Irvine's 5th High School

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
New development.  It looks like the IUSD heard a lot of complaints/feedback about the proposed boundary for the 5th high school.

Proposed changes to IUSD?s high school boundaries will be the subject of a special Board of Education Study Session on Tuesday, May 27.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the IUSD District Office, located at 5050 Barranca Parkway.

The revised proposal will be presented to the board for discussion at Tuesday?s Study Session
http://newsflash.iusd.org/2014/05/b...cus-on-proposed-high-school-boundary-changes/
 
It looks like they are only planning to discuss the HS boundaries and not the location of HS#5. Someone is really looking over the obvious. Wherever this new HS is located, it still will have a student population split in half by the SVUSD portion of the MCAS. Laguna Altura is zoned for #5 but on the other side.

I suggest IUSD and SVUSD split the agreed upon land with an east/west boundary (e.g. parallel to Sand Canyon and Alton Parkway) instead of the current north/south line. That way both districts are more compact and don't represent a 12th grade lesson in gerrymandering.

Just a thought, but I'm not running for the Board...yet.
 
Kangen.Irvine said:
It looks like they are only planning to discuss the HS boundaries and not the location of HS#5. Someone is really looking over the obvious. Wherever this new HS is located, it still will have a student population split in half by the SVUSD portion of the MCAS. Laguna Altura is zoned for #5 but on the other side.

I suggest IUSD and SVUSD split the agreed upon land with an east/west boundary (e.g. parallel to Sand Canyon and Alton Parkway) instead of the current north/south line. That way both districts are more compact and don't represent a 12th grade lesson in gerrymandering.

Just a thought, but I'm not running for the Board...yet.

did they propose some SVUSD kids coming over to the school?  I didn't see the map draw a line over on that.  Seems like this HS is supposed to have Stonegate, Laguna, and GP kids. 
 
jmoney74 said:
Kangen.Irvine said:
It looks like they are only planning to discuss the HS boundaries and not the location of HS#5. Someone is really looking over the obvious. Wherever this new HS is located, it still will have a student population split in half by the SVUSD portion of the MCAS. Laguna Altura is zoned for #5 but on the other side.

I suggest IUSD and SVUSD split the agreed upon land with an east/west boundary (e.g. parallel to Sand Canyon and Alton Parkway) instead of the current north/south line. That way both districts are more compact and don't represent a 12th grade lesson in gerrymandering.

Just a thought, but I'm not running for the Board...yet.

did they propose some SVUSD kids coming over to the school?  I didn't see the map draw a line over on that.  Seems like this HS is supposed to have Stonegate, Laguna, and GP kids.

I think Kangen is talking about the Great Park being divided between IUSD and SVUSD.  SVUSD has the chunk in the middle while IUSD gets the northern and southern sections.  The new high school is actually on SVUSD land IIRC.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
jmoney74 said:
Kangen.Irvine said:
It looks like they are only planning to discuss the HS boundaries and not the location of HS#5. Someone is really looking over the obvious. Wherever this new HS is located, it still will have a student population split in half by the SVUSD portion of the MCAS. Laguna Altura is zoned for #5 but on the other side.

I suggest IUSD and SVUSD split the agreed upon land with an east/west boundary (e.g. parallel to Sand Canyon and Alton Parkway) instead of the current north/south line. That way both districts are more compact and don't represent a 12th grade lesson in gerrymandering.

Just a thought, but I'm not running for the Board...yet.

did they propose some SVUSD kids coming over to the school?  I didn't see the map draw a line over on that.  Seems like this HS is supposed to have Stonegate, Laguna, and GP kids.

I think Kangen is talking about the Great Park being divided between IUSD and SVUSD.  SVUSD has the chunk in the middle while IUSD gets the northern and southern sections.  The new high school is actually on SVUSD land IIRC.

they scrapped this idea already since the new HS is going up.
 
jmoney74 said:
Irvinecommuter said:
jmoney74 said:
Kangen.Irvine said:
It looks like they are only planning to discuss the HS boundaries and not the location of HS#5. Someone is really looking over the obvious. Wherever this new HS is located, it still will have a student population split in half by the SVUSD portion of the MCAS. Laguna Altura is zoned for #5 but on the other side.

I suggest IUSD and SVUSD split the agreed upon land with an east/west boundary (e.g. parallel to Sand Canyon and Alton Parkway) instead of the current north/south line. That way both districts are more compact and don't represent a 12th grade lesson in gerrymandering.

Just a thought, but I'm not running for the Board...yet.

did they propose some SVUSD kids coming over to the school?  I didn't see the map draw a line over on that.  Seems like this HS is supposed to have Stonegate, Laguna, and GP kids.

I think Kangen is talking about the Great Park being divided between IUSD and SVUSD.  SVUSD has the chunk in the middle while IUSD gets the northern and southern sections.  The new high school is actually on SVUSD land IIRC.

they scrapped this idea already since the new HS is going up.
The suggestion about the 5th high school being SVUSD was just a ploy.

However, I still think parts of The Great Park (not the 5th high school) are going to be SVUSD (from what I remember).
 
What I don't understand is HS#5 is located in the middle of the Great Park development which will have thousands of homes/residents.  Shouldn't this HS just be zoned for the future Great Park residents?  Or make the cut off on Sand Canyon rather than Jeffrey so that Stonegate East, WE, PS, PP, GP all go to HS#5.  By doing this, there would be a lot less movement of kids. 
 
jmoney74 said:
Irvinecommuter said:
jmoney74 said:
Kangen.Irvine said:
It looks like they are only planning to discuss the HS boundaries and not the location of HS#5. Someone is really looking over the obvious. Wherever this new HS is located, it still will have a student population split in half by the SVUSD portion of the MCAS. Laguna Altura is zoned for #5 but on the other side.

I suggest IUSD and SVUSD split the agreed upon land with an east/west boundary (e.g. parallel to Sand Canyon and Alton Parkway) instead of the current north/south line. That way both districts are more compact and don't represent a 12th grade lesson in gerrymandering.

Just a thought, but I'm not running for the Board...yet.

did they propose some SVUSD kids coming over to the school?  I didn't see the map draw a line over on that.  Seems like this HS is supposed to have Stonegate, Laguna, and GP kids.

I think Kangen is talking about the Great Park being divided between IUSD and SVUSD.  SVUSD has the chunk in the middle while IUSD gets the northern and southern sections.  The new high school is actually on SVUSD land IIRC.

they scrapped this idea already since the new HS is going up.

The original plan still had GP chopped in half between SVUSD and IUSD.  The other proposal was whether to give up all of GP to SVUSD.
 
AA said:
What I don't understand is HS#5 is located in the middle of the Great Park development which will have thousands of homes/residents.  Shouldn't this HS just be zoned for the future Great Park residents?  Or make the cut off on Sand Canyon rather than Jeffrey so that Stonegate East, WE, PS, PP, GP all go to HS#5.  By doing this, there would be a lot less movement of kids.

I think IUSD is planning for another HS soon but this is was the first site to get approved.  I believe there is some discussion that HS no. 6 will be needed about 2-3 years after no. 5 opens.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
jmoney74 said:
Irvinecommuter said:
jmoney74 said:
Kangen.Irvine said:
It looks like they are only planning to discuss the HS boundaries and not the location of HS#5. Someone is really looking over the obvious. Wherever this new HS is located, it still will have a student population split in half by the SVUSD portion of the MCAS. Laguna Altura is zoned for #5 but on the other side.

I suggest IUSD and SVUSD split the agreed upon land with an east/west boundary (e.g. parallel to Sand Canyon and Alton Parkway) instead of the current north/south line. That way both districts are more compact and don't represent a 12th grade lesson in gerrymandering.

Just a thought, but I'm not running for the Board...yet.

did they propose some SVUSD kids coming over to the school?  I didn't see the map draw a line over on that.  Seems like this HS is supposed to have Stonegate, Laguna, and GP kids.

I think Kangen is talking about the Great Park being divided between IUSD and SVUSD.  SVUSD has the chunk in the middle while IUSD gets the northern and southern sections.  The new high school is actually on SVUSD land IIRC.

they scrapped this idea already since the new HS is going up.

The original plan still had GP chopped in half between SVUSD and IUSD.  The other proposal was whether to give up all of GP to SVUSD.

Still not true.  The first plan was always to have all of GP in IUSD.  Then with the 5th HS in limbo.. they wanted to split the GP neighborhoods.  PP and some other neighborhoods would still stay in IUSD land.  Now with the 5th HS imminent, that second plan is all but scrapped. 
 
TCCC is correct.  The GP land was always split between IUSD and SVUSD before there was even a concept of a GP.

 
The very original plan had one of the later GP developments going to SVUSD

Then, the big surprise was that when the HS #5 lines were drawn, it included all of GP in it. As of right now, the plan includes all of GP into HS #5.

Somewhere in the middle, a frustrated councilman at a meeting suggested it be considered maybe some of GP go to SVUSD. Nothing ever happened and IUSD also said it won't happen, but a few on TI ran with it like it was a big official proposal on the table.
 
test said:
TCCC is correct.  The GP land was always split between IUSD and SVUSD before there was even a concept of a GP.

So before anything was ever planned the area was zoned for imaginary people. 
 
jmoney74 said:
test said:
TCCC is correct.  The GP land was always split between IUSD and SVUSD before there was even a concept of a GP.

So before anything was ever planned the area was zoned for imaginary people. 

You must not know how school boundaries work.
 
Back
Top