Impact of Closing Leonardo and Navesink Elementary Schools on Middletown Community and Students

On February 26, 2026, the Middletown Township Board of Education voted 5 - 4 to advance a plan that includes the closure of two elementary schools: Leonardo Elementary School and Navesink Elementary School.

These closures are tied to the preparation of the 2026–2027 budget. The board’s action directs administration to prepare the budget under the assumption these schools will close and that related approvals will be submitted to the state.

Under the plan outlined by the district, students from Leonardo and Navesink would move into the existing Bayshore Middle School building, which would be renamed Bayshore Elementary School. The Leonardo and Navesink school buildings would close. Current Bayshore middle school students would be reassigned to Thorne Middle School and Thompson Middle School.

Parents and board members were told that the closures are intended to shrink the district footprint, reduce operating costs, and help address projected deficits. However, the process and data behind those decisions have been heavily scrutinized.

Three days before the meeting, on February 23, 2026, Superintendent Jessica Alfone responded in writing to a parent who asked whether the closure plan would be voted on that Thursday. Her response was, “No, this is not on Thursday’s agenda.” Despite that written assurance, the February 26 meeting unfolded differently. The board entered executive session. After returning to public session, leadership requested a motion to amend the agenda to add Resolution 9C. That resolution directed administration to prepare the 2026 - 2027 budget under the assumption that Leonardo and Navesink would close. The motion passed 5 - 4.

During the meeting, a board member stated, “At the January 6th meeting I was told this isn’t happening, here we are and it’s happening.” The fact that closures were confirmed in writing as not being on the agenda, and were then introduced after executive session and voted on the same evening, has intensified community concerns about transparency and public notice.

The fact that closures were confirmed in writing as not being on the agenda, and were then introduced after executive session and voted on the same evening, has raised concerns not only about transparency but also about compliance with the spirit and requirements of New Jersey’s Open Public Meetings Act. OPMA requires that public bodies provide adequate notice of meetings, including the agenda to the extent known, and that the public be able to witness the phases of deliberation and decision making. While boards are permitted to amend agendas during meetings, introducing a major structural decision affecting two schools after executive session, particularly following written assurance that it was not on the agenda, has prompted questions about whether the public received meaningful notice and an opportunity to observe full deliberation in open session.

At the February 26 meeting, leadership stated that the resolution reflected “discussion with and consensus of the board in executive session.” OPMA permits executive session only for limited categories such as personnel, litigation, and certain confidential matters. Policy decisions like school closures are generally expected to be deliberated publicly. The sequence of events has therefore led some community members to question whether deliberation effectively occurred behind closed doors before the public vote.

The district has cited ongoing structural budget deficits as a major driver of the plan. After last year’s 10.1 percent tax levy increase, leaders continue to project deficits if structural changes are not made. At the February 26 meeting, Board President Christopher Aveta stated, “The board must make this decision so the administration can proceed accordingly in meeting its budget obligations.”

However, previous meetings painted a different tone regarding both finances and priorities. At the January 27, 2026 meeting, Superintendent Alfone stated, “This is a piece of data … predicated on some of the priorities that we shared with Mr. Haber on the front end and it was communicated loud and clear by the community that community schools were valued. So we asked him to frame out his recommendations based on that factor.” At that same meeting, she also said, “We’re in a really different position than we were last year financially … we were able to fortunately get some relief from. So that puts us in a different position to make decisions moving forward.”

These statements suggested that community schools were an expressed priority and that the district’s financial position had improved relative to the prior year. The move one month later to assume closure of two elementary schools in the next budget cycle has led many parents to question how those earlier representations align with the February 26 vote.

Several board members questioned the timeliness and completeness of the data supporting financial claims. It was noted that there was no comprehensive public financial model or student outcome analysis presented before the vote. No transportation cost data or facility transition budgets were provided. The district’s long term financial modeling was not shared during public discussion.

Parents repeatedly voiced frustration that the district has not presented a comprehensive plan or data package before making such consequential decisions. Concerns were raised about the impact on neighborhood based learning communities, the disruption of established peer groups, and the uncertainty caused by the announced superintendent transition. There was also concern about the lack of publicly presented data regarding long term academic impact.

The district commissioned a Ross Haber and Associates demographic and redistricting report, delivered in January and February. Many community members perceived the January report as delayed and narrowly focused on elementary redistricting rather than comprehensive enrollment, revenue, performance, or capital planning. The February presentation seemed to be created by the superintendent rather than Haber himself.  His delivery was full on inaccuracies and an inability to answer questions.

While the primary issue is the closure of two elementary schools, there are additional operational implications. With Bayshore Middle School proposed to become an elementary school, all middle school students will be consolidated into Thompson and Thorne. Parents have asked how increased enrollment will be managed in those buildings and where middle school special needs programs will be housed. Detailed public plans addressing these logistical questions have not yet been presented.

The closures of Leonardo and Navesink Elementary Schools are now part of the framework for the 2026 - 2027 budget preparation. They are not yet implemented and require inclusion in the draft budget and subsequent approvals. Families have publicly expressed concerns about transparency, timing, practical logistics, and educational impact. Parents have stated they intend to continue advocacy and seek further review.

Community members are asking for clear long term cost and logistics data before final decisions are finalized, full enrollment and facilities analysis that includes all grade levels, transparent communication early in the process, and a publicly vetted transition plan before structural changes are implemented.