Safe and Supportive Schools (SaSS) Commission Meeting
October 2, 2015 ~ 1:00-4:00pm
Minutes
Members Present: Rachelle Engler Bennett and Susan Cole (Co-Chairs), Donna M. Brown, Sara
Burd, Kristine Camacho, Angela Cristiani, Bill Diehl, John Doherty, Jean Fay, Kate Lipper, Melissa
Pearrow, Judith Styer, Richard Whitehead
Others Attending/Participating: Colleen Armstrong, Cathy Cummins, Shella Dennery, Anne
Eisner, Ben Forman, Anne Gilligan, Kate Ginnis, Anne Berry Goodfellow, Michael Gregory, Lisa
Harney, Margot Tracy, Jim Vetter
I.
Welcome; approval of July 22, 2015 Commission retreat minutes; agenda review
II.
Report on Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
(DESE) Activities

Status of Safe and Supportive Schools Grant Program RFP – DESE is very close
to posting a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Grant Program. There are still a
number of layers to go through. In the next few weeks, the Department will have
something live on the website. DESE will send it to Commission members and
participating guests as soon as it is ready.

Feedback on the Grant Program RFP – DESE decided to solicit only limited
feedback on RFP to protect the ability of commission members’ districts to apply. If
folks were involved in giving feedback, they would be excluded from applying.
DESE will be able to solicit more feedback later on this year’s RFP to incorporate for
next year’s. There was consensus among Commission members that they want
feedback on the fiscal year 2015-2016 (FY16) RFP to be a topic on a future agenda.

Evaluation of the Grant Program – There are no updates here. This can potentially
be an agenda topic at the Commission’s November meeting. That might be a time for
Commission members to give input for DESE’s consideration about the evaluation.

Conferences – Once DESE know who the new grantees are (likely in early winter),
the Department will consider what makes sense geographically in terms of where to
have conferences and how many to host. DESE will consider whether to have
specific conferences for grantees, and/or invite grantees to other conferences that
have a special strand for them. There was consensus among members that there was
interest in having this be a future agenda item.
1
III.
Follow-up from Commission Summer Retreat

Purpose of the Self-Assessment Tool
o Some members suggested that the Commission take a look at the “action planning
process” DESE has already developed for other purposes to see whether this
could be a template for the action plan that gets generated by the online SelfAssessment Tool. This was likely referring to the Planning for Success pilot
planning model (http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/success/).
o In addition to questions about capacity, members expressed interest in the tool
also containing measurement benchmarks and lists of resources.
o Commission members suggested that, once those completing the tool have
identified a particular priority, it would be helpful if the online tool bring up or
auto-populate with resources that teams can then use to address their priorities.
o Commission members continued to express a strong consensus that it would be
helpful to have a more detailed guidance document for the tool that makes clear
how to use the tool and where engaging in the process can get a school. It will
help educators want to do this if they can see where using the tool can help them
get.
o Some members suggested the idea of a “pre-quiz” to help schools identify their
related urgency in their school/school. It might pose questions like: “What
brought you to this?” Doing a pre-test of some kind could help people digest the
tool and figure out where to focus, where to go first. Some kind of a “screener”
or set of diagnostic questions first could help users best use their time.
o Building a foundation – some asked are there basic underlying things that people
should focus on first, before having a tool direct you to superficial things that
might not make a huge difference?

Landscape Analysis – Report from Margot Tracy (Policy Analyst, Children's
Behavioral Health Initiative, MassHealth Office of Behavioral Health)
o The purpose of the analysis was to create a reference document that can be helpful
for anyone, and that can helpful to inform future Commission work and
discussions e.g., in looking at ways schools can integrate and align initiatives.
o The guiding questions were: What are the current state requirements for schools
in relation to creating safe and supportive schools? And what are some resources
available to help school meet all these requirements?
o One member suggested that the landscape analysis should include DESE’s
Guidebook for Inclusive Practices that is up on DESE’s educator evaluation
webpage, and a link to which was sent by DESE to the Commission distribution
list as a follow-up to the meeting.
o Substance Abuse/Opiates – a member suggested that it would be helpful for the
Commission to consider how to weave into the Framework/Tool.
o School Safety is another topic that members suggested including.
2
o Email Margot (margot.tracy@massmail.state.ma.us) with additions to the
landscape document that will be updated periodically.
o Some members noted that there is an outdated document created by DESE that
listed all the plans school have to do. It was suggested that one goal for our
Commission could be to try to rationalize and make suggestions regarding
bringing all of these plans together.

Getting Feedback on the Self-Assessment Tool – Report from Anne Eisner
(Deputy Director of the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative), Cathy
Cummins (President of the Massachusetts Association of Educational
Collaboratives), and Kristine Camacho (SaSS Commission Member)
o Many people who have used the tool talk about how they use it differently (from
each other).
o This group suggests developing a survey for (future) tool users with a few simple
questions focusing on their satisfaction and whether they are able to get what they
want out of it.
o After the survey, Commission members could follow up with telephone
interviews (for which there would be a protocol).
o One initial step would be to conduct outreach to FY14 grantees; we could ask
them about what outcomes they achieved as a result of using the tool.
o It was suggested that we only report aggregate level data on users, so that no one
feels scrutinized.
o An important question was raised: from whom should the invitation to participate
in the survey come? Should it come from the Commission or from DESE?
o Commission members suggested that we survey both grantees and the many nongrantee schools who have used the tool.
o Another Commission member mentioned a tool that Northeastern has developed,
and users get to see other’s (presumably anonymous) responses so that they can
benefit from the good practices that others are doing. Looking at others’ work can
help you solve your own problems.
o Conducting this survey and follow-up interviews can be the beginning for the
community of practice that the Commission is hoping to develop.
IV. Content for the Commission’s December 2015 Report
A. Discussion on potential recommendations and a process to consider for 2016 – including who
we would want to consult with outside of the Commission and get consensus on within the
Commission. Topics mentioned included the following.


Development of common slideshow/power point that folks can use with their own
organizations
Identify the “levers” that exist for getting recommendations embedded in existing
structures
3










Scan of PD options and develop/recommend models for disseminating and increasing
access to available options
Making data and research available so educators understand the principles behind best
practices rather than rushing to programs
Figuring out what data we already have access to, or adding questions into current data
gathering mechanisms (YRBS, etc….)
Discussion about how to find the time for professionals in schools to have
discussions/problem solve (and where to find the money to pay for that time)
Improve the technical infrastructure in schools/communities
Make sure recommendations are open enough to accommodate new substance that we
cannot possibly anticipate; focus on underlying principles
Solicit input from professionals working with kids outside of schools, other state systems
Identify foundational one-time investments that we could ask the legislature for (e.g.,
investments in data capacity)
Leverage the grantees to help us answer the questions, develop the strategy
Third-party assessment/audit of current infrastructure
B. Specific Recommendations for December 2015 Report to Consider



Engage an expert in “tool usability” to help inform (and/or carry out) a redesign/upgrade
of the self-assessment tool
Recommendation to look at safe and supportive schools as part of the Chapter 70
conversation that is happening currently; what would it take to fully (and permanently)
fund this?
Public relations campaign
C. Process for Updating, Refining, Improving the Tool/Framework







Work on discerning the overarching principles that cut across different “lenses” or
substantive issues/initiatives This would include the framework’s theory of change, that it
is to develop a locally tailored action plan that can be part of a school improvement plan,
and that the plan would fit the culture and needs of each school.
Look to see if other states have similar tools
Access insights from implementation science to re-look at the Framework/Tool
Continue with process to map and analyze all the initiatives/mandates/required plans;
with recommendations for how to streamline/align; look within the DESE structure as
well (for how to further align DESE work)
Refine the tool to take into account new research/initiatives/mandates since it was created
in 2009
Public Relations campaign for educators about the framework/tool and the Commission’s
work; make this part of the convenings that happen every year
Use the process recommended by small group to survey prior (FY14) grantees and tool
users
4
V.
Plan agenda for November 18 meeting (at Newton Public Schools, 10am-1pm)

VI.
A number of items have been suggested over the past six months for the November
meeting’s agenda. These were mentioned, but given only a few minutes remained in the
meeting, it was decided that the most time sensitive would be selected by the Co-Chairs
with the others to likely be saved for early in 2016. A draft agenda will be sent out to the
Commission distribution list and posted on the Commission’s webpage in advance of the
November meeting, and the main priority of the meeting will be to discuss the draft
annual report and come to consensus and vote on its content.
Discussion of the Open Meeting Law

After a brief discussion, a majority of members (all present at the time) voted to allow all
subsequent meetings (be they of the full Commission or a sub-committee of the
Commission) to permit remote participation, as defined in the Open Meeting Law Guide:
http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/government/oml/oml-guide.pdf.
5