Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents tell board of alleged boundary violations at Marengo Elementary and question district response
Summary
Family members told the South Pasadena Unified Board of Education Aug. 12 that a child identified in public comment as Hope reported repeated boundary violations by a peer at Marengo Elementary and expressed concern about the district’s investigation and response.
Several family members addressed the board Aug. 12 about their concerns over how South Pasadena Unified responded to disclosures from a child they identified as Hope about repeated boundary violations at Marengo Elementary.
Jack Donovan, who described his family’s long community involvement, and Megan Kaiser, who read an interview with the child and a district psychologist’s summary, said district staff concluded the alleged incidents were unsubstantiated but that the child repeatedly reported the same peer “showed her his private parts.” Kaiser read passages from a May 29, 2024 interview with a principal and a psychologist, saying the child reported the behavior to multiple adults and that a psychologist concluded the peer’s conduct included “repeated boundary violations, coercion, social isolation, and persistent monitoring.”
Kaiser said the district offered an interdistrict transfer in October 2024 at the family’s request and noted the district informed them that after the transfer the child no longer maintained priority to attend Marengo. Kaiser also read language from a district email stating the district does not agree with the family’s contentions.
At the meeting the family urged the board to review the district’s handling of the disclosures and the investigative process. They said the child had been encouraged to attend a different school but was isolated there and missed friends at Marengo.
The board did not take action during the public comment period. Separately, during the closed session the board later reported a public‑record vote to approve a readmission under the terms of a previously approved stipulated expulsion agreement for student ID number 15876; the transcript does not link that student‑ID to the family who spoke in public comment and the board did not state a connection in open session.
The parents’ remarks included references to relevant law: Kaiser read a passage invoking the California Penal Code’s definition of sexual harassment and argued that children at the ages described cannot consent. The district’s formal position — as read by Kaiser from district correspondence — was that the matter had been investigated and that the principal had found the allegations unsubstantiated.
The board did not comment substantively on the allegations during the public comment period; several members later offered general welcomes to the new school year and praised staff prior to routine business.
