OPINION
Part of the school board portrait gallery (Photo – Colorado Boulevard Newspaper)
Despite the opposition of its own advisory committee—which rejected all consolidation scenarios—as well as opposition from many PUSD parents and the PUSD student assembly, the board majority voted on June 25 to revive the “transformation” (aka consolidation) effort in August, relying on the same one-sided data they have repeatedly used to justify their efforts: declining enrollment.
By Walt Beckett
As I have previously explained, this push appears to prioritize the interests of district employees and their representatives over the concerns expressed by many PUSD parents and students. This perception was reinforced by the appearance and public comments in support of consolidation at the last two board votes by Peter Dreier, a decades-long politically active labor advocate and union supporter.
The Case for Consolidation. And Its Limits
Supporters of consolidation continue to repeat the same talking points: that there are not enough children to “fill” schools, that consolidation is inevitable, that the district faces budget deficits, and that PUSD is at risk of receivership and county control. What they never acknowledge is the previous closure of eleven schools—one-third of the district’s schools—from 2005 to 2019.
Those closures provide a real-world test of the consolidation strategy. They did not resolve PUSD’s fiscal challenges; in fact, they may have contributed to declining enrollment and revenue by driving away families who did not view the closures as constructive. Yet supporters of further consolidation rarely acknowledge this history, because doing so would require confronting the results of the previous closures.
This approach relies on several familiar political messaging techniques: emphasizing a single narrative, omitting inconvenient history, and repeating claims until they become accepted as common wisdom. For example, repeatedly suggesting that receivership is unavoidable can create a sense of urgency while overlooking the broader fiscal history and the range of possible solutions.
One example is the “Lie Big” technique: choosing a claim so significant that people assume no one would fabricate it— such as the suggestion that receivership is unavoidable. “Focus” means reducing a complex issue to a single narrative while ignoring relevant history. “Repeat” means repeating claims until familiarity is mistaken for truth.
The messaging also includes another familiar political tactic: portraying opponents as acting from bad motives while praising allies. Critics of consolidation are often dismissed rather than engaged on the substance of their concerns. Legitimate questions and alternative proposals are not fully addressed; instead, opponents are sometimes characterized by their presumed intentions rather than the substance of their arguments
Focusing Instead on Revenue—But Sadly Playing Politics
I was encouraged to read that PUSD is finally beginning to use its many vacant properties for revenue development, with the advancement of a ground lease at the former Linda Vista school site.
Sadly, the board made a purely political decision to exclude the former Linda Vista school field, which has been developed into a park, from that development. This decision appears designed to address concerns raised by Linda Vista homeowners rather than follow the recommendation of the district’s own consultant, while reducing the potential revenue from the site.
It is troubling that the board would prioritize the concerns of residents outside the district over the recommendation of its own consultant, thereby reducing potential revenue from the Linda Vista site, while simultaneously pursuing school closures that PUSD parents do not support.
Focusing only on the spending side of the budget and closing schools has not worked. In fact, it has made the problem worse. There is no need to continue repeating that approach when closing one-third of the district’s schools provides a sufficient real-world test to evaluate the results: PUSD’s fiscal situation is worse, not better.
Larger schools have not proven sufficient to attract the many families who continue to choose private and charter options, many of which are smaller than comparable PUSD schools. Private schools can operate this way because tuition provides them with substantially higher revenue per pupil than PUSD receives. Charter schools can often operate with different cost structures because they are governed under different financial and operational models.
PUSD can offer the smaller school environments that attract families to its competitors only if it significantly increases revenue.
The revenue generated from the former Linda Vista school site—even reduced by the board’s politically motivated decision—can be replicated at other district properties and could provide a significant new source of funding.
As I wrote in March 2025, the district’s Education Center property at 351 S. Hudson Avenue should be vacated, and administrative offices should be relocated to a school site. A previous board voted to have staff prepare the former Wilson school site to receive these offices, but that effort apparently stalled due to a lack of leadership. It could move forward now.
The prime location of the Hudson and Del Mar property means that a ground lease could generate substantial revenue for the district. After closing one-third of its schools and identifying district properties as potential revenue-generating assets, shouldn’t the administrative headquarters be used as a revenue opportunity before closing more schools?
Walt Beckett is a retired academic living in the San Gabriel Valley.
Leave a Reply