A months-long process that galvanized Pasadena Unified School District communities to defend their campuses in the face of proposed closures has moved from a community advisory committee to the Board of Education meeting room.
Opponents of the closures acknowledged that the committee’s no votes this week were just the first step in the battle to keep schools open. Next comes the clash with the Board of Education, which no matter what the committee recommended, will have the final say on potential school mergers.
“My hope is that the four trustees who rushed our community into this at the worst possible time will work diligently to avoid more damage and another black eye for PUSD,” PTA Council of PUSD’s president Lisa Kroese said in an email to the Southern California News Group.
Superintendent Elizabeth Blanco could not be reached for comment Wednesday about where the 33-member Superintendent’s School Consolidation Advisory Committee’s outcome leaves the district.
That outcome said no to an array of campus-closure scenarios that ranged from merging Don Benito Elementary School into Willard School to merging Thurgood Marshall ninth and 12th grades with Pasadena High School.
The committee, comprised of teachers, staffers, parents, students and other stakeholders, decided to keep the status quo, despite arguments that such mergers would right-size the district and save millions at a time of steep enrollment declines and fiscal woes.
A few committee members during Monday’s meeting, and in written comments, shared what they felt the next steps should be in lieu of merging campuses.
They included a district visioning process, an inquiry into the behind-the-scenes actions of trustees and looking at how many schools the district would need if it started from scratch today with current enrollment numbers.
In addition to the voting breakdown for each scenario, the district released the written comments submitted by committee members that shed light into their votes.
Comments referenced the process being tainted, a breakdown in trust or no confidence in the process while others shared they needed more information on the cost savings and benefits to students and programs.
“I don’t necessarily see the need to reduce elementary schools by 3 schools at this time, and to me this elementary school merge was one that made the least amount of sense geographically,” one comment read.
A published report the day of the final advisory committee meeting that revealed trustees’ internal communications left many on the committee questioning the entire endeavor, which they saw as set up to favor a pre-determined consolidation plan.
“I vote no confidence,” another person wrote. “The breakdown in trust surrounding this process has become itself a substantive barrier to successful implementation.”
Committee members were also asked to provide feedback on what they liked best about the committee process and what could have been improved.
“I support consolidating schools to protect PUSD’s long-term stability and programs,” one person wrote. “I trust district leadership and staff to guide families and students through this transition with care and compassion.”
Others wrote that they did not like the process and felt their voices were not heard.
“It should have been a visioning process, not a consolidation process,” another comment read. “We needed a much longer time frame, a different type of consultant, more community input, good data that was analyzed.”
With the advisory committee’s vote now in the history books and the issue head to the trustees, district stakeholders urged the Board of Education to consider the vast resources the district still has.
Trustees voted first in December and then in January to explore the process of closing campuses.
Declining enrollment is one of the main reasons PUSD found itself facing a $30 million deficit combined with rising costs, expiration of one-time funds and uncertainty in state and federal funding.
And they are demanding that trustees rebuilt public trust after what they say was a tainted process.
“It doesn’t surprise me that there is not a public mandate or consensus surrounding any closures,” Kroese said. “At some point, true leadership requires admitting when a process has failed, and admitting your own mistakes… . Families deserve honesty and lawful governance — not a process that was designed to cover up a predetermined consolidation plan.”
During the process, the district’s consultant pitched consolidation as a way for the district to save money and right-size the district based on current and projected enrollment.
The December vote passed 4-3 and directed Blanco to develop and bring forward a proposed district transformation planning process that would potentially include consolidation. Trustees Jennifer Hall Lee, Michelle Richardson Bailey and Patrice Marshall McKenzie voted no.
In January, the Board of Education approved a $233,300 contract with Total School Solutions to lead the consolidation process in a 5-2 vote. Hall Lee and Bailey voted no.
On Thursday, May 28, the Board of Education will be formally presented the committee’s feedback as well as a draft Equity Impact Analysis from Total School Solutions. A second public hearing will take place Thursday, June 11, and a trustee study session set for Saturday, June 13.
The final vote on any potential mergers is slated to be held at the Thursday, June 25, Board of Education meeting. According to the district, any approved mergers would take effect for the 2027-2028 school year.