Safe and Supportive Schools Commission
Summer Retreat at Harvard Law School, Cambridge
July 22, 2015 – 10:00am-3:30pm
Minutes
Members Present: Rachelle Engler Bennett (Co-Chair), Susan Cole (Co-Chair), Donna M. Brown,
Sara Burd, Bill Diehl, John Doherty, Katherine Lipper, Anne Silver, Judith Styer
Others Attending/Participating: Colleen Armstrong, Shawn Connelly, Cathy Cummins, Shella
Dennery, Anne Eisner, Anne Gilligan, Anne Berry Goodfellow, Michael Gregory, Lisa Harney, Joe
Ristuccia, Rebecca Shor, Margot Tracy
I.
Welcome and Agenda Overview



II.
Commission members were welcomed by both Co-Chairs, and Susan (Cole) shared
an overview of the day’s agenda.
Safe and Supportive Schools Line Item – Susan then shared with the Commission the
7061-9612 Line Item language for Safe and Supportive Schools that was signed by
Gov. Baker (see the orange sheet in Retreat Packet). This line item was funded at
$500,000 to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) for
fiscal year 2015-2016 (FY16), with a minimum of $400,000 to be used for Safe and
Supportive Schools Grants and up to $100,000 for DESE to use on technical
assistance, conferences (which grantees shall attend), an evaluation of the grant
program, and work related to the safe and supportive schools framework and tool
[per M.G.L. Ch. 69, S.1P (f)]. This funding is a major victory for Safe and Supportive
Schools and represents an important opportunity for the Commission’s work to have
a significant impact across the Commonwealth.
The Retreat Packets also contained minutes (all in goldenrod): from the Commission
Meeting on May 7, 2015, as well as from two small group meetings (the Access to
Services/Collaboration with Families small group and the Professional Development
small group). Additionally, the packets contained an updated Safe and Supportive
Schools Commission Member Contact List (attached to these minutes).
Diving Deeper into the Safe and Supportive Schools Framework and Self-Assessment Tool
In order for the Commission to propose improvements to what will become the Safe
and Supportive Schools Framework and Self-Assessment Tool (currently called the
Behavioral Health and Public Schools Framework and Self-Assessment Tool), it is first
critical for each member to understand what the Framework and Tool are and how they
work. Therefore, during this part of the retreat, Commission members divided up and
worked in three small groups to gain first-hand working knowledge of the Framework
and Self-Assessment Tool.
1
Superintendent John Doherty distributed a fictional (but realistic) scenario describing a
regional school in Western MA (see light blue sheet in the Retreat Packet). Using the
information and data about this school as described in the scenario, the three small
groups each proceeded to complete the online Self-Assessment Tool as if they were a
team of educators at this fictitious school. The goal was to use the tool to generate a
set of recommendations about what the school should do to solve some of the
problems identified in the scenario.
In the process of working through the scenario, groups were also instructed to keep
track (on post-it notes) of thoughts and suggestions for how to improve both the
content and the usability of the Framework and the Tool. (These thoughts and
suggestions formed the basis of further small group discussions later in the day, and are
on an attachment to these minutes.)
Prior to separating into groups, Joe Ristuccia offered some important perspectives on
the Self-Assessment Tool based on his work with dozens of schools as they have
completed it:


III.
Prior to beginning completion of the tool, it is very useful for school-based teams to
start by having a conversation about the urgencies and priority needs in their school
and then to keep these urgencies in mind while they fill out the tool.
There are two main aspects to the Self-Assessment Tool. There is a diagnostic
function and there is an implementation function. It is important for the
Commission to figure out how the tool can be optimally designed to help schools
with both of these functions without confusing the two functions.
Proposed Additions/Edits to the Framework and/or Self-Assessment Tool
After the morning small group discussions, all participants gathered together in the
main room to add post-it notes containing ideas and questions about improving the
Framework and Self-Assessment Tool to flip chart paper on the walls. Beginning
categories were offered as a starting place, and participants were asked to add and
arrange/rearrange the notes into clusters with added or edited category names along
the way. The group ended up with four main themes: 1) Overarching Comments; 2)
Content of the Framework/Tool; 3) Updating the Framework/Tool to Reflect Current
Legislation/Requirements/Initiatives; and 4) Usability of the Tool (Mechanics as well as
Guides/Resources). After each theme was discussed briefly in the large group, all in the
room were given three stickers (green, blue, and yellow) and were asked to place the
stickers on their three top choices (themes or ideas) they would be most interested in
contributing to discussions on during the next segment of the agenda.
Then, participants divided into four small groups (one for each of the four themes
above) according to their choice. Each group took the piece of flip chart paper for its
theme, with all of the post-it notes attached. In their small groups, each tried to
organize the ideas and questions represented on the post-its, and then choose one or
2
more from the list for which to begin to brainstorm more concrete and specific
suggestions.
(See the attached document “Flip-Chart Notes on Suggested Tool Improvements”)
IV.
Large Group Discussion
Each of the four small groups reported back to the full Commission and shared some of
their thoughts, questions, and proposed ideas for moving forward.
Group 1 – Overarching Comments
This group reported that it found it more helpful to address the ideas generated in this
category by framing questions for the whole Commission to be thinking through. Here
are some of the questions posed by the group:
o Can we more clearly describe what the purpose of the self-assessment tool is?
o Is it an assessment tool? A planning tool? Both?
o What is the theory of change underlying the tool?
 In approaching these questions it is good to go back to the law and see what it says
as a jumping off point for discussion. (NOTE: See Next Steps attachment for some
helpful references to the law.)
 In defining the purpose of the tool, it is important that the Commission grasp
opportunities to connect this tool/initiative to other tools/initiatives that are out
there or being developed. The small group feels strongly that we don’t want work
on safe and supportive schools to be siloed away from the rest of the work that
happens in schools. We should be asking ourselves, “How, in the field, are educators
more likely to incorporate this tool into their overall school improvement planning,
rather than seeing it as something separate from that?”
 It would be very helpful to develop some kind of visual representation of all the
efforts at DESE and/or other state agencies that depicts all the similar work going on.
This will help us see visually how the Commission can align with or connect to all of
the other efforts.
 Timing – How does the need to rework the tool line up with the Safe and Supportive
Schools grants going out this fall? How do we coordinate the timing of these things?
Should there be waves of improvements? Some quick ones for the next grantees,
and then get their input for a second wave of improvements later? (This led to a
discussion about the RFP process for the next round of grants that is summarized in
the “Grant Program” section below.)
Group 2 – Improved Content
 This small group chose to discuss the content area of “crisis management” as an
area that is inadequately addressed in the current version of the tool. It decided to
look at each of the six operational elements of the Framework/Tool and think about
what would need to change or be added in order to weave in crisis management.
3




The group discovered that by changing just a few words here and there they could
have an enormous positive effect on the tool.
One of the things the group discovered was how important it was to separate out
multiple concepts in each question. For example, one question in the tool asks
about both “crisis plans” and “safety plans.” These are not the same thing and they
need to be disaggregated. Once you disaggregate this in one place, you realize it has
implications and ripple effects for all the other areas of the tool.
The group also discovered that “crisis management” was an area that cut through all
six elements of the Framework. In other words, for a school to work on its crisis
management it would need to take actions in each of the six areas of the Framework
and the tool is helpful for facilitating this type of planning.
The group thought that there is a huge potential for the tool to include links to other
resources/guides so that folks can go deeper on topics that they identify as priorities
for action. For example, Boston Children’s Hospital has a webpage with all kinds of
examples of different types of safety plans, and the tool could link to this page.
(After the retreat, Shella Dennery provided a link to this webpage for future
reference: http://www.childrenshospital.org/centers-and-services/programs/a-_e/boston-childrens-hospital-neighborhood-partnerships-program/resources.)
Group 3 – Updating the Framework/Tool to Reflect Current Legislation/Initiatives
 This group struggled with the fact that every person’s definition of key terms (e.g.,
Social Emotional Learning) is different. The same is true of Safe and Supportive
Schools. So it is really important that the definition of safe and supportive schools in
the law is clarified so that everyone knows what we are talking about and that this
work is inclusive of other relevant initiatives.
 Our goal in drafting a working definition should be to find the clearest and most
accessible and flexible way of aligning all of the legislation, mandates, requirements,
and initiatives so that ideally regardless of who you are it means the same thing to
everyone and everyone can jump into the work from wherever they are.
 This group’s discussion was closely linked to that of the Overarching Comments
small group. If we can get clarity on the first group’s question about the purpose of
the tool, then we can figure out how to make the tool responsive to all the
initiatives.
 It would be helpful if there were some kind of “crosswalk” between all the laws,
regulations, and initiatives so we can see how they all overlap and relate to each other.
 Next Step – The group proposed that there be some kind of subcommittee to look at
everything out there that connects to or overlaps with Safe and Supportive Schools
to try to digest and summarize the landscape. It is important to look not just at
legislation, but also at initiatives or trends in the field as well.
 A member expressed the view that we can’t just align initiatives, we have to do
better than that. We need to cut the duplication, streamline, integrate... So far it
feels like we have only been looking at the relationships between initiatives in a twodimensional way; instead, we need to be looking at them in a three-dimensional
way.
4

Another member suggested that the RFP for the grants include as a criterion a
question about how the school’s proposed effort will be streamlined with or
integrated into what is already going on at the school rather than be implemented
as a siloed off initiative. (Again, see also the discussion of the Grant Program below.)
Group 4 – Usability of the Tool
 This group reported that the post-it notes on its flip chart ranged from very concrete
recommendations about how to improve the tool to much larger suggestions or
questions about the tool’s purpose and overall structure. The group looked at all of
the post-it notes and tried to discern the categories they clustered in to, and the
group reported out an overview of the categories it came up with (but did not go
into detail about every single recommendation on the post-it notes). The categories
they noted are outlined below (Answer Options; Structure of the Tool; Simplify the
Tool/Action Steps/Improved Navigation; Data; Resources; and TA/Guidance).
 Answer Options - One of the concrete recommendations was that we reconsider the
answer choice options for each of the assessment items in the tool. As one example,
there is no “we are not doing this at all” answer choice, which results in a lot of
wasted energy figuring out what answer to pick if a school is not currently engaged
in an assessment item.
 Structure of the Tool – There were several suggestions about how to improve the
structure of the tool. One of these that generated a great deal of consensus is that
the “assessment” function of the tool and the “planning” function of the tool need
to be disaggregated from each other. The current tool asks schools to prioritize each
individual item for action as they go through the tool when it makes much more
sense for a school to complete the full assessment first before making choices about
what to prioritize. (One group member developed a diagram to represent visually
how the tool might work, and the group found this diagram helpful. See the diagram
attached to the minutes.)
 Simplify the Tool / Action Steps / Improved Navigation – There were many
suggestions about simplifying the tool visually. Consensus was that the current
version of the tool is very cluttered visually and this contributes to it feeling
overwhelming to educators. In addition, the assessment items (the name of which
should be changed from “action steps”) should be simplified by disaggregating
multiple concepts in the same item.
 Recommendation – The group strongly recommends that DESE engage an expert in
tool design and self-assessment science to help with the structure and visual design
of the tool. There are people who know how to do this well, and we shouldn’t waste
our energy trying to become experts in tool design (to make specific
recommendations about this) when there are already experts out there (who would
know better what to do and how to do it). It is understood that this kind of expertise
and work would likely entail some cost.
 Data – One of the great things about the tool is that it generates a lot of data, both
at the individual school level and at the aggregate district and statewide levels.
However, it is not necessarily clear what data will be the most helpful at each of
5


these levels and, particularly at the school level, it isn’t clear how to actually use the
data once a team has completed the tool. The Commission should get feedback on
which data is most helpful at each level and then make sure there is guidance for
users on what to do with the data. Also, members of this group felt the tool should
generate visual representations of the data that are easy to analyze and understand,
like a data “dashboard” or the like.
Resources – There was a strong consensus that the tool should link users to helpful
resources and information and there were many suggestions for specific resources
to include. The group thought that the best place to link to resources is in the
“planning” portion of the tool, that schools would use after doing the assessment
and choosing their priorities for action.
Guidance – There was essentially unanimous consensus that the online tool needs
to include more guidance to users about what it is, the theory of change behind it,
and how to use it. There should also be guidance about how to use the data, as
mentioned above. There was also consensus that the form and content of this
guidance will need to flow from decisions that are made about the purpose of the
tool and its revised content.
Safe and Supportive Schools Grant Program
 Woven throughout the “report-backs” from the small groups was discussion about
the Safe and Supportive Schools Grant Program and the relationship between the
new round of grantees and the revision of the Framework and Self-Assessment Tool.
A summary of that discussion is included here.
 DESE reported that the goal is to get the RFP for the grant program out as quickly as
possible. The tentative plan is that the grants (as in prior years) will continue to be
in the amount of $10,000, which would fund 40 schools. There was discussion about
timing, and that it would be very difficult to do a complete revision of the tool and
make it available before the next round (2015-2016) of grantees are named and
begin their work, so this year’s grantees are likely to use the current version of the
tool. However, the new RFP is expected to include a requirement that grantees will
provide feedback on the tool as part of the evaluation process, which can inform
recommendations for improvements.
 Many Commission members expressed the desire to see and give feedback to DESE
on the RFP. DESE staff will look into what may be possible to do without comprising
the eligibility of any potential applicants.
 There was a question about whether collaboratives can apply for grants. DESE
answered that, while collaboratives cannot serve as the fiscal agent for the grants
based on the line-item language that will fund the grants, they could participate
through supporting a consortium of their districts to apply for grants.
 The recommendation was made and strongly supported that DESE provide T/A to
prospective grantees to generate interest and also help them understand the
purpose of the grant, the tool, and the action planning process. Forms of T/A could
include webinars, bidders’ conferences, etc.
6



V.
A question was also raised about the evaluation of the grant program, which is
provided for in the FY16 line item. A comment was made that it would be helpful for
the Commission to figure out – before the RFPs go out and the grants are awarded –
what information we want to be getting back from grantees at the end of the year;
that it would be helpful for grantees to know what to expect and, if we want any
“pre” and “post” comparisons, to decide what information to collect on the front
end.
The point was also made that, even though we should plan what data and
information we will want to gather from all grantees, we also need to recognize
there is some unpredictability because the grant program is also about helping
schools/districts identify the data they want to collect, which we cannot know ahead
of time.
When the RFP is posted, DESE staff will be sending the Commission a link, so all can
help spread the word to all eligible to apply.
Next Steps
The full Commission charted out its next steps on the two overarching tasks required by
the law: 1) proposing to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) a
process for “updating, improving and refining” the Safe and Supportive Schools
Framework and Self-Assessment Tool, and 2) preparing our first annual report to the
Governor and the Legislature. (See the attached document “Next Steps for Safe and
Supportive Schools Commission.”)
Upcoming Commission Meetings
October 2, 2015: 1-4pm at DESE in Malden
November 18, 2015: 10am-1pm at Newton Public Schools
Attachments
Next Steps for Safe and Supportive Schools Commission
Flip-Chart Notes on Suggested Tool Improvements
Safe and Supportive Schools Commission Member Contact List (last updated July 2015)
Diagram created in a small group discussion
7