Marshall Is (Likely) Cooked: How PUSD Board Numbers and Politics Target Schools

GUEST OPINION

“Strong Schools = Pasadena Strong” sign at the UTP rally on Sat., Feb. 7, 2026 (Photo – Staff)

The majority of the PUSD Board recently approved optimal sizes for schools. The proposals seem reasonable, with a minimum, maximum, and optimal range for each school level. Yet one number stands out: the maximum enrollment for grade 6–12 or K–8 schools. The proposed number is 1,400—less than the maximum for grade 9–12 schools, which is 1,800.

By Adrienne Ann Mullen

A 6–12 school has seven grade levels, and a K–8 school has nine, while a grade 9–12 school has only four. This makes no sense. Why should a school with fewer grade levels accommodate more students than a school with many more?

This decision cannot be understood in isolation; it reflects a broader political effort to reshape PUSD through targeted school closures.

The Predetermined Outcome

The most plausible explanation is that these numbers are designed to target Marshall, the alma mater of three of my children. Marshall is a 6–12 school exceeding the new cap, while Muir and Pasadena High are 9–12 schools and remain below it. The board members who orchestrated this also voted for it, while hiring an external firm to “justify” the outcome at a cost of $200,000 amid a budget crisis. The sequence of decisions strongly suggests the outcome was decided in advance.

The Perfect Storm

The PUSD Board majority is dominated by members who frame closing Marshall as a form of reparations for Muir while protecting Pasadena High. Local Muir supporters, including a filmmaker alumnus who published an anti-Marshall opinion piece, have rallied sympathy by invoking historical segregation. The Muir principal has also actively lobbied for a high school closure.

Many of
these officials
have opted
out of PUSD
themselves…”

These efforts are backed by Pasadena’s politically powerful elected officials and aligned political organizations. Many are parents who have used private schools, sent their children to surrounding low-poverty districts, or have no children at all. They argue that PUSD has failed students of color and that closing lower-poverty schools will somehow remedy past inequities, despite having little personal investment in PUSD and personal choices that contradict their professed support for public schools. Many of these officials have opted out of PUSD themselves, choosing private, charter, or neighboring district schools, even as they shape policies that limit choice for others.

Several board members and their political allies have long held publicly stated positions aligned with closing Marshall and Don Benito. Members of the Pasadena Education Network (PEN), financially supported by board member Kim Kenne, have conducted a whisper campaign to advance this goal. Kenne publicly stated during 2019 closure discussions that Marshall, “a well-oiled machine,” needed disruption. Her family withdrew their children from PUSD and invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a local private school. She has also been an active supporter of charter schools

Many voters from Sierra Madre, including parents whose children attend Sierra Madre Middle School, support closure because their students matriculate to Pasadena High. They are represented by board member Tina Fredericks, a charter-school parent who publicly opposed closures in 2019 because the schools selected did not align with her goal of preserving higher-poverty, lower-performing Northwest Pasadena schools. Since joining the board, she has publicly written in favor of closing schools, presumably lower-poverty, higher-performing schools such as Marshall and Don Benito.

Imagine
…a school district that
…targets its
higher-performing
schools
for closure.”

Imagine a politics so consumed by hostility toward a school district that it targets its higher-performing schools for closure. Marshall has long been the school of choice for Northwest families of color because of its strong test scores, high AP enrollment, and college readiness. It is also PUSD’s most integrated secondary school. Families of color and white families choose Marshall, making it a model of integration despite receiving less per-pupil funding than other schools.

True equity would prioritize preserving high-quality, integrated schools. Yet the PUSD Board majority appears uninterested in protecting examples like Marshall and Don Benito. Decades of experience show that most higher-socioeconomic-status families, including many current board members, will not enroll their children in higher-poverty schools. Many families currently at Marshall and Don Benito are unlikely to do so either, meaning closures will reduce—not increase—district integration.

Board member Scott Harden has a daughter at Marshall but has signaled support for closure to maintain political alignment. He resisted closing Don Benito in 2019 when his children attended the school but now follows prevailing political winds. The same forces targeting Marshall have long targeted Don Benito as a former “choice” school; closing it would satisfy decades-old grievances.

Yarma Velazquez, a PUSD Board majority member, has been a frequent and vocal critic of PUSD. While enrolling her own children in a higher-performing, lower-poverty west Pasadena elementary school, she has shown little indication she would extend similar consideration to Marshall. Slated to rotate into the board presidency in December, she is likely to continue publicly criticizing staff, further affecting district morale.

Thurgood Marshall Secondary School (Photo – wikipedia)

The Logical Fallacies Circling the Discussion

Critics argue Marshall is too close to Pasadena High and that transportation costs are prohibitive. Northwest families have long transported students to Marshall, and high school students receive free bus passes. Marshall draws students from across the district, making proximity largely irrelevant, as with Don Benito.

Supporters of consolidation argue that fewer campuses reduce overhead, but PUSD’s own history shows closures rarely produce lasting fiscal gains without site revenue. PUSD has closed 11 schools since 2005, many of which were later occupied by district programs, displaced schools, charter and private schools, nonprofits, or the City of Pasadena. Lease and rental revenue remained flat, demonstrating that closures do not reliably improve district finances. Experience shows that closures often drive families out of the district, reducing enrollment and revenue, particularly dangerous amid a budget crisis driven by employee raises exceeding 25% between 2021 and 2024.

The teachers’ union, which has supported these board members, may favor closures under the belief that modest savings from layoffs and utilities could be redirected toward compensation. These assumptions and fallacies are shaping policy that punishes PUSD’s most successful schools.

Hypocrisy and Denial

Three of the four PUSD Board members targeting high-performing schools have placed their own children in charter or private schools. They pursue what works for their families while denying others access to the same opportunities.

Three
PUSD Board members
…placed children
in charter
or private schools.”

These board members appear to believe students in lower-performing schools deserve outcomes equal to those in higher-performing schools, ignoring the well-documented relationship between socioeconomic status, parental education, and academic achievement. While motivation matters, uniform high achievement at PUSD’s scale, given its poverty and demographic diversity, is historically unprecedented. Across the country, elementary gains in high-poverty schools rarely translate into secondary outcomes comparable to those in low-poverty schools, due in part to shifts toward content knowledge and critical thinking and the growing influence of resources outside school.

This hypocrisy risks driving higher-socioeconomic-status families out of PUSD, leaving the district smaller, poorer, and more segregated.

Private and charter schools will continue to gain power. This is the future the current PUSD Board majority is building: smaller, poorer, more segregated, and increasingly dominated by private and charter schools.

Dr. Adrienne Ann Mullen is a former PUSD trustee and mother of four PUSD graduates.