Emergency Meeting Held At Home Of Michael Inzelbuch Following Announcement Of Tiny Tots Closure

inzelbuch tinty tots meetingLast night, a meeting was held at the home of Michael Inzulbuch, following the announcement that Tiny Tots program would be scraped by the State, claiming they are not up to par, as first reported here on TLS. Close to 70 parents of the special needs children attended the meeting, as were board members Zlatkin, Seitler, Silver, Fink and Lydia Sylvia – the Superintendent of the Lakewood public Schools.

Ms. Sylvia together with the board members presented a plan where the approximately 100 children will attend public school in a fenced area -in trailers – behind the Clark School. The parents – clearly furious with the plan – told them under no uncertain terms will their children go to public school.

“It’s two weeks before the school year and you want to close the one successful program in the district and put my child into the failing public school?” said one parent.

Another parent said to the Frum board members. “We voted you in to represent us and this is what you do to our children? For five years the Tiny Tots program ran successfully and when we vote you in and you repay us by trying to force our children into the public school. You should all resign in disgrace.”

When a parent asked Ms. Sylvia  from which community will be the regular children in the integrated program, she responded by saying that the district has already a list of 300 children that applied. When pressed if any of the children were from the Frum community however, she responded in the negative.

The consensus from the parents was, that entering a public school program was not a solution.  

However, with the State threatening to pull $4 Million dollars from the Lakewood School District, there may not be a choice.

The meeting ended at 1:00 a.m., with no solution.


This content, and any other content on TLS, may not be republished or reproduced without prior permission from TLS. Copying or reproducing our content is both against the law and against Halacha. To inquire about using our content, including videos or photos, email us at

Stay up to date via our news alerts, by sending 'follow LakewoodScoop' to the number '40404' or via Twitter handle @LakewoodScoop. Also find us on Instagram and Facebook.

Got a news tip? Email us at, text us 415-857-2667, or tweet us @LakewoodScoop.

There are 44 Comments to "Emergency Meeting Held At Home Of Michael Inzelbuch Following Announcement Of Tiny Tots Closure"

  • tt parent says:

    TT is the only thing associated at all with the school district thats not failing. it was arranged that the state come in to call tt not up to par! our children are not hefker

  • parent says:

    way to go tls thanks for reporting this scandal

  • BEN says:

    Whats with the regular TT program, is that still staying open?

  • was there says:

    if they can not resolve this issue then get off the board. we voted you in to represent us and all you have done so far is start up with the most Vulnerable in our kehilla.

  • parent says:

    they were joking around while playing with our kids futures. let their kids go to public school

  • Anonymous says:

    i was at the meeting last night and was floored at the lack of sensitivity and willingness of the board members to acknowledge that their actions have left parents of vunerable children without any plans for the upcoming school year – its easy to blame the state instead of stepping up and fighting for those that voted them in

  • igud member says:

    time for the igud to step up and make sure that no one starts up with the chinuch of our children.

  • tiny tots parent says:

    how would these frum board members feel if their kids were placed in public school. do you think they would actually send them? i highly doubt it.

  • Anonymous says:

    If the boe was looking out for us they would tell the state keep ur four million we can cut the waste to make up the shortfall from somewhere else. they just dont care. shame on them

  • my voice says:

    wow some bitter words here , I guess when you don’t get your way it stikes a nerve. Instead of looking for solutiuon it appears that these angry parents are just out for revenge !

  • amazed says:

    Why is it the taxpayers job to pay for pre school. Every child is entitled to a free education K-12 never saw anywhere that preschool was anymore a public option. And, if the state deemed this school “not up to par” why aren’t people asking what not up to par. Ask the administration of the school whats really going on there.

  • parent says:

    to number 10

    angry? we are furious , our board members can make it happen. everyting was working great until we voted them in, The message is clear.. stop playing around with our children lives. this is not revenge this is our childrens future!!!

  • Anonymous says:

    I wa there. the boe members said that they wont even bothe appealing the states ruling because Lthey will simpoly find more problems” is that representation?! do your jobs and look out for the wellfare of the kids.

  • informed says:

    to #11

    these are special needs children. its the law that us the taxpayer has to educate them. this was a set up to deny services to our kehilla.

  • TT PARENT says:

    I was at the meeting and the board members clearly came up with alterntive solutions that wwould have satisfied the children.The problem is that it would have hurt Tiny Tots.If the parents come together and think rationally this can easily be resolved

  • Loshon Hora says:

    Unfortunatly we all look at our own problem & 100% justify ourselves,at anyone else’s expense. There is atzibur here & it is our money.

  • thank you says:

    Here we go again. The boe is not a vehicle to force people to give charity by way of taxation . For what ever reason the state refuses to fund tt. If tt or the parents think this is unfair than they should sue the state but don’re tell me the taxpayer to foot a 4 million dollar bill for a program that is not mandated by the state. In todays economy it is just not viable.

  • Parent of TT children says:

    I am a parent in TT and I was by the meeting the board members came up with solution of moving the whole program not in to Public School but to River ave but the owner of TT didn’t want.

  • anonymous says:

    was this emergency meeting properly advertised? if not hope there were not too many board members present because that is against the open public meetings act. this board keeps digging itself into more and more trouble.

  • 123 says:

    Before every body gangs up against the BOE maybe we should let them properly explain why did TT loose the state funding then we could have a more of a idea of what’s going on

  • Anonymous says:

    I think what people do not understand is that for some of these TT children-there are no alternatives to their education!! My daughter was asked to leave several regular ed classes bc the regular preschool teachers were unable to deal w her issues, TT did a marvelous job! So please when writing a comment do so w sensitivity to those who are completely at a loss of how to proceed from here.

  • Call me crazy says:

    Please don’t get mad at me, I’m just trying to understand this story: A: Are tiny tots 2-3 year olds ? B: 4 million divided by 70 parents equals roughly 56,000 per child that’s a lotta mulla schmula. C Why is the state required to pay for anyones daycare? this is not school right? D why can’t catapult be hired E what’s stopping these parents from oaying tiny tots directly, why are we so reliant on govt . Please don’t get angry with me, yes I don’t know what it means to have a special child , I’m just trying to undertstand this story because it doesn’t sound kosher to me.

  • senior says:

    I was at the meeting and the board members clearly came up with alternative solutions that would have satisfied the children. The problem is that it would have hurt Tiny Tots. If the parents come together and think rationally this can easily be resolved

  • Lakewoodtaxpayer says:

    N.J.S.A : 38-25 clearly states that any person having custody and control of a child between the ages of 6-18 to ensure regular attendance in school. No where does this law say that a child must attend kindergarten if they are not yet 6 years of age. Therefore, it is not the states obligation to pay for PRE-K. If a parent deems it necessary to place their child in a PRE-K program , the parent MUST be responsible for the tuition.

    It is time that the taxpayers of this state not to have to bear the burden of paying for all these children just because the parents want to have a few free hours without them.

    I paid for all my children to pre-schools out of mine own pocketbook, no one gave me a free ride. It is time that the community stop demanding and start paying for all the non entitlements.

    The law is the law for everyone!

  • tt parent says:

    22 sheker

  • to #21 says:

    70 parents came to the meeting last night.It does not say how many parents are affected just how many came to the meeting. In addition I am sure theoretically they can pay tiny tots directtly however for a real special needs child the tuition can probably be astronomical and very likely unaffordable.

  • helloo says:

    This is not about whether the taxpayers should pay or not!! If you dont want to pay and feel it should be in public school system then make your case. BUT NOT TO PULL THE PLUG A WEEK AND A HALF BEFORE SCHOOL STARTS!! this debate is not about who should pay for it or whos making money! ITS ABOUT MANY PARENTS AND TEACHERS WHO ARE LEFT NO WHERE BECAUSE THE BOE MEMBERS ARE PLAYING LAST MINUTE POLITICS! if i would know theres no program id gladly make other plans – but dont play with us!! thats just wrong and shameful

  • a concerned parent says:

    1. we are talking about special needs children where by law the BOE has to educate them from the age of 3-21
    2. TT lost there funding becouse our board members voted not to renew last years contract with them 2 weeks before the start of the school year
    3. we dont trust the board or the adminstration to have our childrens best interest at heart. they closed a great program 2 weeks before the school year.
    4. the alternative solution that they proposed would have them running the program, first fix up the six failing public schools before starting up with our yiddisha neshomos.

  • proud yungerman says:

    where is the dass torah ? was anyone consulted before the board made such a decision that effects 100 yiddisha kindilach? did anyone ask a shaylah?

  • Lakewood!!! says:

    Just FYI! Most of these kids are not major special needs children. They have some slight difficulties that can probably be taken care of after school hours by going to therapists that will probably be paid for by inssurance.

  • my voice says:

    # Lakewoodtaxpayer says:
    you are 100% correct, the problem here is an emotional one with those affected trying to justify have everyone else foot the bill .

  • i agree says:

    Well said number 27! Most of us already have shoes uniform and everrything prepeared for our chidlrens first day of school. Imagine finding out NOW your child can not stay in the school they were placed in months ago!!! Public school is not an option!

  • Anonymous says:

    This is what happens when the oilam in Lakewood doesn’t listen to the vaad and votes in people they think are good . Stick with the rabbis next time they know what they are doing .

  • sholom says:

    I totally agree

  • Faith says:

    The district does not have to provide day care for special needs students. They have to provide services… usually OT or something comparable. PAID PRESCHOOL is not a given!

  • when says:

    at what age is a child’s education the states responsibility? was tiny tots available because there was money for it or was this program mandated by law?

  • Law and Order says:

    Was the vote for Christi worth it

  • for the uninformed says:

    N.J.A.C. 6A:14-1.1 ecplicitly provides for education for any child classified as “special needs.” It also says that the atmosphere must be comparable to one in which the child would otherwise be sent to, if not for the disability.

  • for the uninformed says:

    I apologize, it adds “from the age of three and up”

  • Faith says:

    Preschool is not mandated… neither is Kindergarten for that matter.

  • glitz says:

    If i had a child in the Early CHildhood Program, i would appreciate that the state had concerns, after all, who IS LOOKING OUT FOR ALL THE CHILDREN, AND NOT A FEW. TINY TOTS parents , WANTS THEIR OWN PROGRAM,

  • Pay for your own says:

    Lakewood Public School would not be a failing district if the boe would do what is right…. the monies that the state gives to fund the public schools should go to the public schools… if public schools is not an option than pay for your own education. Tax dollars should not be used to fund a private district.

  • me says:

    #42 I AGREE.

  • Jake says:

    (moderated) NEEDS to go!! His relationship with Catapult Learning is too cozy. They traded in their early childhood program for more services elsewhere. Tiny Tots got dealt a bad hand. Some of the $4 million dollars gained will end up back at Catapult Learning thanks to (moderated)

Write a Comment

Please read comment rules before submitting your comment.

(required - will not be published)

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Answer the question below to prove you\'re human *