SIMBY Schools In My Backyard

Events

March 31, 2003. SIMBY supporters attend the TUSD School Board meeting to voice their opinion on topics such as next years budget and classroom size.

November 22, 2002. Jonathan Abelove and Lynn Davis win the TUSD School Board election.

October 12, 2002. Aaron Morris campaign mixer and supporters met in Tustin Ranch.

October 11, 2002. SIMBY supporters attend the Ground Breaking event for the Arnold O. Beckman High School. In attendance was Pat Beckman, daughter of inventor and philanthropist Arnold Beckman.
View Ground Breaking event photos

September 29, 2002. SIMBY CONVENTION 2002 was held to select our endorsed candidates for TUSD School Board election and to finalize the SIMBY platform.

September 22, 2002. SIMBY second TUSD School Board candidate session was held. The candidates interviewed included the current TUSD School Board President, Jonathan Abelove and Aaron Morris.

September 15, 2002. SIMBY interviews candidates for the TUSD School Board. We met with Casey Beneville, Larry Pomatto and Lynn Davis.

Articles

O.C. Register
  October 11, 2002 "Long-delayed school breaks ground"

Irvine World News
  October 10, 2002 "Beckman High School will serve Irvine Kids"

Irvine World News
  October 10, 2002 "Political Notebook"

Tustin News
  August 22, 2002 "District gets money for Beckman School"

O.C. Register
  July 22, 2002 "New Tustin High School Gets Green Light From Board"

SIMBY
  "SIMBY Background Information on School Construction Delay"

Tustin Unified School District Web Site
  2002 "TUSD Delay's Opening of Hicks Canyon and Beckman Schools"

Irvine World News
  July 4, 2002 "Parents Pressing Irvine Company to Help Build High School"

O.C. Register
  July 2, 2002 "Parents Rally for Schools"

Irvine World News
  April 25, 2002 "Irvine Parents Question Tustin District's Ability to Provide Schools"

Los Angeles Times
  April 22, 2002 "4,000 Homes, No Schools in Sight"

Issues Facing TUSD 5/4/04:

1) Beckman High:
Is scheduled to open next fall with a full schedule for all incoming Freshman and Sophomores. The board majority (Ann Albertson, Francine Scinto and Tammie Bullard) voted to remove a large population of poor Latino students from the Foothill boundary and bus them to Beckman High. The Foothill Latino residents from the "triangle area" around Lyon Street did not want their neighborhood to be moved and a large crowd of parents carrying signs as seen in the "OC Register", objected in person at the school board meeting.

To say this was a controversial decision is an understatement. It is very difficult for many members of the community to accept that the selection of this specific demographic of student is completely coincidental.

At the very least, the Boundary decision was totally inconsistent. Either the board agrees we will have busing in which case, it should be done equitably. Or the board agrees that there should be "Neighborhood Schools", in which case there should be no busing. Another alternative is that the board could have voted for a boundary plan that includes an Open Enrollment zone which is what SIMBY advocates. The vote cast did not apply one clear philosophy to all three High Schools fairly.

Most parents understand that the so called "Neighborhood School" concept would have the impact of routing the majority of economically disadvantaged Latino students in our district into one high school, Tustin High. Advocates of this concept would probably not dispute the demographic outcome but rather what it means. The "neighborhood school" map would result in the defacto segregation of our High Schools. A boundary that promotes extreme disparity between high schools in our community in terms of educational opportunity is not in the interest of any students in our district. It is disappointing that some members of the school board and the community continue to lobby for a boundary policy that would result in that outcome.

We continue to promote the "Open Enrollment" zone idea along with the contiguous map as proposed by Jonathan Abelove and are pleased that all High Schools can accommodate transfer requests next year. More information on the solution we backed for the boundary can be found on this site. An enormous amount of work went into developing this proposal and we thank all those individuals that put it together.

2) Hicks Elementary:
Is scheduled to open next fall and will relieve the severe overcrowding at Myford Elementary. This is wonderful news to all residents in West Irvine. No decision has been made as yet regarding the middle school portion of Hicks as the original plan called for a K through 8 school at that site. Perhaps the new development planned North of Portola will impact decisions relating to middle school projections. The elementary school originally slated for Northpark Square appears dead. It looks like the numbers don't support two elementary schools and that students from Northpark Square can be accommodated at Hicks.

3) Tustin Unified and Irvine Unified Boundary Cooperation:
As reported in the Irvine World News, TUSD and Irvine Unified are discussing boundary issues as the North of Portola plan unfolds and Beckman opens. At this time, Irvine allows students to transfer to TUSD but Tustin does not allow students to transfer out to IUSD. TUSD does accept transfers in after all Intra-District requests have been filled. Also, the boundary plan for North of Portola merits review as it runs through streets and neighborhoods in a random fashion. Hopefully, the two parties can come up with something reasonable. Most parents support the school district respecting their choice when it comes to transfer issues and would like TUSD to approve transfers out of the district.

4) Middle School Projections:
At this time there is a plan to add a wing to Pioneer middle school. This will boost the capacity by 150 to 200 students. At this time, the district believes this creates enough space for the kids projected for the entire district.

5) Mello Roos Funding Issues:
During the last election, one candidate, Lynn Davis wisely suggested that the community should be provided a complete accounting of how both Mello Roos District funds were spent. We will attempt to get the numbers expenditures from the district and make them public on this site.

6) Bridging the Gaps:
How does the district plan to bring our under-performing students up to speed? There are a large population of kids that are struggling within our community. What exactly does TUSD plan to do to get these kids extra help? An extra year, longer days, tutoring, teacher training, parent involvement? We would like to see a detailed and funded plan to increase the achievement of the students throughout our district. It is not enough to pat ourselves on the back. There are fine teachers and administrators throughout TUSD but it is time we acknowledged the challenges we face and craft plans to solve them. We could do more.

If you think any of this information is factually incorrect, please email lyann@simby.org and I'll research the issue and change it. We try to ensure the accuracy of the information but it is certainly possible that something is wrong. If you don't approve of the opinions expressed here, please do email your objections. We are interested in your feedback. Forward any items that you would like to contribute and we will post them upon review by our web committee. Also, we are willing to link to other sites providing useful information.

Lyann Collins

Status Update on Boundary Decision - Report on 1/26 TUSD School Board Meeting:

The boundary decision will stand and members of this school board will attempt to say it does not involve forced busing. The boundary decision was indeed a vote for "Forced Busing". The Open Enrollment Figures for next year show that choice can work and it looks like next year all students in the district will be able to attend the school of their choice. So technically, there is no "Forced Busing" next year. However, if you are the parent of a 7th grader at Currie Middle School now, when it is time for your kid to attend High School, unless your transfer request is granted, you will be forcibly bused from your neighborhood on Lyon Street to Beckman. The district did a great job of promoting the Open Enrollment Period and marketing Beckman. An Educational Choice Zone model works.

Dr. Gorman took on Neighborhoods United in the Tustin News but he is just doing his job as directed by this board. He continues to be the best asset this district has.

There is a disconnect between the rhetoric of some board members and the vote they cast. Ann Albertson and Francine Scinto have publicly said they like neighborhood schools and oppose busing. However, they didn't vote that way. No attempt to remedy the situation or address the public outrage was made by any of the board members that voted for the boundary.

Jonathan Abelove and Lynn Davis did advance the Educational Choice Plan which addressed some of the most heinous aspects of the decision reached by the board. This plan eliminated forced busing and created contiguous boundaries. Unfortunately, none of the ladies that voted for boundary decision supported it. As voters we have to hold our elective officials accountable for what they do, not what they say.

Neighborhoods United took serious criticism from the board regarding the veracity of their information by the same board member they have publicly applauded, Ann Albertson. It looks like our area was effectively divided by the board members that made the decision and it is now clear, we have been punked. We don't agree with some of the ideas of the NU group and they don't agree with SIMBY's. However, we do have a couple things in common and one of them is our opposition to forced busing to Beckman. In other words, we disagree with the Boundary Decision for different reasons but we all disagree.

The district needs about $531K per grade to keep CSR in place. Next year we are looking at a $5 Million shortfall if Arnold's bond passes. More than ever, our district will be dependent on private sources of funding. We have yet to meet anyone from the Mello Roos area or Lyon Street satisfied with the boundary decision. Outraged and disappointed parents are not at their most generous. Groups like the Tustin Public Schools Foundation, T.E.A.C.H. and local PTOs will suffer as a result of the climate.

We need to hold our elected officials accountable.

-Lyann Collins

p.s. Please continue to support the Tustin Public Schools Foundation, T.E.A.C.H. and your local PTO in spite of your anger. Otherwise, our kids will suffer. Thanks!

At the TUSD Board Meeting on November 17, a Map was presented by Jonathan Abelove as an alternative to the existing boundary decision. The "Educational Choice Map" as seen below, extends the boundary of Beckman High out from the school and creates an Educational Choice Zone in the central part of the district.

The Board voted to table discussion on this item until the district Open Enrollment data is in, which will occur in December. Francine Scinto and Ann Albertson both expressed support for a Map C outcome. Lynn Davis and Jonathan Abelove both seemed supportive of the Educational Choice Zone Map. Tammie Bullard seems to favor the existing decision.

Many parents from the Mello Roos areas and the Lyon Street community expressed frustration with the existing boundary plan. Parents and students are generally not happy with the concept of Forced Busing in Tustin.

What now? Write, email and call your board members. Let them know you are unhappy with the present boundary plan and support the Map below. At this point, the practical solution may not be whatever map you personally think is optimal, but rather which map can our community find three votes for.

Time is not on our side. Spread the word . . .

Western Section Map B Layer 3 (modified)

Projected High School Enrollments

Adopted Map
	03	04	05	06	07
Foothill	2,488	2,105	1,969	1,819	1,895
Tustin	2,194	2,043	1,980	1,948	1,964
Beckman	0	903	1,413	1,867	2,037
Open Area	0	0	0	0	0
Total	4,681	5,050	5,362	5,635	5,896

Open Enrollment Area Map (Grade Progression)
	03	04	05	06	07
Foothill	2,488	2,023	1,847	1,662	1,734
Tustin	2,194	1,718	1,490	1,301	1,303
Beckman	0	767	1,179	1,569	1,689
Open Area	0	542	846	1,103	1,170
Total	4,681	5,050	5,362	5,635	5,896

Open Enrollment Area Map (All Grades)
	03	04	05	06	07
Foothill	2,488	1,687	1,689	1,662	1,734
Tustin	2,194	1,649	1,459	1,301	1,303
Beckman	0	767	1,179	1,569	1,689
Open Area	0	947	1,035	1,103	1,170
Total	4,681	5,050	5,362	5,635	5,896

OPEN ENROLLEMENT AREA (Map Yellow Section)

1. Provides parental choice as opposed to forced busing.

2. Ensures adequate enrollment numbers at all three high schools with minimal effort
    from the Tustin School District staff.

How does this new map differ from the map currently adopted by the TUSD?

This map differs in two ways:

1. The boundaries of Beckman High School are extended to include the area south of the 5 Freeway,
    North of Walnut, East of Red Hill and West of the eastern most edge of the city.

2. An Open Enrollment area has been added. This area is bounded by Newport Ave to the East,
    Irvine Blvd to the North, McFadden to the South and the Western most boundry of the Tustin School
    District (see Yellow Section).

What can you do?

1. Please send daily e-mails to the TUSD Board members, telling them that you support
    the new map at - board@tustin.k12.ca.us

2. Tell 10 friends about this issue and get them involved!

3. Check our website daily for updates at www.simby.org

IT'S YOUR COMMUNITY HOW TO GET INVOLVED AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE SIMBY still needs more neighbors to become active in order to make certain our concerns our heard and acted on. Here's how to be involved and heard!
1.	Watch www.SIMBY.org for updates and further information.
2.	Support an equitable fair share attendance across our 3 high schools.
3.	Voice your issues and opinions by eMail or phone 714-730-6763.

An Open Letter to Mr. Donald Bren

July 22, 2002

Donald Bren
Irvine Co.
550 Irvine Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA

Dear Mr. Bren:

SIMBY is a group of concerned parents trying to advance the construction of neighborhood schools in our Irvine Company Planned Community. We recently met with a team of The Irvine Company executives at your headquarters in Newport Beach regarding the construction delay of Beckman High. We assume you are familiar with the details of the situation, but just in case, have attached a detailed summary. SIMBY appreciates the willingness of your company to answer our questions and hear our concerns.

However, to say we are disappointed with your firm's position is an understatement.

The Irvine Company has built about 14,000 homes in the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) so far, and to date, not one additional high school has been constructed as a result of funding shortfalls. One result of your development is severe overcrowding on the high school level. Forty portable classrooms at Tustin High and Foothill High are just not acceptable, and less than the whole high school we were led to expect would be built is unacceptable. If the shortfall continues, TUSD will be forced to eliminate some of the proposed facilities for Beckman High for the foreseeable future. Mr. Bren, which facilities of the new school do you suggest is unimportant for education? The science wing? The computer labs? Perhaps the gym?

During our meeting with Mr. LeBlanc, Ms. Schroeder, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Connelly and Ms. Justice it was clear that The Irvine Company doesn't understand why you would help deliver the school you marketed to us, "state of the art" Beckman High School. It was the collective wisdom of The Irvine Company that they have no legal liability. While it may be clear to The Irvine Company that they have no legal liability it is not clear to SIMBY. Certainly, The Irvine Company has been the largest beneficiary of the misleading literature/signage and therefore at the very least owes a moral obligation to make sure Beckman High is delivered as represented long after you knew it was on hold.

Why wouldn't The Irvine Company take the lead and guarantee a $15 million loan to TUSD? It is the right thing to do for the children of Tustin, for the people who bought in your development and counted on you to the deliver the product you promised us in glossy brochures, because it won't cost your company a nickel if the bond passes and because we all moved here with the expectation you were a world class company and we could depend on you.

Some of your folks suggested this is much ado about nothing . . . the bond vote is coming up and all will be resolved in November . . . if not, SIMBY can start complaining then. This is to a large degree an issue of timing. Please note that our group has been patiently waiting on the sidelines monitoring the TUSD/TIC negotiations since last August. We are out of time; the new building as planned has to begin to be constructed now in order to be open in 2004. Again, if your people are correct and the bond passes, then your guarantee will NEVER be called and instead of being compared to a strip miner we could honestly say that your reputation as a reputable company is deserved.

If The Irvine Company would agree to loan the district the projected shortfall in the event the bond doesn't pass with a line of credit against future developer fees, the school could be constructed in full at the lowest price in the shortest amount of time. No one is asking for any handouts here; given your team's confidence in the bond passing, this shouldn't cost The Irvine Company any money at all and the problem would be solved. Why wouldn't you do that?

SIMBY is disappointed that The Irvine Company is unwilling to help mitigate the negative impact of its development on our kids. Frankly, when this started we all had a good impression of your company and have been surprised by The Irvine Company position. We really hope you re-evaluate it in the future. Those of us that bought our homes in The Irvine Company Development expected a different corporate philosophy than the one we heard on July sixteenth.

As a result of your firm's position on this matter, we will lobby our elected officials to hold The Irvine Company accountable for the impact of your development on our school system through any means necessary, including increasing the developer fees to a Level II status. We will continue to express our sincere disappointment as Irvine Company customers to anyone who will listen, including prospective homebuyers, and, if there is no progress, we will employ ALL legal methods available to us.

Choosing a new home for one's family is huge vote of confidence in the developer. As concerned parents, it seems to us our trust was betrayed. We remain available for further substantive discussions should The Irvine Company ever figure out why a timely solution to this problem is important.

SIMBY