GUEST OPINION
Seals of PUSD and Pasadena (Photos – City of Pasadena: W.K., Seals: PUSD & Pasadena City)
I recently read an article about the Pasadena City Council’s unanimous decision not to designate the former Roosevelt Elementary School as an historical landmark. What struck me was a quote from Mayor Victor Gordo: “We’re not just preserving buildings; we’re preserving public education.”
By Adrienne Ann Mullen
Private and Charter Schools vs. Pasadena Unified
It’s well known that Mayor Gordo, with many current and former councilmembers, city employees, school district employees and some members of the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) Board of Education, have chosen to send their own children to private schools. Some, including the next school board president, Tina Fredericks, have opted for charter schools.
This raises a serious question: Is it possible to preserve public education while sending one’s children to private or charter schools? The answer is not without significantly more funding for the public school system.
Public schools are primarily funded based on student enrollment and attendance. Without sufficient enrollment, or significantly increased funding, they struggle to remain sustainable. Unlike private schools, public schools cannot charge tuition, raise fees, or selectively admit students. They are required to serve all students, including those with special needs, English language learners, and students experiencing housing instability. While charter schools are also considered public, many have been criticized for counseling out high-need students.
Political Support vs. Practical Support
Councilmembers, school board members, city and district employees may genuinely believe they support public education. During campaign seasons, they often speak glowingly about the importance of our schools to win the support of Pasadena’s largely liberal electorate. Some point to their support of tax measures, participation in community programs, school visits, or fundraising efforts.
But none of these activities substitute for enrollment or adequate operational funding, the true backbone of a sustainable public education system. These kinds of support, while appreciated, do not cover the day-to-day costs of running schools.
As a result, in the past 20 years, Pasadena Unified has closed 11 of its 34 schools, due to declining enrollment and rising operational costs. Expenses have been escalating faster than inflation and state funding increases, driven by salary demands, healthcare and retirement costs, increased service expectations for students, and price hikes from service providers.
The Inequities in Cost and Funding
Some families argue that public schools are not the right fit for their children. It’s true that private and charter schools often have smaller class sizes, and for some of these schools this can mean higher academic or behavioral expectations.
They are able to do this because of stark disparity: private schools in Pasadena charge $25,000 to $48,000 per student per year, while Pasadena Unified receives only about $16,000 per student in public funding. And despite this lower funding, PUSD must provide costly special education services, something private schools are not required to do.
This leads to a troubling trend: families placing their general education children in private schools while relying on public schools to serve their children with special needs. These services are not only essential, they are legally mandated and growing more expensive every year.
Settlements with parents, often necessary to comply with the law, further burden the district’s general fund.
When Mayor Gordo says we’re preserving public education, it rings hollow unless accompanied by either enrolling children in public schools or ensuring the schools receive substantially more funding.
What Can Be Done
There are solutions. In 2018, Mayor Terry Tornek helped lead the passage of Measures I and J, which currently provide over $10 million annually to Pasadena Unified. In 2023, the successful Measure EE parcel tax added another $5 million per year. But more is urgently needed.
This week, the school board is expected to pass a 2025–2026 budget that spends $36 million more than it will receive. That gap, once cushioned by COVID-era relief funds, is now being filled by draining reserves. A major driver of this deficit is a series of three significant raises for staff: more than 25% in total between 2021 and 2024. These raises added roughly $50 million in ongoing annual costs.
As a result, by 2026–27, the district’s fund balance is projected to fall below the legally required 3% reserve. Without action, in spring 2026, this will trigger massive layoffs, 120 positions.
This marks the third consecutive year of significant staffing cuts.
A Call to Action
This crisis is not inevitable. The City Council and the PUSD Board have the power to act. They could place a new funding measure on the ballot to help cover either the cost of the raises or the skyrocketing unfunded special education expenses, each of which currently total about $50 million annually. If passed, such a measure would prevent layoffs and help truly preserve public education in Pasadena, not just in sentiment, but in practice.
I urge our local leaders to act with the urgency and commitment this moment demands. Place a new funding initiative on the ballot. Let voters decide if they want to invest in the future of our public schools.
Dr. Adrienne Ann Mullen is a former PUSD trustee and mother of four PUSD graduates.
During the 70s my daughter attended Sierra Madre School. But when we moved, I didn’t like the school she would have attended so that was the beginning of our private school journey. When she aged out of the school at 8th grade, we agreed on the Alternative School. But despite her best friend being there, it was so chaotic that she took the GED, enrolled in PCC, and transferred to CSUSF. Later I worked as a speech pathologist at several PUSD campuses; that was when I got a real eye-full of what was wrong with the system: administrators failing to rein-in domineering and often abusive long-term teachers (Field). Then at Willard the danger of being too politically correct can tear a school apart. Teachers who tried to get violent disturbed students put on home study were sometimes rejected at parents’ request. I witnessed this- students and teachers subjected to assaults because parents refused to keep their students home with a visiting instructor. In regular ed some idealistic young teachers left after trying to discipline disruptive students after being accused of being racist. The very educated pre-school teacher was fired for unfounded accusations of having sex with a custodian in the classroom so they could put their own person in that job; she faught it but never came back. And finally, entire schools run by influential local families whose opinions affected which employees were hired, dismissed, and disciplined (Willard). The black principal was terminated not for cause but because the cabal wanted their own person in that job. The whole thing was so unpleasant that I left, as did other speech therapists. You can’t work productively in environments like that. In summary, although it’s been a long time since I witnessed these things, IMO administrators’ failure to address serious problems on their campuses is at the heart of many campus problems. Until they get a better handle on misbehaving employees they won’t hold onto good employees and parents won’t send their kids to problem campuses.