A student from Thurgood Marshall Secondary School protesting the possible closure or consolidation of schools (Photo – Darcy Naganuma)
The Pasadena Unified School District Board of Education spent nearly two and a half hours Thursday night attempting to define “district transformation,” while students, parents and community members voiced opposition to school consolidation and tree removal at Longfellow Elementary. The discussion exposed divisions among trustees over whether transformation should center on consolidation or involve a broader, long-term vision for the district.
By News Desk
The Sept. 3 special meeting, conducted as a Committee of the Whole, was chaired by Vice President Yarma Velázquez. Board President Tina Fredericks participated remotely, while Trustee Michelle Richardson Bailey, who was ill, certified her participation under the “just cause” exemption. Fredericks participated remotely without citing the same exemption.
The meeting room was packed with students from Thurgood Marshall Secondary School, many of whom were protesting the possible closure or consolidation of schools.
During roughly an hour of public comment, students, parents and community members spoke against consolidation and the proposed removal of trees at Longfellow Elementary. Parents also raised concerns about Fredericks’ motives and participation in the process.
Sara Poggi and her son, Miles Shulman, read from an email between Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Blanco and Fredericks that was obtained through a California Public Records Act request. Poggi quoted Fredericks as writing, “No thank you to visioning,” and, “This causes me to lose confidence.”
Shulman characterized the message as reflecting an “consolidation or I will retaliate” position. He also questioned Fredericks’ absence from the meeting, asking, “How will you run a district when you can’t be here to face middle and high schoolers?”
Parent Warren Bleeker challenged the meeting’s parliamentary procedures. He said the board had adopted Rosenberg’s Rules, which do not authorize meetings described as a “Committee of the Whole.” Bleeker argued that the board could not suddenly rely on Robert’s Rules without discussion or a formal change to its procedures, calling the matter “yet another Brown Act violation.”
After public comment, the board began reviewing a “District Transformation” document compiled by facilitator Natalia Guerra of Collaborate PASadena. Trustees worked through live edits in a shared document, with more than five people at times attempting to add or revise language simultaneously.
Student Assembly member Allison, a Pasadena High School student, called for greater student representation. She noted that only two students had served on the consolidation committee and repeatedly requested additional student input and engagement.
The discussion included disagreements over the pace and scope of the transformation process. Some trustees focused on consolidation, while others argued that the district should develop a broader, long-term vision for PUSD. Trustees also differed over how quickly the board should move toward adopting a definition.
Fredericks left the meeting before 9:45 p.m., after adding a bullet describing a possible outcome for the board to consider:
“Consolidate schools and/or establish a new school configuration to more closely align enrollment projections as an option to achieve the goals contained in this definition.”
After Fredericks disconnected, the other trustees did not appear to realize that she was no longer participating until they attempted to discuss the language. Bailey later asked about points Fredericks had added regarding consolidation. Guerra said the language was at the bottom of the document and indicated that she believed Fredericks had added it, but she did not read it back to the board. It was not clear whether the language would remain in the working document or be included in a final definition.
Several Proposed Changes Generated Debate
The original wording called for the district to “rebuild family confidence.” Velázquez proposed changing “rebuild” to “increase.” Trustees also discussed adding language related to compliance with state Assembly Bill 1912.
Trustee Patrice Marshall McKenzie objected to including the bill, calling the addition “ill-founded.” She said the law concerns schools in financial distress, while PUSD is not in that situation.
Trustee Jennifer Hall Lee repeatedly questioned the speed of the process. “This should be a long process,” she said. “I’m not ready to say I’m OK with this discussion and put a little bow on it.”
Hall Lee cited a Stanford study concerning school closures and referred to school closures in Arizona, Texas and Florida. “We already closed 11 schools. Are we going to only have a few schools and close the rest?” she asked.
Bailey questioned how the transformation document would fit with PUSD’s existing strategic plan. “We need to align this plan and the strategic plan and make sure they mesh,” she said.
The transformation discussion stems from Resolution 2894, which the board adopted June 25 on a 4–3 vote. Hall Lee, Marshall McKenzie and Bailey voted against the resolution. The issue was subsequently discussed at an Aug. 13 workshop.
At the end of Thursday’s meeting, Velázquez gave Blanco five minutes to address the board. Blanco said that “transformation is part of the resolution that the majority of the board passed” and noted that the district’s current academic goals extend through 2030. She added that the board could determine additional goals.
The meeting featured heated exchanges over the meaning of “transformation,” the importance of specific wording and whether the process was moving too quickly. Guerra repeatedly attempted to bring the discussion back to the topic under consideration and noted the fast pace of the work.
Because the meeting was conducted as a study group, the board could not vote on final wording for the definition. No date was set for a vote, although Velázquez suggested that the board could consider approval at its next meeting. The next regularly scheduled board meeting is Sept. 27, though the district website also lists a special meeting for Sept. 10. Maria Montoya, the manager of administrative services who handles the administrative aspects of board meetings, said she would post a PDF of the document containing the board’s comments.
> Watch the full meeting at this link.
Leave a Reply