Don’t Costco-ize Our Youngest Students' Education: Lakewood Doesn’t Need or Want Centralized Pre-K
- Preserve Lakewood Schools
- May 30
- 5 min read
Lakewood City Schools is evaluating whether to close and repurpose one or even two of our neighborhood elementary schools in favor of creating a building for recreation programs or centralized Pre-K building. It appears that the centralized Pre-K building is the more likely outcome of current considerations.
Of course early childhood education is a valuable part of our school district’s offerings. But why is the district pursuing creating a centralized Pre-K building to replace a neighborhood elementary school? Is there an identified need in the community, or due to a lack of quality preschools in our city?
A recent Preserve Lakewood Schools study revealed that there is already a thriving ecosystem of early childhood programs in and surrounding Lakewood. The district’s public Pre-K offerings are of course an important part of that ecosystem.
Every family has unique needs. Some want part-time Pre-K, some want full-time, some need full-time with daycare before and after school, and some choose even other options. We agree that a centralized Pre-K building would reduce administrative headaches and create opportunities for innovation. However, the information presented by the district provides very little data for the reason behind potentially closing a thriving neighborhood elementary school and creating a Pre-K building. We are concerned that the district is applying a consolidation solution that is not suitable in the context of the City of Lakewood.
Here are some reasons why centralized pre-k is not a good idea:
Student Transition: Being able to attend Pre-K in many of our neighborhood elementary schools eases the student’s transition to Kindergarten, allowing them to remain in the same building from Pre-K through 5th grade, which differentiates us from neighboring suburbs. This can be marketed as an asset.
Lack of Data: The Elementary Planning Task Force has wrapped up months and months of work without having answered the question: how can we expand Pre-K in our current neighborhood elementary buildings? The fact that the district has mentioned vague challenges in doing so, but has shared no specific data to back up their claims is appalling and demonstrates the predetermined nature of the process, along with curtailing the Task Force’s ability to generate their own solutions.
Ease of Access: Families with multiple children view it as an asset to be able to send several children to one building, easing drop off logistics. It is a central reason why many choose LCSD preschool over private preschool: to have all of their kids together, on the same schedule, and part of the same, cohesive school community where they will remain throughout their elementary years.
Safety and Traffic Issues: Creating a centralized Pre-K building will create traffic stress in the surrounding neighborhood, as only the families within a reasonable walking distance will be relying on walking to the Pre-K building. And those who are walking will presumably be those with one school-aged child, i.e. those not having to rush from building to building for morning drop offs.
Financial: Residents are still paying for the rebuild of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Grant as elementary schools. In November 2013, 70% of voters in Lakewood voted for a bond issue to rebuild Grant, Lincoln, and Roosevelt as neighborhood elementary schools, and the buildings were completely rebuilt by the end of 2016. $42,122,692 remains outstanding on that bond, with a final maturity not until November 1, 2043. Regardless of whether the district occupies, vacates, or sells the buildings, we, Lakewood residents and taxpayers, are still responsible for repaying the bond.
Lack of Demand. What data does the district have that demonstrate an overwhelming need for a centralized Pre-K building, and that the need for that is greater than the need for neighborhood elementary schools? These questions were asked many times at the “Community Conversation” meetings held by the school district in Fall 2024. There was no data shared, just that the district “has been getting phone calls” about it.
Does the district project an increase in demand for Pre-K in the coming years? No, the district’s recent 10-year enrollment study projects that Pre-K enrollment will be steady, plateauing at 178 Pre-K students through the 2034-35 school year. Current Pre-K enrollment is173, so the district projects an increase of only five additional pre-k students over the next 10 years.
Lakewood is already rich with many choices for Pre-K offerings. A recent survey of preschool and Pre-K offerings in Lakewood conducted by Preserve Lakewood Schools found that Lakewood is fortunate to have a thriving ecosystem of Pre-K programs throughout the city.
On the City of Lakewood’s website, the Early Childhood Division publishes a list of early childhood programs in the city (most recent is from 2022). It lists 11 full-time and 3 part-time preschool/Pre-K programs offered by non-profits, churches, etc., in Lakewood.
Starting Point’s website, which lists preschool programs, shows 35 non-district preschool/Pre-K providers within 2 miles of Lakewood.
This data shows that there are already many great options for preschool in our community.
The district’s plan to create a centralized Pre-K building is not in response to a demonstrated or defined community need.
Pre-K is not daycare, and many families need daycare. The district’s Pre-K programs have a big drawback for families needing full-time school - that they don’t offer child care during holidays, breaks, or summer, which isn’t feasible for many working families. This difference was not explained in the survey when residents were being asked about the desire for centralized pre-k.
Survey Results
In February 2025, the district released the findings from its community survey, and they revealed much data supporting Lakewood residents’ preference for Pre-K to continue to be offered in the neighborhood elementary buildings:
Note that the survey didn't tell respondents that a centralized Pre-K comes by way of closing a neighborhood elementary school, nor did it ask whether respondents valued and wanted to retain all seven neighborhood elementary schools. And we wonder if the possible answers should have included a “somewhat not likely” - because the “somewhat likely” is neutral, but the district can manipulate the data to their needs (lumping “somewhat likely” into more than or less than likely based on their intended narrative). This is a good example of a poor survey question.
Don’t Costco-ize the education of our youngest students
“Consolidation” and “centralization” aren’t in line with Lakewood’s values, though they may ease administration of the schools. Lakewood is a decentralized, dense, walkable city with our amenities scattered around. Think pocket parks, local coffee shops, everything in your own neighborhood that you can walk to. Some in the community have likened the idea of a centralized Pre-K building to that of Costco. Yes, the big box theories sound convenient, have full parking lots, and might save a few dollars, but not when put into the context of Lakewood.
Lakewood is where we favor walking to local mom and pop shops where we meet our neighbors. Why close a thriving neighborhood elementary school and then reopen a Pre-K building that the community hasn’t asked for, and that the school district itself projects to be less than half full for the next 10 years at least? Our neighborhood elementary schools provide far more value than a centralized Pre-K building.
