on such an important matter.