Community Voices: "Half Baked Pre-K Consolidation Plan Does Not Justify Loss Of Elementary School"
- Preserve Lakewood Schools
- Sep 6, 2025
- 4 min read
This article originally appeared in the September 4, 2025, edition of The Lakewood Observer.
by Katie Slife Rustad
Earlier this year I wrote several Observer articles that, in my mind, outline the multitude of reasons why the Lakewood City School District should not be reducing the number of elementary schools. To recap: Consolidating our elementary schools is not financially or administratively necessary by any objective measure, nor is it objectively beneficial.
One of the consistent messages the district has fallen back on is that centralizing and expanding the pre-K program would be beneficial to the community. As responsible stewards of our taxpayer dollars, a major decision like this should entail substantial planning and pressure testing before any seismic changes are made to our building usage. This plan would effectively end walkability for Lakewood parents: opening a centralized pre-K requires closing all of the existing pre-k programs that exist in our neighborhood elementary schools today. You cannot walk your preschooler to a centralized pre-k and then also walk your older child to your neighborhood elementary – it’s not physically possible. This would force all parents with kids in pre-k and elementary to drive both kids to school.
An even bigger problem: There is no clearly defined plan. The viability of a centralized pre-k has not been tested. A basic business plan should include, at a minimum, the following:
Market Analysis: What is the size and demographics of the target market of consumers seeking pre-K solutions and what is Lakewood’s current market penetration? A quality market analysis should give a total “size of the prize” to show the plan is worth the investment.
Competitive Analysis: Who are the current players in the market and what are their competitive advantages, value propositions, strengths and weaknesses? These are the organizations we would be stealing market share from, assuming unmet demand is not enough to hit projections.
Pricing Analysis: What is the price range of pre-K in the marketplace and where does Lakewood fall within that range? How does Lakewood compare in price to the specific competitors we plan to target?
Headwinds: What factors could impede the successful enrollment growth of the LCSD pre-K and what is the estimated potential impact?
Strategic growth plan: Based on the results of thorough analysis, how is the district going to fit all of these pieces of the puzzle together to create a winning proposition? What are the expected targets for enrollment in years one through five? What will be its competitive advantage, and what strategies will it implement to combat potential headwinds?
Revenue projections: If the targets of the plan are met, what does this look like from a revenue perspective? What is the break even (we currently lose money on the preschool program) and what are the risks to financial viability?
Operating partner: The administration continually mentions “wrap around services.” The business plan should identify specifically the organization the district intends to partner with to provide these services.
With this lack of due diligence, Lakewood residents should be very skeptical of the community benefit to this consolidation plan. Saying on the one hand that birth rates are down, enrollment is dropping, but then turning around and saying we need to INCREASE capacity for pre-k is contradictory. This mirrors the mixed messaging of the administration: the superintendent has been saying for over a year that enrollment is dropping, yet the treasurer in his annual report to the state claims that enrollment is stable. How do we square these contradictory statements?
The Superintendent recently sent an email to the entire district explaining that there would be cost savings realized by centralizing pre-K and called it “economies of scale.” But that is not an accurate depiction of that particular phrase, because savings in cost are only realized by the consumption of the increased supply. What is missing from this equation is any indication that there exists enough unmet demand for pre-K in the marketplace to make the plan profitable, or how the district plans to convince parents to change providers given unmet demand won’t satisfy the revenue targets. And this plan does not consider other community values such as educational outcomes, community cohesion… the non-financial factors are also important and need to be given equal consideration.
And to be clear: the phrase “wrap around services” does not mean a full-time, year-round daycare. Parents of infants and toddlers that require daycare would still need to find that care elsewhere, and then would need to be convinced at age 3 or 4 to change providers to Lakewood for pre-K. Most business professionals know that getting consumers to change behavior is one of the biggest obstacles to market entry – the phrase “if you build it, they will come” is not a solid business strategy, it’s an irresponsible fantasy.
If the district centralizes pre-K without significantly increasing enrollment, it will have done nothing more than shuffle students between buildings, given up an elementary school and lost neighborhood pre-k with no tangible benefit to the community. The loss to the community will be massive: we will have eroded walkability and started our district down a path towards further consolidation, threatening our cherished culture of neighborhood schools.
News is moving fast. Sign up to get updates directly from Preserve Lakewood Schools so you’re always in the loop. Sign Up Here!
