Safe and Supportive Schools (SaSS) Commission
January 20, 2016 ~ 10:00am – 1:00pm
Arthur W. Coolidge Middle School, Reading
Minutes
Members Present: Rachelle Engler Bennett and Susan Cole (Co-Chairs), Sara Burd, Kristine
Camacho, Angela Cristiani, John Doherty, Tara Kohler, Anne Silver, Judith Styer
Others Attending/Participating: Laurie Burnett, Cathy Cummins, Kaytie Dowcett, Anne Eisner,
Lisa Harney, Rebecca Shor, Margot Tracy
I. Welcome, approval of Nov. 18 minutes, agenda review, and 2016 meeting schedule




The co-chairs welcomed the members and participating guests, and thanked John Doherty and
Reading staff for hosting the meeting.
The minutes from the November meeting were approved.
The dates of the upcoming meetings were chosen based on the poll Rachelle sent to members. All
meetings, with the exception of the summer retreat, will be held from 10am-1pm. Future meeting
dates are: March 15, May 11, June 15, August 10 (summer retreat), October 5, and November 14.
The agenda was reviewed, and the group was informed that one of the goals for the meeting is to
reach consensus on Items V (the Self-Assessment Tool survey) and VI (brainstorming
lenses/content areas to research for the Framework/Tool content). The co-chairs thanked John,
Sara and Kristine for their help planning the agenda and developing the proposed Work Plan.
II. The 2015 Safe and Supportive Schools Commission report to the legislature

The first annual Safe and Supportive Schools (SaSS) Commission report was officially submitted
in January to the Governor and Legislature, after going through review at the Department of
Elementary and secondary Education (DESE) and incorporating edits that were suggested by
Commission members. A draft of the report was sent to Commission members. The report will be
posted on the DESE website, and will then be an “official” report and available to be shared with
the public.
III. Update on funding (grants, evaluation, conferences)

The 9C cuts that were made by the Governor did not affect the SaSS grants. DESE is now in the
process of reviewing grant applications and determining the awards, although no grantees have
been determined yet. DESE also plans to post an RFR for the evaluation, and that process is
proceeding.
IV. Deliberate and reach consensus on overall 2016 work plan

John, Sara, and Kristine met with the co-chairs twice since the last full Commission meeting to
develop a proposed work plan, which is focused on the strategic objectives of the Commission and
the need for 3 project areas of focus that would undertake meaningful tasks to advance the
Commission’s work on those strategic objectives. Members and participating guests were asked to
consider the plan and whether it provides the opportunity to cover all the work that the
Commission has proposed.
 The highlights of each strategic objective were presented, as described below.
 Strategic Objective One: Framework/Tool Refinement and Information Gathering for
Recommendations.
Group leaders: Sara Burd and Kristine Camacho
Summary of tasks to be addressed:
o survey and interview Self-Assessment Tool users, and analyze results
o explore options for improving tool usability
o identify lenses/content expertise that are needed to update/refine the content of the
Framework/Tool
o identify consultants who can provide content expertise
o develop process to gather information from consulting experts on these topics
o use information gathered to reach consensus with full Commission on recommendations to
Commissioner, ESE, Governor and Legislature
 Strategic Objective Two: Initiative Alignment/Integration.
Group leader: John Doherty
Summary of tasks to be addressed:
o Review School Improvement Plan process and develop models for using the Framework/Tool
to integrate and align initiatives needed for safe and supportive school environments
o Expand landscape document to identify related laws and initiatives re requirements of schools
to inform Commission recommendation re first task, as well as discussions related to Chapter
70 and ESSA (ESEA)
o Collaborate with Workgroup 1 to develop proposals regarding improvements to
Framework/Tool to help schools integrate/align initiatives
o Use information gathered to reach consensus with full Commission on recommendations to
Commissioner, DESE, Governor, and Legislature
 Strategic Objective Three: Funding/Resources/Communication.
Group leader: Angela Cristiani
o Develop proposed plan and timeline for public information/communications campaign
o Draft document that explores ways SaSS can be supported through ESSA (ESEA), and
collaborate with Workgroup 2 on ESSA (ESEA) and Chapter 70 discussions
o Discuss/determine recommendations for funding line item 7061-9612 for FY ‘17 and FY’18
o Explore state and federal funding opportunities for SaSS work
o Use information gathered to reach consensus with full Commission on recommendations to
Commissioner, ESE, Governor, and Legislature
 Discussion:
o The co-chairs and work group leaders will communicate at least once between each full
Commission meeting to help ensure that the work of the three groups is integrated and to
confirm meeting agendas meet workgroup presentation/discussion needs. There will be overlap
in work between all 3 groups.
o Members should consider joining the group whose work they are most interested in; they will
also have the opportunity in full Commission discussions to weigh in on the work of the other
2 areas of focus.
o The issue of the first group having so many deliverables was raised. One way this issue has
been addressed is to assign two co-leaders. While this group may be responsible for developing
o
o
o
o
o
o
the process that will be used to identify and seek feedback from experts on additional content
areas to be added to the Framework/Tool, all commission members will be invited to
participate in interviewing those expert consultants and providing their own expertise.
Rachelle reported on calls she had with members Bill, Andria, and Melissa, who were unable
to attend the meeting, about the work of the Professional Development sub-group. It was
determined that rather than meeting separately, the PD work could best be integrated into the
work on Strategic Objective One.
Melissa volunteered to be the evaluation point person in Group 1, and Bill expressed an
interest in pursuing how collaboratives can be involved in providing PD.
There was discussion about the need for a companion document on the Framework/Tool for
schools that want guidance and training in their use. Such a document might include
overarching principles on PD for SaSS and could include information that tool users identify in
their surveys and interviews about what would have been helpful or needed as they used the
Self-Assessment Tool.
The Educator Effectiveness Guidebook for Inclusive Practice was suggested as a
resource/reference for the Commission to consider. It includes practices such as universal
design and whole school approaches that are consistent with SaSS.
There was discussion about thinking of the Framework as an “integrating Framework.”
The group reached consensus on the work plan as presented, with the understanding that we
would likely need to revisit and evolve some aspects of the tasks and/or timeline.
V. Finalize on-line survey for users of Self-Assessment Tool

Members were invited to make final edits on the most recent draft of the survey designed to
collect feedback from tool users about their interface with the tool to assist the Commission in
identifying and addressing issues related to usability.
o Kristine took notes as members suggested edits re wording, format and length.
o Kristine will consider the many and varied suggestions from the Commission members, confer
with the co-chairs, and using their best judgment, incorporate the necessary edits. She will then
send a final version to Rachelle, who will invite all users of the Tool to participate in the
survey in early February.
o Those who complete the survey will also be invited to participate in a follow-up interview to
gather more specific and detailed feedback.
VI. Brainstorm lenses/content areas to research for improving Framework/Tool content

Members were invited to participate in generating a list of possible content areas to be
considered. A list was circulated which include the initiatives listed in the SaSS statute, as well
as “other important initiatives to consider and add to.”
o Sara suggested to members that they consider the roles they play and who they represent, as a
way to begin thinking about content areas/lenses for content to be added to or edited in the
Framework/Tool.
o Each member was also asked to identify someone who might be a source of expertise for a
particular content area.
o Sara took notes as members made suggestions, and the complete list is reflected in an appendix
at the end of the minutes.

o In response to the discussion about the need to include student voice on the list of content areas
to be added, the question of replacing the students on the Commission was raised, and Rachelle
shared that efforts were underway at DESE to identify new student members and that the
Commission can consider and further discuss multiple ways to get input and feedback from
students on the Commission’s work.
There was discussion about the mechanics of organizing the collecting of feedback from experts in
these content areas. Group 1 plans to draft a protocol for approval by the full Commission which
can be used to solicit feedback. All Commission members are encouraged to share names of
experts they know for the content areas, as well as participate in using the protocol with experts.
Members will be invited to specify whom they would like to interview.
VII. Project Work Groups

After Rachelle reviewed the Timeline for the work plan, members met in Work Groups.
VIII. Reports from Work Groups
 Group One: Framework/Tool refinement and Information Gathering for Recommendations
o Self-assessment Tool:
 Revisions to survey will be sent to the group, then to Rachelle for posting
 Melissa will do data analysis by end of Feb/early Mar
 Doodle poll will be used to find time for the work group to meet in early March to review
results, develop follow-up interview questions and protocol
o Framework:
 Requests time at March Commission meeting to meet again as small group
 Requests time (30 mins) before or after (or within) the March Commission meeting to train
members on protocol to interview content areas experts
 Will develop spreadsheet with content areas, proposed experts, and names of members
interested in interviewing. Will send to full Commission and request additions by end of
Feb.
 Will use work group meeting in early March to prepare for Commission meeting: develop
protocol to be approved at Commission meeting, assign experts to Commission members to
schedule interviews.
 Protocol will use the language of the law related to the purpose of the Framework and the
goal of developing safe and supportive schools; will inquire of experts what are the major
driving principles for their specific content area
 Work group will distill this information gathered from content experts through all the
elements of the Framework, not just one or two
 Work group will research whether there may be an electronic tool that can be used that will
code input/interview notes. (e.g., Survey Gizmo)
 There was discussion about how to share the content of the interviews while staying
aligned with the open meeting law requirements.
 To be added to the March Commission meeting agenda: Group 1will share the list of
content areas and related consultant experts, and the draft protocol for interviewing the
experts to be approved by the Commission
 A time line for the work was proposed, based on the goal of having the text of the
Framework updated by June. There was discussion about separating out the goal of
aligning the initiatives, which might not be completed by June.
 Concern was raised by other commission members that the agenda for Group 1 (if not more) is
overloaded, and it may be too ambitious to think that all of those tasks can be accomplished
within the specified time frame. It was agreed that we will revisit this as needed.
 Group Two: Initiative Alignment/Integration
o School Improvement Plan (SIP)
 Considering use of Action Planning for Success Tool, and using that tool as integrating
piece to support schools’ in the process of developing a SIP
 Looking at that and other models being used in pilot districts
o Review of laws and initiatives governing schools
 Trying to identify what is creating more paperwork and “hoops” than needed
 In process of creating document in collaboration with HLS students that lists all laws
that include requirements for schools
 One example already identified is the School Council law, which leaves out key areas
that need to be included
 Will discuss changes needed for laws and regulations to reflect what needs to be in the
School Improvement Plan (SIP)
o Had brief discussion re Chapter 70 and ESSA (ESEA) but will focus more on these two topics
later
 Group Three: Funding/Resources/Communication
o Plan to have a recommendation for the March meeting related to communication
 Will include language for all to use so there is consistent messaging
 Will work closely with DESE on developing this so it is aligned with them
 Commission members can work through their respective organizations and/or as
individuals
 Goals include educating legislators and connecting stakeholders with schools
o Chapter 70
 Plan to collaborate with Group 2 and facilitate connection with the Foundation Budget
Review Commission when time is right
o ESSA (ESEA)
 Students at HLS are looking at the law and noting potential opportunities to weave in
SaSS
IX. Commission process for making decisions on recommendations

There were several initial ideas proposed about possible recommendations based on discussions
that had occurred earlier in the meeting, including:
o Sharing the Safe and Supportive Schools language with the School Councils
o Clarifying the purpose and how to use the Self-assessment Tool to focus a school’s efforts
and move to a safe and supportive school environment will be important as it is included
in the SIP and other recommendations.


o Considering collapsing the model bullying plan into the SIP
The point was made that different recommendations can be made at different points as the
work unfolds and there is a clearer picture of what needs to be included in the
recommendations
There was agreement on the following proposal for a process the Commission will use to make
decisions on recommendations: After extensive discussion among the full Commission, the
group will aim for consensus. If there is no consensus, a vote will be taken.
The meeting adjourned, with a reminder that the next Commission meeting will be held on March 15
from 10am – 1pm in Worcester (Worcester Public Library, 3 Salem Street, Banx Room).
Appendix: list of lenses/content areas to research for improving Framework/Tool content
BSAS- Substance Use
Bullying
Bus Drivers/ Transportation
CBHI
Collaboratives
CRA- Juvenille Justice
DCF
DDS
DESAC- CSE
DESE and internal units/centers
DMH
Ed Eval
EEC
ELL
Emergency Services
EWIS
Extended Day
Families/ Parents
Fire
Food Services and Nutrition
Gateway cities
Immigration
Implementation Science
Inclusiveness (cultural proficiency/
equity)
Initiative Integration
MTSS
Nurses
Paraprofessionals
PBIS
Physical Health and Well-being
Police
Poverty
Pregnant and young parents
Principals
Reducing Suspension
RTI
Safe and Supportive Schools
Safety Planning
School Counselors/ Guidance
School Discipline/ ELL/ Immigration
School Pscyhologists
School Social Workers
SEL Frameworks
Special Education
SRO
Student
Superintendents
Teachers
Trauma
UDL
Wraparound Zones and Turnaround