Lakewood Observer: Inside the Elementary Planning Task Force: One Member's Insights

by Caitlin Solomon

Lakewood City School District is currently considering repurposing (closing) one or even two of our neighborhood elementary schools. The Superintendent has convened an Elementary Planning Task Force, which has met since August 2024, to study this issue and make a recommendation. The Task Force consists of residents, community leaders, all five school board members, and many employees of Lakewood City Schools, and its meetings are closed to the public.

I was able to connect with a member of the Task Force, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, to shed some light on what it is like inside these closed meetings. For reference, FutureThink is the Columbus-based consulting firm engaged by Lakewood City Schools to create possible scenarios on how to utilize the current seven elementary schools in Lakewood.

The scenarios presented at the first Task Force meeting on August 28, 2024, are as follows:

1) Reinvent Lincoln (repurpose/close Lincoln to create a standalone building to house all of Lakewood's Pre-K students), and modify current school boundaries

2) Reinvent Roosevelt (repurpose/close Roosevelt to create a standalone building to house all of Lakewood's Pre-K students), and modify current school boundaries

3) Reinvent Grant (repurpose/close Grant to create a standalone building to house all of Lakewood's Pre-K students), and modify current school boundaries

4) Reinvent Grant and Roosevelt (repurpose/close both Grant and Roosevelt to create a standalone Pre-K building, as well as a community recreation building), and modify current school boundaries

5) Reinvent Lincoln and Roosevelt (repurpose/close both Lincoln and Roosevelt to create a standalone Pre-K building, as well as a community recreation building), and modify current school boundaries

6) Reinvent Lincoln and Grant (repurpose/close both Lincoln and Grant to create a standalone Pre-K building, as well as a community recreation building), and modify current school boundaries

7) Modify current school boundaries

This interview was started before the most recent Task Force meeting on February 19, 2025 and the interviewee changed some of their responses after that meeting by using the note “edit:”.

What was the first Task Force meeting like?

“It was interesting. There were a number of familiar faces from the community and the district, so I knew a number of them. We did an ice breaker where we were asked to go meet 10 people we didn’t know. Then Superintendent Niedzwiecki introduced the issue and then the people from FutureThink/Impact Group laid out their part in all this. The superintendent took over again and presented all seven scenarios. We were then asked to discuss at our tables our initial reactions to the scenarios. We were also asked to take notes and write down any other ideas we could come up with. At this point, I had a good feeling about everything. It seemed like we could surely come up with a better solution than the scenarios as they were presented. I walked through the door with a pocket full of ideas.”

How have meetings unfolded through the course of the process? What is the overall tone of the meetings?

“At first, we thought we were there to help solve the problem; but then as time went on, we weren’t doing any of that. It seemed like we were there more to find obstacles the district would face when rolling this out to the community. We were asked to decide at our tables which of the seven we’d remove from consideration. Shockingly, many tables said that they’d take Scenario 7- redistricting (the only scenario not involving repurposing) - off of the table because they felt if we don’t do something now (consolidate), we’ll just have to meet and do it later. The fourth meeting confirmed what I thought I knew: We were there to brainstorm questions and obstacles the administration might face at the community meetings. We were there to help smooth the way.”

What hurdles has the Task Force faced?

“The biggest obstacle the task force faced in my opinion was that everything we saw seemed to stack the deck toward not just one of these seven predetermined outcomes but rather one of the six that involved repurposing one or two buildings.

The data and information we were presented was done in such a way that there was only one conclusion: to consolidate and repurpose.

It’s hard to see things clearly when everything seems shaded. It doesn’t seem balanced. So you have to look past the presentation and see what they’re not saying or what and why they shared things in a certain way…. Or why did they share this but not this? And then you come to other conclusions that weren’t on the list of ‘acceptable’ ones.”

Did Task Force members ever suggest alternate scenarios?

“We were encouraged to add questions or suggestions of any kind. I don’t know that I would call them ‘alternative scenarios’ per se, but close enough. Each meeting had a table talk or two. Each table had a method to submit questions and/or suggestions. Usually we had a note sheet we used for reporting out. We were to submit whatever on those. On two occasions, we had large presentation post-it sheets where we answered the questions for the group discussions. We could add things to that or stick a post-it note on it. Some questions were answered via a FAQ. I can’t tell you what others suggested being compartmentalized at tables the way we were, but some got into, “Why can’t we…” questions that were at least partially answered during the large group discussion portions. I know I made suggestions. Heck, I went in with a whole list of them not knowing about the predetermined scenarios beforehand.

No alternative scenarios have yet made it to the discussion to my knowledge.

Perhaps some of these will be in the next round. Other than the FAQs and the questions that were answered live, I have no idea how admin took alternative suggestions since, to my knowledge, they’ve never publicly acknowledged any of them.”

Did Task Force members ever request additional data?

“What you have is 7-8 individual tables with around 7 people at each. One or more tables will conclude they need more information like a traffic study or building floor plans and they’ll write that down on the note sheet we turn in. Then you’ll have another group that’s homogeneous in nature and they don’t need any more information because in their mind they’ve seen enough. Some Task Force members asked for floor plans. And some asked for a traffic study. To date I have seen neither. I have heard, not sure where, that Superintendent Niedzwiecki told someone floor plans are not practical or relevant because it wouldn’t have the necessary info on it (such as special needs spaces). I also haven’t seen any data presented on a traffic study or how kids are currently getting to school.”

Do you trust that this process will unfold fairly and with input from all parties taken into consideration?

“I’m not sure. They’ve said again and again that decisions have not been made, and yet, it seems as if it was designed to come to a limited set of conclusions.

Why doesn’t the Task Force get to consider any other solutions for this issue despite the district asking for input from both the task force AND the community? Are we to believe no other ideas were submitted? I KNOW that to be false.

Even if we believe what they’re saying, then why present the information in such a way that we must do something at the elementary level to fix it when the elementary schools aren’t bad off and it’s clear the community prefers their neighborhood system to consolidation?

There’s the talk about enrollment dropping, and it’s true. Why did it drop? What happened? Officially: population is decreasing all over, but Lakewood is sought after. People are having less kids, sure. But are we so sure that the kids won’t come back if this district is marketed more? Are there other reasons that could explain the drop? I think so, but we didn’t explore that either. Could it be that consolidating to 7 schools and creating pockets that must walk much further chased families away? Will we make it worse if we consolidate to five? Could it be policies the school adopted since COVID chased families away? Could it be policies that the city enacted- like the handling of Lakewood Hospital redevelopment or approving other developments largely focused on 1 bedroom apartments- chased families away? Why does the district think the loss to private schools in the last 5 years is minimal to non-existent when we all know several kids from our streets who go to private schools? Is the district blind? Do they really not know, or is it something else?

Why is the district not providing things the Task Force asked for, like traffic studies and safety studies and floor plans? Why the secrecy?

Why do school board members tell community members who are at the microphone at a Community Conversation meeting to stop asking questions?

Why does the district insist on adhering to legal definitions instead of functional definitions?

For example, legally, districts don’t have to provide transportation under two miles as the crow flies, but studies show elementary kids stop walking and start getting rides to school at under 1 mile.

Legally, capacity is determined by the max number each classroom is designed to hold (usually 25) instead of the individual pop caps set by the district. Why is the district committed to less than ideal (according to most studies) class caps, instead of asking the community to fund something closer to ideal? This would also help in teacher movement and class size differences, but we’re told it’s too expensive yet they didn’t even ask the community at any time. Edit: as of mid-February, the district has since changed the way they view capacity to a more realistic approach.

Why was the Task Force asked to go talk to the community to answer and ask questions but not tell them the whole story? Why do some Task Force members feel the need to ask permission to talk to the community or fear reprisals?

All of these things of great and little consequence add up to something not quite right in this process and that’s why I am not sure the process will work out in the community’s favor.

Edit by interviewee: After the most recent task force meeting in mid-February, the district has made some changes. Based on community feedback and how that meeting went, I am now cautiously optimistic that things will work out in the community’s favor and I encourage everyone to keep speaking up. This is a critical pivot point for the future of Lakewood.”

Caity Walsh Solomon, LHS ‘05, is a Lakewood homeowner, business operations specialist, and mother of three in the Lakewood City Schools.