Safe and Supportive Schools Commission
Minutes from May 7, 2015
Worcester Public Library 10:00am – 12:00pm
Members Present: Andria Amador, Rachelle Engler Bennett (Co-Chair), Susan Cole (Co-Chair), Kristine
Camcho, Angela Cristiani, Donna M. Brown, Sara Burd, Bill Diehl, John Doherty, Jean Fay, Joe Grochmal,
Ellen Holmes, Katherine Lipper, Melissa Pearrow, Anne Silver, Judith Styer, Richard Whitehead
Others Attending/Participating: Colleen Armstrong, Anne Eisner, Margot Tracy, Shella Dennery, Anne
Gilligan, Lisa Harney
1.
Welcome and Introductions
2. Brief updates
Coordination work group (Strategies for Schools’ Administrative Capacity / Integrating with
Other Requirements) – Update from Superintendent John Doherty
The work group that took on the issue of the coordination necessary to implement the
framework met and determined that it could not continue its work until the Framework was
more fully developed. The group suggested to the larger group that we focus our work there
and begin get on the agendas for our various associations to educate our colleagues on what the
framework is and its benefits. In terms of gathering information for recommendations to the
legislature and governor, the group discussed the importance of hearing the voices from rural as
well as urban and suburban districts, recognizing the varying resources across the state, and the
difficulty of obtaining services in various areas due to distances to CSA’s etc.
Workgroup on Federal Funding Sources -- They discussed the importance of both local funding
and federal funding to implement the framework. Conversations are in progress at the federal
level to inquire about possible available funding sources to support this work.
NOTE: The Workgroups on Improving Access to Services / Family Collaboration and on
Training and PD Recommendations (& Eval. Related Work) met soon after the full meeting and
had robust discussions that can inform upcoming Commission work.
Update on funding for Safe and Supportive Schools grants, conferences, ta. - Angela
Cristiani informed the group that the legislature has been very positive about funding for Safe
and Supportive Schools work. At the time of the meeting the House had put $300,000 in its
proposed budget. (Subsequent to the meeting the Senate put $500,000 in its proposed budget.
The conference committee will reconcile these two numbers, and then it will go to the
Governor).
1
3. Tantasqua: Kristine Camacho presented about Tantasqua’s experience as a Safe and Supportive
Schools grantee regarding the implementation of the BHPS Framework and the way they have
used the tool to improve school culture and response to students behavioral health. Kristine
was very positive about their experience and explained that the funding from the grant went
primarily to pay for teachers to stay after school and that having the time to sit together with
colleagues to use the tool was critical to this process. Tantasqua would have liked the grant to
continue the next year. She stated that they ended up focusing on three areas: professional
development, academic and non academic supports, and policies and procedures. In addition,
throughout the process, they were able to use a small amount of the funding toward
implementation of their PBIS model and for some professional development. Their plan (if
awarded in the future) was to spend the money to focus on the other three areas not addressed
and to reevaluate the three areas that were already addressed to account for improvements
made based on our work.
4. Team Discussions:
a. What Framework areas are strong? What needs development?
Comments from team report outs included the following.
Strengths:



Comprehensive; good overarching themes; helpful action steps. Comprehensive; six
sections well formed; linking academic and non-academic; highlights importance of
leadership;
Raises awareness of the importance of safe and supportive environments; supports that
professional development is crucial to work;
Unifying for the school; this is for ALL students well-being; makes people across
sites/disciplines have conversations.
Areas for Improvement:




Inaccessible to building and district; need tools – roadmap, timeline, tools (mention RTI);
connection between mandates and culture of school; language changes such as
referencing MTSS and no longer CHNS; technology dangers/cyberbullying needs to be
included;
New legislations not yet embedded (Bullying, Chp 222, truancy); no suggestions to find
the time to do this; how does this/how do schools make culture a priority?; how can you
get this to a district/school goal and help teachers incorporate into practice?;
Evaluation tool needs new name (planning tool?); progress monitoring limited; how do
we highlight high leverage pieces? ; can progress monitoring be an opportunity for focus
groups to bring folks to the table?
“Territory” – who owns it; how does this become a priority?; prioritize student
involvement – they have concerns re: drugs and alcohol, intensity, heroin; funding
opportunities for improvement.
2
b. What is best method and timeline
Suggestions included:




5.
Revisit the what not how; use a survey tool to check with schools and their use/need of
this tool; create a Tool Kit to support the framework;
Spending time on the Framework – need to develop/revise this before you can know the
work ahead;
Focus group from districts doing the work to gather lessons learned; ensure cross-group
conversations are ongoing; increase the frequency and length of meetings; making sure
no fragmentation but don’t need large group meeting for all conversations;
Working day/retreat; creating resolutions and review of legislation; setup meetings with
stakeholders; ensuring clear conversations about language – titles, roles, staffing, etc.
Large group discussion
Must make recommendations by end of year; Annual Report due December 2015; Appears
doing Framework revision is critical to determining other directives; Question raised about role
of the groups during this? Need for district/school input; need for student voice, summer seems
best to have working day/retreat. All day format will allow for deep work in the summer; most
participants felt summer work would be most productive. Fall will begin writing of report for
December and winter will be time for consultations.
Next Steps:
1.
Summer Framework development at all-day retreat format. A poll will be sent for setting best
date. Lingering question: how to approach framework as a whole for revision?
2. Suggested Initial Tasks for Working Groups – (NOTE: Susan and/or Rachelle with be in
communication with working group leaders late spring or early summer to confirm next steps).
a. Your initial thoughts on your working group topic – goals and actions to begin to consider
b. Being drafting a list of who the Commission can consult with for your topic (roles or names)
c. Review information from the BHPS Task Force Report as well as the BHPS Self-Assessment
Tool and Framework.
3.
Susan Cole handed out a memo (attached) describing the steps that we look forward to in
writing the very first Commission report to the legislature (due at the end of December). Please
review this memo, which emphasizes that while we need to make progress on making
recommendations to the ESE Board regarding updating the framework, our mandate for the
annual report is to make appropriate recommendations to the legislature. We need a plan for
moving forward the report to the legislature that includes: how we will gather and assess
information needed to make the recommendations; information about how state line-item
funds allotted for safe and supportive schools (if any) will be used by ESE (e.g., grant program,
regional conferences, the website, etc.), and proposals on what the Commission thinks is
needed to fund this work for FY17 (including the grant program), etc.].
3