Yet Another (Different) Former Task Force Member Outlines Why the Facts Don't Support Repurposing Elementary Schools

A Memo for the Lakewood Board of Education 

At the Board of Education meeting on August 18th, there were mixed perspectives on what the data reviewed during the (allegedly illegal) Elementary Planning Task Force pointed to as a solution. One Former Task Force member, Jason Keiber, spoke about his perspective and then wrote the below - his own summation of the process. We are sharing his original memo here. Jason is not officially affilliated with Preserve Lakewood Schools.

"A Memo for the Lakewood Board of Education"

8/18/2025 by Jason Keiber

"In August 2024 the Lakewood City School District convened the Elementary Facilities Task Force to analyze data on enrollment, space utilization, walkability, safety, costs, and more to determine whether elementary school facilities are being used effectively for the District. The Task Force, which did great work, did not reach a consensus.

The draft “Task Force Report,” which I’m sure board members have reviewed, does a good job at reflecting the diversity of the task force’s perspectives. However the draft had not yet been polished to spotlight the relevant data and reasoning that should be considered by the Superintendent and the Board of Education.

The purpose of this short memo is to spotlight important facts and features of the repurposing discussion at hand.

The Guiding Principles and Primary Concerns: What the Data Say

1. The District wants to keep school capacity above 60%. The district’s own data shows all schools are currently over 60%. All but one are projected to stay at or above 60% over next 10 years (Hayes dips to 58%). Perhaps some minor redistricting can mitigate this.

2. The District wants to keep school capacity below 85%. Data provided to the Task Force correctly noted that “general education” and “special education” populations have different classroom caps. However, the capacity numbers ultimately pooled those capacity numbers into one utilization rate for each school. This appears mistaken. Special Education rooms need to be separated because they should not be subject to elimination. Once you focus on GenEd enrollments and GenEd room capacities, the overall building utilization rates change. In fact, the two repurposing scenarios being considered (Lincoln and Grant) each result in a school operating at or above 100% utilization. Furthermore, once you protect classrooms for Special Education students, it is not clear there will be enough GenEd classrooms in the repurposing scenarios.

3. Class size equity was highlighted as a concern by the superintendent. However, the Task Force was never presented with any data suggesting that existing inequities are having negative impacts on the students. In general the district has great class sizes. If the goal is to shy away from higher class sizes (a goal I personally share), then the “Redistrict Only” scenario is better. It has a slightly lower overall average class size and more flexibility that comes with seven, instead of six, redistricting options.

4. Walkability (proximity and time). The Task Force agreed that minimizing walk time is important, and 83% of the community survey respondents identified this issue as “very important/important.” Repurposing a school will result in greater walking distances and commute times. The academic literature on active commuting to school suggests that we really should stay below 1 mile. One oft-quoted study reports, the “threshold distance" below which kids in urban areas are more likely to walk to school to be 0.776 miles. Repurposing a school will decrease the number of families who walk.

5. Walkability (safety). Repurposing a school will result in more kids crossing more streets. Repurposing a school will also increase the number of cars on the road for drop-off and pick-up. In general, the more streets crossed and the more cars on the streets, the less safe it is for pedestrians and cyclists.

6. Centralized Pre-K. A centralized Pre-K was the primary candidate for a repurposed building. While there was information presented about the benefits of such a model from an administrative perspective, there are many parents who prefer to have pre-K co-located in the same building as where older siblings attend.

7. Impacts on Before- and After-Care. If a school is repurposed, then the before- and after-care services at the remaining schools will face increased demand. Those services are provided by private companies, many of which are at capacity. The board cannot dictate changes to their offerings. Any repurposing decision cannot be made until this concern is addressed.

8. Additional projections.

a. According to Future Think, the K-5 population is currently about 1800. Ten years from now their estimate for K-5 is 1723 students. That’s a decline of 7 students per year, or about 1 student per school per year. This is not a crisis.

b. The number of children born in the area who attend kindergarten in the district 5 years later is higher than it has ever been (at 60.4%). (The most recent data provided by Future Think was for 2023-2024.)

c. Birth rates are down in 2023 compared to 2009. This shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the numbers haven’t changed much from 2019 to 2023. Importantly, this data doesn’t capture the reality that young people and families are moving to Lakewood. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau bears this out. Strategic planning in concert with the city can perhaps increase these numbers and strengthen the pipeline of students in our schools.

9. Cost Savings. The savings from repurposing a school primarily come from reductions in teachers and staff. There is no savings from a facilities standpoint because the repurposed building is repurposed, not shuttered. Our community will need to pass a levy soon regardless of the repurposing decision. We might have to ask for a little more than we otherwise would if no school is repurposed. The community survey response suggests a willingness to accept some financial costs to keep the status quo. Survey questions did not ask respondents to compare different concerns relative to one another. Each survey question was asking respondents about desirable things; essentially asking, “How positive do you feel about this positive thing?” We would expect the survey outcomes to have somewhat similar distributions. However, only 26% of respondents ranked “Keeping costs low while maintaining a quality education” as “very important.” Minimizing walk time and distance, on the other hand was at 61%.

   
   

Some editorializing.

• The impact of repurposing on families and students will be considerable. The evidentiary threshold the Board needs to meet to repurpose a school is high. I do not believe the evidence is there to justify repurposing a school.

• One of the reasons new families move to Lakewood is to have their school nearby. I have heard many anecdotes about families who made their decision to move to Lakewood specifically because of the nearby school. I believe repurposing a school will have a negative effect on enrollments. Some families will choose not to move to Lakewood or send their kids to LCA.

• A community school is more than the data on spreadsheets. Our schools are the fabric of our community and are a source of social capital.

• Walking to school enhances well-being and decreases CO2 emissions.

• We need the Board to lead with vision and lean into our strengths. The messaging from the Board and the superintendent sometimes suggests we are in a downward spiral. Lakewood is one of a kind, and is an urban planner’s dream. Coordinate with the city, lean forward and build on what we have."

(end of Jason's speech/memo)

-----

This is another unique and analytical perspective from someone who has spent months diving into the data. We agree: "Coordinate with the city, lean forward and build on what we have". To get there, we're calling for change on the Board of Education to get people in these decision-making roles who reflect these same values.

Sign up for our email list to stay in tune with the latest updates on this important community issue.

A dof Education 

ol District convened the Elementary Facilities Task Force to

analyze data on enrollment, space utilization, walkability, safety, costs, and more to determine whether

elementary school facilities are being used effectively for the District. The Task Force, which did great

work, did not reach a consensus.  

The draft “Task Force Report,” which I’m sure board members have reviewed, does a good job at reflecting

the diversity of the task force’s perspectives. However the draft had not yet been polished to spotlight the

relevant data and reasoning that should be considered by the Superintendent and the Board of

Education.  

The purpose of this short memo is to spotlight important facts and features of the repurposing discussion

at hand.  

The Guiding Principles and Primary Concerns: What the Data Say  

1. The District wants to keep school capacity above 60%. The district’s own data shows all schools

are currently over 60%. All but one are projected to stay at or above 60% over next 10 years (Hayes

dips to 58%). Perhaps some minor redistricting can mitigate this. 

2. The District wants to keep school capacity below 85%. Data provided to the Task Force correctly

noted that “general education” and “special education” populations have different classroom caps.

However, the capacity numbers ultimately pooled those capacity numbers into one utilization rate

for each school. This appears mistaken. Special Education rooms need to be separated because

they should not be subject to elimination. Once you focus on GenEd enrollments and GenEd room

capacities, the overall building utilization rates change. In fact, the two repurposing scenarios being

considered (Lincoln and Grant) each result in a school operating at or above 100% utilization.

Furthermore, once you protect classrooms for Special Education students, it is not clear there will

be enough GenEd classrooms in the repurposing scenarios.  

3. Class size equity was highlighted as a concern by the superintendent. However, the Task Force

was never presented with any data suggesting that existing inequities are having negative impacts

on the students. In general the district has great class sizes. If the goal is to shy away from higher

class sizes (a goal I personally share), then the “Redistrict Only” scenario is better. It has a slightly

lower overall average class size and more flexibility that comes with seven, instead of six,

redistricting options.  

4. Walkability (proximity and time). The Task Force agreed that minimizing walk time is important,

and 83% of the community survey respondents identified this issue as “very important/important.” 

Repurposing a school will result in greater walking distances and commute times. The academic

literature on active commuting to school suggests that we really should stay below 1 mile. One oft-

quoted study reports, the “threshold distance" below which kids in urban areas are more likely to

walk to school to be 0.776 miles. Repurposing a school will decrease the number of families who

walk. 

5. Walkability (safety). Repurposing a school will result in more kids crossing more streets.

Repurposing a school will also increase the number of cars on the road for drop-off and pick-up. In

general, the more streets crossed and the more cars on the streets, the less safe it is for pedestrians

and cyclists.  

6. Centralized Pre-K. A centralized Pre-K was the primary candidate for a repurposed building. While

there was information presented about the benefits of such a model from an administrative 

perspective, there are many parents who prefer to have pre-K co-located in the same building as

where older siblings attend.  

7. Impacts on Before- and After-Care. If a school is repurposed, then the before- and after-care

services at the remaining schools will face increased demand. Those services are provided by

private companies, many of which are at capacity. The board cannot dictate changes to their

offerings. Any repurposing decision cannot be made until this concern is addressed.  

8. Additional projections.  

a. According to Future Think, the K-5 population is currently about 1800. Ten years from now 

their estimate for K-5 is 1723 students. That’s a decline of 7 students per year, or about 1

student per school per year. This is not a crisis.   

b. The number of children born in the area who attend kindergarten in the district 5 years

later is higher than it has ever been (at 60.4%). (The most recent data provided by Future

Think was for 2023-2024.)  

c. Birth rates are down in 2023 compared to 2009. This shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the

numbers haven’t changed much from 2019 to 2023. Importantly, this data doesn’t capture

the reality that young people and families are moving to Lakewood. Data from the U.S.

Census Bureau bears this out. Strategic planning in concert with the city can perhaps

increase these numbers and strengthen the pipeline of students in our schools.  

9. Cost Savings. The savings from repurposing a school primarily come from reductions in teachers

and staff. There is no savings from a facilities standpoint because the repurposed building is 

repurposed, not shuttered. Our community will need to pass a levy soon regardless of the

repurposing decision. We might have to ask for a little more than we otherwise would if no school is

repurposed. The community survey response suggests a willingness to accept some financial costs

to keep the status quo. Survey questions did not ask respondents to compare different concerns

relative to one another. Each survey question was asking respondents about desirable things; 

essentially asking, “How positive do you feel about this positive thing?” We would expect the survey

outcomes to have somewhat similar distributions. However, only 26% of respondents ranked

“Keeping costs low while maintaining a quality education” as “very important.” Minimizing walk time

and distance, on the other hand was at 61%. 

Some editorializing.  

• The impact of repurposing on families and students will be considerable. The evidentiary threshold

the Board needs to meet to repurpose a school is high. I do not believe the evidence is there to justify

repurposing a school.  

• One of the reasons new families move to Lakewood is to have their school nearby. I have heard many

anecdotes about families who made their decision to move to Lakewood specifically because of the

nearby school. I believe repurposing a school will have a negative effect on enrollments. Some

families will choose not to move to Lakewood or send their kids to LCA. 

• A community school is more than the data on spreadsheets. Our schools are the fabric of our

community and are a source of social capital.  

• Walking to school enhances well-being and decreases CO2 emissions. 

• We need the Board to lead with vision and lean into our strengths. The messaging from the Board and

the superintendent sometimes suggests we are in a downward spiral. Lakewood is one of a kind, and

is an urban planner’s dream. Coordinate with the city, lean forward and build on what we have.

A Memo for the Lakewood Board of Education 

8/18/2025 

by Jason Keiber 

In August 2024 the Lakewood City School District convened the Elementary Facilities Task Force to

analyze data on enrollment, space utilization, walkability, safety, costs, and more to determine whether

elementary school facilities are being used effectively for the District. The Task Force, which did great

work, did not reach a consensus.  

The draft “Task Force Report,” which I’m sure board members have reviewed, does a good job at reflecting

the diversity of the task force’s perspectives. However the draft had not yet been polished to spotlight the

relevant data and reasoning that should be considered by the Superintendent and the Board of

Education.  

The purpose of this short memo is to spotlight important facts and features of the repurposing discussion

at hand.  

The Guiding Principles and Primary Concerns: What the Data Say  

1. The District wants to keep school capacity above 60%. The district’s own data shows all schools

are currently over 60%. All but one are projected to stay at or above 60% over next 10 years (Hayes

dips to 58%). Perhaps some minor redistricting can mitigate this. 

2. The District wants to keep school capacity below 85%. Data provided to the Task Force correctly

noted that “general education” and “special education” populations have different classroom caps.

However, the capacity numbers ultimately pooled those capacity numbers into one utilization rate

for each school. This appears mistaken. Special Education rooms need to be separated because

they should not be subject to elimination. Once you focus on GenEd enrollments and GenEd room

capacities, the overall building utilization rates change. In fact, the two repurposing scenarios being

considered (Lincoln and Grant) each result in a school operating at or above 100% utilization.

Furthermore, once you protect classrooms for Special Education students, it is not clear there will

be enough GenEd classrooms in the repurposing scenarios.  

3. Class size equity was highlighted as a concern by the superintendent. However, the Task Force

was never presented with any data suggesting that existing inequities are having negative impacts

on the students. In general the district has great class sizes. If the goal is to shy away from higher

class sizes (a goal I personally share), then the “Redistrict Only” scenario is better. It has a slightly

lower overall average class size and more flexibility that comes with seven, instead of six,

redistricting options.  

4. Walkability (proximity and time). The Task Force agreed that minimizing walk time is important,

and 83% of the community survey respondents identified this issue as “very important/important.” 

Repurposing a school will result in greater walking distances and commute times. The academic

literature on active commuting to school suggests that we really should stay below 1 mile. One oft-

quoted study reports, the “threshold distance" below which kids in urban areas are more likely to

walk to school to be 0.776 miles. Repurposing a school will decrease the number of families who

walk. 

5. Walkability (safety). Repurposing a school will result in more kids crossing more streets.

Repurposing a school will also increase the number of cars on the road for drop-off and pick-up. In

general, the more streets crossed and the more cars on the streets, the less safe it is for pedestrians

and cyclists.  

6. Centralized Pre-K. A centralized Pre-K was the primary candidate for a repurposed building. While

there was information presented about the benefits of such a model from an administrative 

perspective, there are many parents who prefer to have pre-K co-located in the same building as

where older siblings attend.  

7. Impacts on Before- and After-Care. If a school is repurposed, then the before- and after-care

services at the remaining schools will face increased demand. Those services are provided by

private companies, many of which are at capacity. The board cannot dictate changes to their

offerings. Any repurposing decision cannot be made until this concern is addressed.  

8. Additional projections.  

a. According to Future Think, the K-5 population is currently about 1800. Ten years from now 

their estimate for K-5 is 1723 students. That’s a decline of 7 students per year, or about 1

student per school per year. This is not a crisis.   

b. The number of children born in the area who attend kindergarten in the district 5 years

later is higher than it has ever been (at 60.4%). (The most recent data provided by Future

Think was for 2023-2024.)  

c. Birth rates are down in 2023 compared to 2009. This shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the

numbers haven’t changed much from 2019 to 2023. Importantly, this data doesn’t capture

the reality that young people and families are moving to Lakewood. Data from the U.S.

Census Bureau bears this out. Strategic planning in concert with the city can perhaps

increase these numbers and strengthen the pipeline of students in our schools.  

9. Cost Savings. The savings from repurposing a school primarily come from reductions in teachers

and staff. There is no savings from a facilities standpoint because the repurposed building is 

repurposed, not shuttered. Our community will need to pass a levy soon regardless of the

repurposing decision. We might have to ask for a little more than we otherwise would if no school is

repurposed. The community survey response suggests a willingness to accept some financial costs

to keep the status quo. Survey questions did not ask respondents to compare different concerns

relative to one another. Each survey question was asking respondents about desirable things; 

essentially asking, “How positive do you feel about this positive thing?” We would expect the survey

outcomes to have somewhat similar distributions. However, only 26% of respondents ranked

“Keeping costs low while maintaining a quality education” as “very important.” Minimizing walk time

and distance, on the other hand was at 61%. 

Some editorializing.  

• The impact of repurposing on families and students will be considerable. The evidentiary threshold

the Board needs to meet to repurpose a school is high. I do not believe the evidence is there to justify

repurposing a school.  

• One of the reasons new families move to Lakewood is to have their school nearby. I have heard many

anecdotes about families who made their decision to move to Lakewood specifically because of the

nearby school. I believe repurposing a school will have a negative effect on enrollments. Some

families will choose not to move to Lakewood or send their kids to LCA. 

• A community school is more than the data on spreadsheets. Our schools are the fabric of our

community and are a source of social capital.  

• Walking to school enhances well-being and decreases CO2 emissions. 

• We need the Board to lead with vision and lean into our strengths. The messaging from the Board and

the superintendent sometimes suggests we are in a downward spiral. Lakewood is one of a kind, and

is an urban planner’s dream. Coordinate with the city, lean forward and build on what we have.

A Memo for the Lakewood Board of Education 

8/18/2025 

by Jason Keiber 

In August 2024 the Lakewood City School District convened the Elementary Facilities Task Force to

analyze data on enrollment, space utilization, walkability, safety, costs, and more to determine whether

elementary school facilities are being used effectively for the District. The Task Force, which did great

work, did not reach a consensus.  

The draft “Task Force Report,” which I’m sure board members have reviewed, does a good job at reflecting

the diversity of the task force’s perspectives. However the draft had not yet been polished to spotlight the

relevant data and reasoning that should be considered by the Superintendent and the Board of

Education.  

The purpose of this short memo is to spotlight important facts and features of the repurposing discussion

at hand.  

The Guiding Principles and Primary Concerns: What the Data Say  

1. The District wants to keep school capacity above 60%. The district’s own data shows all schools

are currently over 60%. All but one are projected to stay at or above 60% over next 10 years (Hayes

dips to 58%). Perhaps some minor redistricting can mitigate this. 

2. The District wants to keep school capacity below 85%. Data provided to the Task Force correctly

noted that “general education” and “special education” populations have different classroom caps.

However, the capacity numbers ultimately pooled those capacity numbers into one utilization rate

for each school. This appears mistaken. Special Education rooms need to be separated because

they should not be subject to elimination. Once you focus on GenEd enrollments and GenEd room

capacities, the overall building utilization rates change. In fact, the two repurposing scenarios being

considered (Lincoln and Grant) each result in a school operating at or above 100% utilization.

Furthermore, once you protect classrooms for Special Education students, it is not clear there will

be enough GenEd classrooms in the repurposing scenarios.  

3. Class size equity was highlighted as a concern by the superintendent. However, the Task Force

was never presented with any data suggesting that existing inequities are having negative impacts

on the students. In general the district has great class sizes. If the goal is to shy away from higher

class sizes (a goal I personally share), then the “Redistrict Only” scenario is better. It has a slightly

lower overall average class size and more flexibility that comes with seven, instead of six,

redistricting options.  

4. Walkability (proximity and time). The Task Force agreed that minimizing walk time is important,

and 83% of the community survey respondents identified this issue as “very important/important.” 

Repurposing a school will result in greater walking distances and commute times. The academic

literature on active commuting to school suggests that we really should stay below 1 mile. One oft-

quoted study reports, the “threshold distance" below which kids in urban areas are more likely to

walk to school to be 0.776 miles. Repurposing a school will decrease the number of families who

walk. 

5. Walkability (safety). Repurposing a school will result in more kids crossing more streets.

Repurposing a school will also increase the number of cars on the road for drop-off and pick-up. In

general, the more streets crossed and the more cars on the streets, the less safe it is for pedestrians

and cyclists.  

6. Centralized Pre-K. A centralized Pre-K was the primary candidate for a repurposed building. While

there was information presented about the benefits of such a model from an administrative 

perspective, there are many parents who prefer to have pre-K co-located in the same building as

where older siblings attend.  

7. Impacts on Before- and After-Care. If a school is repurposed, then the before- and after-care

services at the remaining schools will face increased demand. Those services are provided by

private companies, many of which are at capacity. The board cannot dictate changes to their

offerings. Any repurposing decision cannot be made until this concern is addressed.  

8. Additional projections.  

a. According to Future Think, the K-5 population is currently about 1800. Ten years from now 

their estimate for K-5 is 1723 students. That’s a decline of 7 students per year, or about 1

student per school per year. This is not a crisis.   

b. The number of children born in the area who attend kindergarten in the district 5 years

later is higher than it has ever been (at 60.4%). (The most recent data provided by Future

Think was for 2023-2024.)  

c. Birth rates are down in 2023 compared to 2009. This shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the

numbers haven’t changed much from 2019 to 2023. Importantly, this data doesn’t capture

the reality that young people and families are moving to Lakewood. Data from the U.S.

Census Bureau bears this out. Strategic planning in concert with the city can perhaps

increase these numbers and strengthen the pipeline of students in our schools.  

9. Cost Savings. The savings from repurposing a school primarily come from reductions in teachers

and staff. There is no savings from a facilities standpoint because the repurposed building is 

repurposed, not shuttered. Our community will need to pass a levy soon regardless of the

repurposing decision. We might have to ask for a little more than we otherwise would if no school is

repurposed. The community survey response suggests a willingness to accept some financial costs

to keep the status quo. Survey questions did not ask respondents to compare different concerns

relative to one another. Each survey question was asking respondents about desirable things; 

essentially asking, “How positive do you feel about this positive thing?” We would expect the survey

outcomes to have somewhat similar distributions. However, only 26% of respondents ranked

“Keeping costs low while maintaining a quality education” as “very important.” Minimizing walk time

and distance, on the other hand was at 61%. 

Some editorializing.  

• The impact of repurposing on families and students will be considerable. The evidentiary threshold

the Board needs to meet to repurpose a school is high. I do not believe the evidence is there to justify

repurposing a school.  

• One of the reasons new families move to Lakewood is to have their school nearby. I have heard many

anecdotes about families who made their decision to move to Lakewood specifically because of the

nearby school. I believe repurposing a school will have a negative effect on enrollments. Some

families will choose not to move to Lakewood or send their kids to LCA. 

• A community school is more than the data on spreadsheets. Our schools are the fabric of our

community and are a source of social capital.  

• Walking to school enhances well-being and decreases CO2 emissions. 

• We need the Board to lead with vision and lean into our strengths. The messaging from the Board and

the superintendent sometimes suggests we are in a downward spiral. Lakewood is one of a kind, and

is an urban planner’s dream. Coordinate with the city, lean forward and build on what we have.

8/18/2025 

by Jason Keiber 

In August 2024 the Lakewood City School District convened the Elementary Facilities Task Force to

analyze data on enrollment, space utilization, walkability, safety, costs, and more to determine whether

elementary school facilities are being used effectively for the District. The Task Force, which did great

work, did not reach a consensus.  

The draft “Task Force Report,” which I’m sure board members have reviewed, does a good job at reflecting

the diversity of the task force’s perspectives. However the draft had not yet been polished to spotlight the

relevant data and reasoning that should be considered by the Superintendent and the Board of

Education.  

The purpose of this short memo is to spotlight important facts and features of the repurposing discussion

at hand.  

The Guiding Principles and Primary Concerns: What the Data Say  

1. The District wants to keep school capacity above 60%. The district’s own data shows all schools

are currently over 60%. All but one are projected to stay at or above 60% over next 10 years (Hayes

dips to 58%). Perhaps some minor redistricting can mitigate this. 

2. The District wants to keep school capacity below 85%. Data provided to the Task Force correctly

noted that “general education” and “special education” populations have different classroom caps.

However, the capacity numbers ultimately pooled those capacity numbers into one utilization rate

for each school. This appears mistaken. Special Education rooms need to be separated because

they should not be subject to elimination. Once you focus on GenEd enrollments and GenEd room

capacities, the overall building utilization rates change. In fact, the two repurposing scenarios being

considered (Lincoln and Grant) each result in a school operating at or above 100% utilization.

Furthermore, once you protect classrooms for Special Education students, it is not clear there will

be enough GenEd classrooms in the repurposing scenarios.  

3. Class size equity was highlighted as a concern by the superintendent. However, the Task Force

was never presented with any data suggesting that existing inequities are having negative impacts

on the students. In general the district has great class sizes. If the goal is to shy away from higher

class sizes (a goal I personally share), then the “Redistrict Only” scenario is better. It has a slightly

lower overall average class size and more flexibility that comes with seven, instead of six,

redistricting options.  

4. Walkability (proximity and time). The Task Force agreed that minimizing walk time is important,

and 83% of the community survey respondents identified this issue as “very important/important.” 

Repurposing a school will result in greater walking distances and commute times. The academic

literature on active commuting to school suggests that we really should stay below 1 mile. One oft-

quoted study reports, the “threshold distance" below which kids in urban areas are more likely to

walk to school to be 0.776 miles. Repurposing a school will decrease the number of families who

walk. 

5. Walkability (safety). Repurposing a school will result in more kids crossing more streets.

Repurposing a school will also increase the number of cars on the road for drop-off and pick-up. In

general, the more streets crossed and the more cars on the streets, the less safe it is for pedestrians

and cyclists.  

6. Centralized Pre-K. A centralized Pre-K was the primary candidate for a repurposed building. While

there was information presented about the benefits of such a model from an administrative 

perspective, there are many parents who prefer to have pre-K co-located in the same building as

where older siblings attend.  

7. Impacts on Before- and After-Care. If a school is repurposed, then the before- and after-care

services at the remaining schools will face increased demand. Those services are provided by

private companies, many of which are at capacity. The board cannot dictate changes to their

offerings. Any repurposing decision cannot be made until this concern is addressed.  

8. Additional projections.  

a. According to Future Think, the K-5 population is currently about 1800. Ten years from now 

their estimate for K-5 is 1723 students. That’s a decline of 7 students per year, or about 1

student per school per year. This is not a crisis.   

b. The number of children born in the area who attend kindergarten in the district 5 years

later is higher than it has ever been (at 60.4%). (The most recent data provided by Future

Think was for 2023-2024.)  

c. Birth rates are down in 2023 compared to 2009. This shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the

numbers haven’t changed much from 2019 to 2023. Importantly, this data doesn’t capture

the reality that young people and families are moving to Lakewood. Data from the U.S.

Census Bureau bears this out. Strategic planning in concert with the city can perhaps

increase these numbers and strengthen the pipeline of students in our schools.  

9. Cost Savings. The savings from repurposing a school primarily come from reductions in teachers

and staff. There is no savings from a facilities standpoint because the repurposed building is 

repurposed, not shuttered. Our community will need to pass a levy soon regardless of the

repurposing decision. We might have to ask for a little more than we otherwise would if no school is

repurposed. The community survey response suggests a willingness to accept some financial costs

to keep the status quo. Survey questions did not ask respondents to compare different concerns

relative to one another. Each survey question was asking respondents about desirable things; 

essentially asking, “How positive do you feel about this positive thing?” We would expect the survey

outcomes to have somewhat similar distributions. However, only 26% of respondents ranked

“Keeping costs low while maintaining a quality education” as “very important.” Minimizing walk time

and distance, on the other hand was at 61%. 

Some editorializing.  

• The impact of repurposing on families and students will be considerable. The evidentiary threshold

the Board needs to meet to repurpose a school is high. I do not believe the evidence is there to justify

repurposing a school.  

• One of the reasons new families move to Lakewood is to have their school nearby. I have heard many

anecdotes about families who made their decision to move to Lakewood specifically because of the

nearby school. I believe repurposing a school will have a negative effect on enrollments. Some

families will choose not to move to Lakewood or send their kids to LCA. 

• A community school is more than the data on spreadsheets. Our schools are the fabric of our

community and are a source of social capital.  

• Walking to school enhances well-being and decreases CO2 emissions. 

• We need the Board to lead with vision and lean into our strengths. The messaging from the Board and

the superintendent sometimes suggests we are in a downward spiral. Lakewood is one of a kind, and

is an urban planner’s dream. Coordinate with the city, lean forward and build on what we have.