Concerned Residents Cite Broken Trust at May 5 Board of Education Meeting
- Preserve Lakewood Schools
- May 7
- 4 min read
On May 5, Lakewood parents and residents gathered at Lincoln Elementary to speak out against potential elementary school closures (of Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Grant). Many criticized the Board of Education (BOE) and superintendent for a process they view as predetermined, non-transparent, and dismissive of community input. The video footage can be watched here with public commentary beginning around1:50:00.
The common threads throughout the lineup of public comments included:
Community Trust Broken
Walkability & Neighborhood Identity
Flawed Data & Process
Preschool & Centralization Concerns
Call for Leadership & Engagement
Peter Sackett, a resident of Lakewood for 35 years, has consistently supported levies and bonds to strengthen the city, schools, and property values. In 2013, 70% of voters backed rebuilding elementary schools — the same schools now facing closure. Sackett argues the decision seems to rest with a superintendent who doesn’t even live in the city, sidelining the community’s voice.
Dan Kirk, father of a Grant kindergartener, called the planning process dishonest and predetermined, with a handpicked committee endorsing preset scenarios, six of which involve closures. He says the process ignored the best question: how to keep all seven schools open. His trust in the board is nearly gone.
Jim Diekroger briefly agreed with Kirk before conceding his time.
Colleen Kirkbride, Roosevelt parent, moved to Lakewood for the walkable, community-centered schools — something she never had growing up — and pleaded not to lose that.
Lauren Delia, a private preschool director, said families choose public schools for the convenience of neighborhood pre-K. Centralizing pre-K would erase this advantage, especially given the abundance of private preschools.
Alaina McCourt, holding hands with her daughter, criticized the board’s claim of prioritizing equity and questioned why the under-capacity high school isn’t a focus. She pointed out that elementary enrollment has grown over the past five years, unlike middle and high schools, and called for stopping the task force to create a true strategic vision.
Nik Chernushin urged careful consideration of impending state budget cuts, calling for honest community dialogue and time to process the task force report.
Michael Alexander praised the dedication of the crowd, warning that closing schools risks dismantling the century-old walkable system. He emphasized that no one is advocating for closures.
Erin Brady, mother and preschool educator, argued that walkability and community matter more than efficiency. Closing schools and centralizing services risks harming access and making irreversible mistakes.
Andrea Salem, former educator, stressed that decisions must be data-driven and focused on student attendance, which directly impacts learning.
Jeff McCourt questioned why only elementary schools are targeted, given that enrollment has increased since the new buildings opened. He urged pausing the process and exploring better options.
Chris Morron, a music teacher, voiced concerns about the district’s messaging, saying under-capacity buildings don’t inherently harm education.
Robert Sweeney, a lawyer, warned that closing schools is an existential community change requiring a burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Kelly Moyer corrected misleading board claims about enrollment decline. Board President Nora Katzenberger had mistakenly used the figure of 270 students as the projected enrollment decline for elementary, when in fact elementary enrollment is only declining by 76 students K-5 over the next decade. Moyer urged the board to listen to the clear community message against closures.
Mark Ciepel pointed out that closures would save only 0.6% of the district’s budget, yet would have major, lasting impacts. He demanded transparency and a concern of how our public dollars are spent.
Caity Solomon emphasized that this is about engaged, informed taxpayers, not just emotional parents. She highlighted missing elements: traffic studies, clear data, and new solutions, and called for new leadership and strategic planning.
Emily Lindberg, hike-and-bike advocate, warned that centralization would erode Lakewood’s identity and drive families away.
Erik Salo, son of educators, said the process feels like a PR campaign undermining trust and stability, especially after COVID’s disruptions to our children’s sense of stability.
JP Graulty, community engagement professional, said the board has failed at its duty to engage diverse community voices and offered his help to improve the process.
Marie Fechik-Kirk raised traffic safety concerns, citing high-stress roads and inadequate crossing guard coverage, warning of safety risks with closures. She also shared a neighbor’s statement about the importance of walkability even though that individual does not have children.
Angela Clunk thanked the task force but said divisiveness lies with the superintendent who does not even reside in this county. She urged meaningful engagement and reminded the crowd that two board seats are up for election this fall.
Board Member Colleen Clark-Sutton closed by assuring the audience: “We are listening and we haven’t made a decision yet.”
The next critical Board of Education meeting is on June 16th at 7:00pm at Taft where the Elementary Planning Task Force will present its final report to the Board of Education (though a Board vote that evening is not anticipated). Please attend in support or to speak your voice.
Monday, June 16th
7:00 pm start - plan for several hours of meeting time, with public commentary at the end
Taft Center for Innovation
Rooms 109/110
13701 Lake Ave
Lakewood, OH 44107
