Debunking the False Narratives Behind School Closures

The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) stands at a crossroads as it considers closing schools. Fierce advocates of closures often cite declining enrollment, saving money, “right sizing,” and even achieving equity as their justification. Yet, these arguments don’t hold water, especially in the context of the District’s unique history, neighborhoods, and aspirations. For the benefit of hardworking PUSD families who depend on these schools to educate their children, it’s time to challenge these false narratives and consider the devastating consequences boarding up more schools would have on our beloved community.

Closing Schools Harms Our Students

Based on years of research, it is well documented that school closures can have negative effects on students, especially for students of color and students from low-income households. High school closures disproportionately affect students from disadvantaged backgrounds and make it harder to access post-secondary opportunities. Disruption of high school education has a lasting effect on students’ ability to succeed in the labor market; these students face more obstacles in securing stable, well-paying jobs and may lag behind their peers in skill development needed for evolving workplaces. But do the supposed benefits of closing schools outweigh the harms?

Debunking the Declining Enrollment Justification

The top reason most frequently cited by school closure advocates is declining enrollment. These prognosticators readily accept enrollment trends as gospel, an immutable fact that could not possibly be altered in any way shape or form. But the future is not set in stone. Yes, it’s true many California districts have seen enrollment drops due to shifting demographics and housing costs, however these trends are not irreversible -- especially not here. Pasadena, Altadena, and Sierra Madre are, and always will be, communities that families are drawn to for many reasons, and our schools continue to be one of them. As an example, take PUSD’s innovative dual immersion programs, the highly efficient and academically-successful 6th-12th grade integrated secondary schools, and the expansion of transition Kindergarten programs: these offerings have drawn in families, both new and from outside the district, and will pay off in terms of increased enrollment for years to come. Also recent trends in lower mortgage rates and housing initiatives in Congress are promising to allow younger homebuyers to re-enter this highly desirable market. Additionally, as our district builds back from the Eaton Fire, so too will our student population. We lost 500 students due to displacement, but many of those Altadena families plan to return and rebuild. Shuttering schools promises to pull the rug out from underneath them at the worst possible time. Historically, PUSD’s closure of schools has led to more students leaving the district, accelerating declining enrollment. Further closures will cause more families than ever to flee PUSD, especially those already temporarily living in other districts making future enrollment recovery impossible.

Debunking the Cost Savings Fallacy

Unfortunately, in PUSD, the promise of saving money by closing schools has never been realized. In fact, the doomsayers cannot show where we have substantially saved money after closing 11 schools. Why? Because PUSD’s largest expense is employee compensation and closing physical schools only transfers those costs to another school site. It turns out fixed costs like salaries, maintenance, and administration do not decrease proportionally with fewer campuses. As Board Trustee Scott Harden famously admitted: "Closing schools won't save money.  It will cost money" Worse, past PUSD school closures have led to charter and private schools moving into the closed space, only causing increased revenue loss. If students do stay in the District and transfer to other campuses, attendance rates typically decrease following forced school closures (reducing revenue further) and would require additional resources or facility upgrades to meet the demand. This is especially true for the two most frequently cited high schools, PHS and John Muir, as they do not have the capacity to accept all high school students in the district unless Muir kicks PCC off its campus. Or, would you like your high schooler to be crammed into overcrowded portables (which cost the District more money to obtain and maintain) or stay enrolled in their current more suitable campus? I believe parents and students would agree it’s completely illogical and impractical, not to mention these expenses offset any anticipated savings. 

Debunking the Rightsizing Rationale

The concept of “rightsizing” implies the district must pare down its physical footprint to match current numbers. However, PUSD’s schools are vital centers of community life, especially in neighborhoods historically underserved by public investment. True rightsizing would mean using their tax-payer funded Measure O and R bond funds to adapt schools to serve evolving needs, identifying asset-management opportunities at campus sites with excess capacity, further opening doors to community partners, expanding after-school programs, and offering adult education—not eliminating neighborhood assets that make our community stronger.

Debunking the Equity Justification

Perhaps the most troubling assertion is that closing schools will advance equity in PUSD. It will not–especially considering Pasadena’s unfortunate history of “redlining,” the past denying of loans, insurance, and other services to residents of color to keep them out of wealthier neighborhoods. If PUSD were left with John Muir in Northwest Pasadena and PHS in East Pasadena, those two high schools would be more segregated by race, given the demographics of where students live within the District. It shouldn’t have to be said, but here we are: we cannot go backwards and become a segregated district once again. Any school closure plan that leads to a more segregated, less integrated school district, is unlawful, and would certainly be challenged in court. Equity is not achieved by removing resources and closing some of PUSD’s highest performing schools. Every child in PUSD deserves access to high-quality, well-resourced and, yes, integrated public schools.

Conclusion: Student-Centered Solutions for PUSD

The rush to close schools in PUSD does not factor in the harm caused to students, and is built on assumptions that, upon inspection, fail to address the complex realities our District faces. Declining enrollment, rightsizing, cost savings, and equity are nuanced challenges that demand local, creative solutions, not blunt closures that harm the community. Closing PUSD’s schools, including some of its largest, most integrated, award-winning schools is not the answer to declining enrollment and all other solutions must be exhausted before one more family has to worry about their child’s school being on a highly-subjective list. We cannot give into naysayers who choose, or worse, beckon others down the wrong path toward shrinking our school district down until it’s on life support. The District has already made massive budget cuts, and has a balanced budget moving forward. Enough with terrorizing families who are going to work and church, helping their kids with their homework, or dealing with insurance companies to rebuild their homes. They need PUSD’s leaders to be creative thinkers and instead focus on maximizing use of the current space, attracting new families through innovation, building valuable partnerships, and marketing its amazing schools to the community. Abraham Lincoln said "The best way to predict the future is to create it." With bold leadership, we can create an even brighter future where all our schools are a place where PUSD’s children can learn, thrive, and belong.