GUEST OPINION
PUSD signage at the District’s office (Photo – Staff)
The district’s school consolidation advisory committee has begun meeting, and its membership is now known.
By Adrienne Ann Mullen
It is not surprising that district staff selected committee members with known ties to certain schools, including well-known alumni of John Muir High School. Reports also indicate that staff from schools slated for closure were included, an approach that raises questions about how independent the process can be.
A Rushed, Pushy Process
By the committee’s second meeting, members were already conducting small-group exercises to identify schools that should be removed from the closure list.
Participants were limited to criteria from a consultant presentation, capacity, geography, and facilities. Some members described the framework as “pushy,” noting that they were explicitly discouraged from considering factors such as special programs, waitlists, family retention, or academic performance.
Within two days of a Google Form vote, the district announced which schools would be removed from consideration.
The speed and structure of this process leave open questions about how fully alternative perspectives were considered.
Academic Outcomes Left Out
A central concern is the apparent exclusion of academic performance from decision-making.
At Thurgood Marshall, students—particularly those of color—are achieving significantly higher levels than at schools already removed from consideration for closure.
For Grade 11 English Language Arts, Marshall outperforms John Muir High School by:
- 24 percentage points for socioeconomically disadvantaged students
- 25 points for Black students
- 20 points for Latino students
It also exceeds Pasadena High School across these groups.
At the middle school level, the contrast is even more pronounced: Black students’ Grade 7 ELA proficiency is 46% at Marshall, compared to 17% at Octavia Butler Magnet—nearly three times higher.
These are substantial differences with clear implications for student outcomes. Reassigning students to lower-performing schools raises questions about alignment with the board’s stated goal of maintaining continuity of achievement.
It may also warrant scrutiny under AB 1912, which cautions against policies that create disproportionate negative impacts on protected groups.
Equity and Performance
Some participants report that district leadership has, at times, framed academic performance and equity goals as being in tension. That perspective appears to shape both the committee’s structure and the criteria it was asked to apply.
Notably, the district’s equity metrics do not appear to include academic performance—an omission that may advantage schools under consideration for closure.
The result is a difficult question: how equity is being defined, and whether student achievement is being given sufficient weight within that definition.
What Investment Can Do
The inclusion of Mary W. Jackson STEAM Elementary among schools removed from the closure list is instructive.
Jackson was previously considered for closure but saw enrollment growth following targeted investments in STEM programming, dual-language instruction, after-school offerings, and facility improvements.
The lesson is straightforward: investment can drive enrollment. Applied more broadly, similar strategies could help stabilize other schools.
Financial Claims and Risks
District messaging has suggested that consolidation could increase resources. However, past experience raises questions.
Between 2005 and 2019, eleven school closures did not produce significant new revenue, and leasing income from closed sites has remained limited.
At the same time, closures carry the risk of accelerating enrollment declines if families leave the district, potentially worsening the financial situation they are intended to address.
The district has also pointed to closures as a way to support salary increases, but has not fully addressed the role that recent cost increases have played in the current fiscal strain.
Survey Design and Framing
PUSD staff who received a recent consolidation survey report that it was framed in ways that may favor school closures.
This framing
raises questions about
whether the survey
was intended
to measure opinion,
or shape it”
Several response options suggested that merging schools would increase resources for programs, while only one option allowed respondents to express skepticism that closures would produce such benefits. This framing raises questions about whether the survey was intended to measure opinion, or shape it.
Past experience also complicates the premise. Following 11 school closures between 2005 and 2019, the district did not realize significant new revenue. Income from leasing closed sites has remained relatively limited and has not meaningfully increased over time.
The survey also included an option supporting closures as a way to raise employee salaries. While this reflects a real budget consideration, the district has not fully addressed the role that recent compensation increases—totaling roughly $50 million in ongoing costs between 2021 and 2024—have played in the current fiscal strain.
Closures alone do not generate sustainable revenue without committed, income-producing uses for vacated sites. At the same time, they carry the risk of accelerating enrollment declines if families leave the district, potentially offsetting any projected savings.
A Question of Priorities
If revenue generation is a central concern, the district’s limited action on leasing valuable properties, such as the Education Center, stands out.
Other districts have relocated administrative functions and generated income from prime real estate. Pasadena Unified has not pursued this strategy at scale.
Meanwhile, families are being asked to absorb further disruption following years of layoffs and instability.
The district’s current approach raises a fundamental question about its priorities, and whether demonstrated student outcomes are being given the weight they deserve.
Dr. Adrienne Ann Mullen is a former PUSD trustee and mother of four PUSD graduates.
The Opinion section reflects the opinions of the responsible contributor(s)/writer(s) only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of ColoradoBoulevard.net. ColoradoBoulevard.net does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ColoradoBoulevard.net accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (with no obligation) to delete comments and postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.
That they would even consider closing Marshall is a travesty! The faculty there is doing something right given the outstanding test scores and the number of students who have been accepted to California’s most elite colleges.
Please do some investigative reporting that digs more deeply into the rationale about why Marshall is always on the chopping block.