Why Two Pasadena High Schools Won’t Serve Our Families

GUEST OPINION

Parents and students protesting possible school closures, 2019 (File Photo – Garrett Rowlan)

Who exactly is speaking for “the community” when they insist we should reduce our high schools to two? Because from where I stand, it seems less like a community consensus and more like a narrow agenda pushed by people connected to certain campuses, while families at other schools watch their neighborhoods, their investments, and their children’s stability being dismissed.

By Lisa Kroese

Our kids have already endured COVID, devastating fires, and the closure of a third of our schools. They don’t need more disruption; they need solutions that work for everyone, not just a few.

And let’s be honest: when people insist that “the community” supports going down to two high schools, they’re usually imagining a future where Muir and PHS are the ones that survive. That assumption alone reveals who is being centered, and who is being dismissed.

Back in 2019, the board chose not to close Blair and Marshall. Not only that, but they invested tens of millions of dollars into Blair. So now we’re supposed to walk away from that investment of our bond dollars? How does that make sense for a district struggling financially?

The targeting of Blair and Marshall also ignores the fact that both are 6–12 schools. Are the people pushing these closures planning to shut down the middle school grades too? If not, where do the savings come from? Closing just the high school portion while operating the same campuses for middle school makes no practical or financial sense.

On the east side, Sierra Madre Middle School is already overcrowded after Wilson was closed. Instead of pushing consolidation yet again, maybe the board should focus on increasing capacity at SME and SMMS so that kids aren’t turned away year after year in the lottery.

And regarding this accusation of “entitlement”: families choose Marshall because of its diversity and strong academic performance. That isn’t entitlement—that’s called wanting a quality education, which is literally the point of attending school. Marshall is integrated. This isn’t 1972, and if the district wants to build a true community, it needs to let go of that outdated framing.

The entitlement is actually on the other end. The people pushing to close Marshall feel that Muir and PHS are entitled to more students, regardless of whether their families want to go there or not, because of guilt over segregation that happened many decades ago. It’s a reparations mindset. And many of those supporting such a move are actually elites who sent their children to private schools or charter schools.

If consolidation is truly necessary, then let’s at least talk about the parts people conveniently ignore. We lost five campuses in the fires. Rosebud is currently housed at Don Benito. One of the charters is no longer leasing from PUSD. What is the plan for the rebuilds? Why not keep Rosebud at DB and repurpose charter campuses for housing or land leases that actually bring income into the district?

Instead of recycling failed solutions, the board should be using bond and insurance money to rebuild and reopen in ways that make financial and practical sense. Manage our assets so they generate stability—not more closures.

If every campus were brought up to a modern, safe, energy-efficient standard, if every school felt like a place worth attending, we could attract families back from private schools. Housing prices are at record highs. More people now understand the value of not segregating their kids into private systems. There is a real opportunity here.

But we will never attract new families if the district’s only narrative is closure, complaint, and inequitable investment. When some campuses rot while others receive upgrades, when people cling to decades-old grievances, when certain communities are constantly targeted, of course families leave.

Honestly, it seems like some people with long-standing resentment toward schools in certain areas are exploiting the budget crisis to revive that old agenda. But under the new closure rules, their plans wouldn’t even be allowed, because the schools they aim to eliminate are, in reality, our most integrated campuses today.

If the school board is serious about stability, equity, and future growth, it needs to stop defaulting to closures and start investing in all of our schools, every single one.

Lisa Kroese is a PUSD-certified realtor with The Parsons Team in Pasadena. All of her children attend PUSD schools, and she currently serves as the President of the PUSD PTA Council. She is speaking solely as an individual and not on behalf of any organization.