Pasadena School Board Certifies District as Fiscally Sound, Launches Revised School Consolidation Study

The Pasadena Unified School District Board of Education voted late Thursday night to certify District finances as “positive” and also agreed after a contentious discussion to undertake a long-term study process that could lead to some school closures.

The dual votes, which came during a four-hour meeting brimming with debate and public comment, represent the district’s final acts before the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) decides whether to accept PUSD’s recovery plans or to intervene directly into the district’s management.

The Board approved its First Interim Financial Report, declaring it will meet all financial obligations, and separately passed a heavily amended resolution to begin studying school consolidation—a direct response to county criticism that the district has failed to address its structural deficits.

This two-pronged strategy—projecting fiscal confidence while acknowledging the need for painful structural change—will now be scrutinized by LACOE, which has been monitoring PUSD’s deteriorating finances for months. The county agency will review the report and decide by late December whether the district’s plans are credible enough to stave off intervention.

At the heart of the debate is stark financial reality. The district’s official budget shows a healthy $170.3 million ending balance for the current school year, but this was misleading because a one-time infusion of tens of millions of dollars in state and federal funds to recover from the devastating January Eaton Fire. The district’s own report reveals that without the fire funds, PUSD is running a $21.4 million operating deficit this year alone.

The Board voted nonetheless to approve the “positive” financial certification, a move that rests entirely on the promise that the $30.5 million in total budget reductions approved on Nov. 20 will be successfully implemented. The report’s forward-looking financial projections incorporate these cuts and assume they will be implemented as planned.

The second major vote of the night, on Resolution 2852, was far more contentious. The resolution, which establishes minimum enrollment thresholds for schools, is seen as the first concrete step toward possible campus closures in a district that has lost over 3,000 students in seven years but has closed only one school.

The proposed resolution sets minimums of 300 students for elementary schools, 400 for middle schools, and 900 for high schools, directing the superintendent to monitor under-enrolled schools and provide annual reports to the Board.

After a lengthy and often confusing procedural debate, the Board significantly weakened the resolution. A substitute motion added language making the enrollment targets “subject to further study and revision,” changed the deliverable from a “plan” to a “planning process,” and extended the deadline to the “end of February.”

Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Blanco clarified that by February, she could likely only provide a description of a request for proposals or a process for securing consulting services, not a draft consolidation plan itself.

Board member Michelle Richardson Bailey, who attempted to table the resolution indefinitely, argued that the district needed to focus on reorganizing after the recent cuts.

“This is bigger than you really think it is,” she warned. “It’s bigger than it looks on paper. It’s going to have impacts that are greater than it looks on paper.”

Board member Jennifer Hall Lee also opposed the resolution, saying, “I do not like the idea of giving our superintendent who we’ve just set goals for… more work.” Hall Lee ultimately voted against the resolution, saying “I will not support it.”

The amended resolution ultimately passed, though not unanimously, with the student board member abstaining.

The final version directs the superintendent to bring forward recommendations for school closures no later than October 2026.

In an October, 2025 meeting, county officials used stark language to convey their impatience, “imploring” the board to act and warning that “the clock is ticking.” They repeatedly stressed the need for PUSD to begin “doing business differently.”

After the Board’s votes Thursday night, the First Interim Report will be sent to LACOE. By late December, the county will render its verdict. It can accept the district’s “positive” certification, giving the Board more time to implement its plan. Or it can override the certification to “qualified” or “negative,” moves that could trigger the assignment of a fiscal expert in January and begin the process of stripping the locally elected board of its authority.