Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grandmother and father tell board Serrano Middle School failed to stop repeated bullying; family reports improvement after transfer
Summary
Two public commenters told the board their children were repeatedly bullied at Serrano Middle School, including one reported assault that caused a concussion; the family transferred students to Shannon Hills and said outcomes improved. The board later approved expulsions in closed session; no student names or case details were released in open session.
A grandmother and the father of a student told the San Bernardino City Unified board that Serrano Middle School did not protect their child from repeated bullying and assaults, and that the family transferred three grandchildren to another district middle school where, they said, the children are now thriving.
At public comment, Elizabeth Ramirez said she brought incidents to school staff repeatedly and that despite assurances her grandson “was not safe” at Serrano. Ramirez described a series of incidents culminating in an assault that left the child with a head concussion: “Not once did he feel protected… One time he was assaulted so badly that he got a head concussion,” she told the board. Ramirez said the family provided names and evidence to school staff and human resources but felt the staff did not adequately intervene; she said the family moved the children to Shannon Hills Middle School, where the grandchildren are “thriving.”
Later in the public‑comment period, Gustavo Meantiago spoke in continuation of Ramirez’s remarks. He thanked two officers and district staff who he said helped review evidence and intervene, and said his son made county honor‑band despite the disruption. He also urged the board to examine Serrano’s campus climate and staffing; he suggested additional campus cameras and described visible differences at the receiving school, Shannon Hills.
Board members thanked the speakers for coming forward; because the matters were partly the subject of closed‑session discipline, the board did not offer a public adjudication of the family’s claims during open session. The board later reported several actions from closed session: it approved expulsions and other disciplinary recommendations and accepted notices of recommended disciplinary action for a classified employee; meeting minutes show the board adopted those items in accordance with applicable education code provisions but did not disclose student names in open session.
What happened next: district officials said staff would follow established procedures for discipline and for any required follow‑up to public comment. The board did not vote on any immediate remedial policy changes during open session; members asked staff for more information on attendance, safety monitoring and root‑cause analysis in connection with chronic absenteeism trends.
Why it matters: the comments tied local safety and disciplinary practice to broader district indicators — including chronic absenteeism and suspension rates — and thrust a specific campus climate concern into the board’s follow‑up agenda.
