Safe and Supportive Schools Commission
November 18, 2015 ~ 10:00am – 1:00pm
Newton Public Schools
Minutes
Members Present: Rachelle Engler Bennett and Susan Cole (Co-Chairs), Andria Amador,
Donna M. Brown, Sara Burd, Kristine Camacho, Angela Cristiani, Bill Diehl, John Doherty,
Amy Kelly, Tara Kohler, Melissa Pearrow, Anne Silver, Judith Styer, Richard Whitehead
Others Attending/Participating: Colleen Armstrong, Cathy Cummins, Anne Eisner, Anne
Gilligan, Ellen Gibson, Anne Berry Goodfellow, Michael Gregory, Lisa Harney, Mitch Lyons,
Janelle Ridley, Margot Tracy, Jim Vetter, Joan Wasser Gish
I. Discussion on Draft Recommendations
(Proposed and agreed upon changes incorporated into the Commission’s draft report are
indicated below in italics.)
Recommendation #1 – Safe and Supportive Schools Line Item
 Discussion that DESE should reconsider the amount of the individual grants because
there needs to be money to help schools that have done action plans move beyond
planning toward implementation.
 Discussion that DESE should make the grant funding more flexible to allow for some
or all of the following:
o Bigger districts to be able to ask for more money
o Districts to be able to band together to ask for joint funding
o Multi-year grants, e.g., possibly with funds for action planning one year and
implementation the next
o “Mentor” grantees
 Discussion that DESE should consider allowing current grantees that have gotten
money to do action plans to be able to apply again for additional funds to implement
those plans
 One model to consider, either as a model for the grant program line item or for the
conversation on sustainable funding, is the Essential School Health Services (ESHS)
program administered by the Department of Public Health. This started at $25M and
is now down to about $12M. Large amounts of money were given to larger districts,
that were then obligated to bring on other districts and help them build their capacity
through consultation and sharing of best practices. According to two Commission
members, this has been a very successful program both at spreading access and
capacity for school nursing throughout the Commonwealth and also for improving
actual nursing practice in the schools.
 Agreement to change the recommendation to say “increased” instead of “continued”
funding.
1


The Commission will make a general recommendation to the legislature regarding the
line item now and then we can later (in January) work together to draft words for the
actual line item language that we actually want the legislature to consider. This line
item language can also include a total requested dollar figure that is informed by the
grant applications that DESE will receive at the end of November.
The Commission will also have the opportunity after Safe and Supportive Schools
grants are awarded, to give feedback and input regarding the Fund Code 335 RFP. A
number of discussion points from the meeting can be reflected on further and shared
with the Department at that time.
Recommendation #2 – Sustainable Funding/Foundation Budget Review Commission
(FBRC)
 The FBRC met over the past year, holding many public hearings, to consider ways to
recalibrate the formula the Commonwealth uses to calculate the Foundation Budget
that provides state funding to each school district. The FBRC particularly
recommended increasing the calculations in the formula for employee health
insurance and for special education funding (both in-district and out-of-district). The
Foundation Budget does not determine how districts actually allocate or spend their
state-provided funds; it just determines how much money each district gets. The
FBRC also included sections in its final report on meeting the educational needs of
ELL students and students from low-income backgrounds.
 It was pointed out that one of the primary considerations discussed at the FBRC’s
meetings, and contained in its charge from the legislature, was to figure out how any
new funds infused into the education system would be spent “efficiently and
effectively” to ensure that the students who most need additional resources are
receiving them and that we are making investments that have the greatest chance of
success.
 Our Commission has a tremendous opportunity to connect our work to the work of
the FBRC because both Commissions are really talking about the same kids. Also,
the FBRC articulated a vision that includes having a planning process that districts
use, with plans incorporated into the School Improvement Plan, as part of the
accountability structure for ensuring “efficient and effective” use of new funds. Such
a planning process is exactly what our Commission is working on and the Safe and
Supportive Schools law already contemplates an Action Plan that can be incorporated
into the School Improvement Plan. We need to help lawmakers understand how our
Commission can actually help with implementing the vision laid out by the FBRC.
 One member pointed out that the FBRC had a group that was particularly focused on
data collection—looking at all of the data districts are required to collect and figuring
out how this data can inform new investments. Our Commission would be wise to
connect with these conversations and consider the role our Self-Assessment Tool can
play as part of these larger data collection efforts.
 Consensus that this Recommendation should remain in the report.
 It was requested that “mental health needs” be added to the list of student needs that
are important to address.
2
Recommendation #3 – Expert on Usability Upgrade of the Tool
 Several Commission members expressed concern about asking for additional
resources to work on the technology of the Self-Assessment Tool before we make
progress on updating the content of the Framework and Tool.
 Other Commission members expressed the view that the content of the Framework
and Tool will never be “complete” because it will always have to reflect advances in
the field and the latest state-of-the-art thinking. Therefore, the technology will, from
the beginning, need to be designed in a flexible way to incorporate changes and
additions to the content.
 One member stated that schools in her district who are doing the planning process
now could greatly benefit from a usability upgrade even before the content in the
Framework is updated. The new grantees will benefit greatly from being able to
access the good content in the tool without having to struggle for hours over how to
complete it.
 One proposal made was to combine this Recommendation with Recommendation #4,
which makes clearer that the Commission, with assistance from DESE, will be
updating, improving and refining the content of the Framework and Self-Assessment
Tool.
 Another proposal was to keep Recommendation #3 but add language making it clear
that the Commission will be working to update content.
 The Commission deliberated on this recommendation at great length and members
were asked if there was consensus to eliminate Recommendation #3 and combine it
with #4. One Commission member dissented from this approach and asked members
to consider a revised version of Recommendation #3 that might make it acceptable.
The following edits were proposed and then Commission members were asked if
anyone did not agree to this, and none disagreed (consensus agreement) to keep
Recommendation #3 with the newly proposed edits:
Consensus to change the language of Recommendation #3 to the following: “The
Commission recommends technological assistance to carry out both usability and
content upgrades for the Safe and Supportive Schools Self-Assessment Tool.”
 Consensus to add language from the “Next Steps” document drafted by the co-chairs
to the explanatory paragraph for Recommendation #3. More specifically, insert after
the first sentence in the explanatory paragraph the following sentence from the “Next
Steps” document: “The Commission plans to present recommendations for
improving the BHPS framework and tool and turning them into the Safe and
Supportive Schools Framework and Self-Assessment Tool to the Commissioner of
Elementary and Secondary Education in Spring 2016 to receive guidance from him
on next steps for presenting to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.”
 Consensus to switch the order of Recommendations #3 and #4 in the final version of
the report.
 One participating guest questioned the language in the second sentence of the draft
explanatory paragraph stating that the feedback from schools has been that the
content of the framework and tool is strong. Edits have been made to that section of
the report with an aim to reflect the positive anecdotal feedback from many school
users to date, as well as ways the tool/framework can be strengthened.
3
Recommendation #4 – Expanding DESE’s Capacity
 Agreement to change the last sentence in the explanatory paragraph to say “a helpful
beginning” rather than “a helpful step.”
 As stated above, there was agreement to move this Recommendation before the
recommendation on a usability expert.
 Agreement to reverse the order of the explanatory paragraphs, so that the paragraph
expressing appreciation to the legislature comes first.
 The co-chairs presented to the Commission a question about whether to acknowledge
the Governor’s proposal of a “School Safety” line item in our report. It was
discussed and decided that instead of referring to that specific line, to generally
acknowledge the importance placed by the state (both the Governor and Legislature)
on needs related to safety and health, and particularly to safe and supportive schools,
as evidenced by what they say as well as what laws and budget line-items they pass.
Discussion on changing the paragraph about funding capacity to the following, or
something close to it, but also within it to move the focus on administrative support to
the Commission to further down in the section:: “The Department needs increased
funding capacity that will enable it to deliver effectively on the significant
responsibilities outlined by the Legislature in M.G.L. c. 69, §1P (f) and to collaborate
with others to create greater alignment and effectiveness among initiatives related to
creating and maintaining safe and supportive schools. These responsibilities include
providing administrative support to the Commission; coordinating the safe and
supportive schools grant program; hosting regional trainings; updating the online
framework and self-assessment tool; as well as providing technical assistance and
developing and disseminating model practices related to coordinating with
community service providers and implementing the framework, tool, and action
plans.”
Recommendation #5 – Public Information Campaign
 There was consensus among members to include this recommendation in the report.
II. Discussion of the “Next Steps” Document




Members raised questions about whether all seven of the charges to the Commission were
included on the list of things about which the Commission will gather information.
Commission Co-Chairs noted that they had intended to put those in and also realized they
were missing and would add them in. (federal funding and approaches for helping families)
Members suggested that the timeline for information gathering be changed from having it
appear all consultation would happen by spring 2016. There was agreement that the
timeline for information gathering should be changed to “Ongoing.”
The was agreement that our priority should be learning about the work that needs to happen
in schools, not so much on rushing to make recommendations on the four topics listed in the
legislation. The recommendations we ultimately make should come organically out of the
investigation that the Commission is doing.
There was agreement to add gathering information from research and best practices into the
first paragraph under roman numeral one.
4




One Commission member had a proposal for how we envision our ongoing work. Her idea
was to see our work holistically and all interconnected. Basically, the Commission is always
doing the same thing – our calendar year always looks the same. When the end of the year
rolls around, or any time we are asked for an update or recommendations, we provide a
snapshot of what our recommendations are at that moment. There would be a part of each of
our meeting agendas to share information in the areas that the commission is charged with
investigating. We’ll be collecting information continually and then anytime there is a report,
a presentation, etc. we just take a snapshot of where we are at that point in time.
Another proposal was that we consider recommending that the tool be able to be used as an
online portal where people can access resources and information on best practices,
professional development opportunities, etc.—in other words, to see the online tool as a
clearinghouse of sorts. In addition to sharing information, such a clearinghouse also starts to
set the standard of what schools should be doing. There was a desire to consider having
interns that could be updating the website with resources, information, best practices, etc. in
an ongoing fashion.
The Commission considered the willingness of members to participate in the public
information campaign by taking responsibility for communicating the work of the
Commission to their stakeholder associations. It was agreed that getting feedback, input, and
support from our member organizations will make all the difference in moving things
forward. One member stated that she thought this responsibility was part of the obligation
members took on when we agreed to join the Commission and others agreed with this view.
One thing we should also do is take responsibility for bringing back to the Commission the
good ideas that get expressed at organizations’ various workshops and conferences coming
up. One member stated that it would be very helpful if we could each call on other
Commission members as we make presentations to our own organizations because
sometimes our colleagues listen better when we have other stakeholders joining us; others
agreed that this is a good idea. Overall there was strong agreement that keeping the issue of
safe and supportive schools out there and fresh is a very important piece of our work
together.
General agreement that the activities listed in the “Next Steps” document will be the
Commission’s activities for the next year and that we will be holistic in carrying them out.
III. Discussion of Other Sections of the Draft Report



Consensus that other sections looked good; no further revisions proposed by members.
The co-chairs will take the Commission’s feedback from above and make the necessary
revisions do the draft report. The co-chairs will then send around the edited version of the
report and if anyone has other corrections or edits to propose for clarity or easier reading
changes, they are to contact the co-chairs right away.
Commission members voted to approve the report as it is to be revised by the co-chairs. All
members present voted to support the draft report in concept with the anticipated changes to
be added.
5
IV. Meeting Schedule for Next Year






Co-chairs reminded members that the law requires the Commission to have at least four
meetings per year.
Co-chairs also reminded members of the survey of members they did in May regarding
number of meetings preferred. There were different opinions, and most people clustered
around the idea of having a total of 6 meetings, which is what we did this year.
The co-chairs made a proposal to hold 6-8 meetings over the coming year, and there was
consensus among members on the proposal.
Members also expressed consensus on having another full-day retreat early in the summer, as
the Commission did this year.
There was consensus to hold the Commission’s meetings in the mornings, from 10-1.
Finally, there was consensus to continue the Commission’s method of alternating location of
the meetings between Worcester and locations in Eastern MA.
V. Suggestions to the Department on the RFR for Evaluation for the Grant Program



Interest was expressed in building up regional expertise with some kind of requirement for
grantees to mentor/develop surrounding districts. It was suggested to have the independent
evaluation look at this in some way.
It was suggested that the selection committee for the evaluator include someone who knows
psychometrics, and soundness of methodology.
It was suggested that replication projects be considered for grants.
VI. Final Discussion for Work Plan for 2015



Co-chairs asked for volunteers to work with them to delve deeper into drafting a 2016 work
plan informed by the meeting’s discussion, to propose for at the Commission’s next full
meeting (likely in January).
The co-chairs presented the question of what the model or structure is going to be for
gathering and presenting information to the full Commission?
o One idea is that there would be a vetting committee, or Framework working group – a
group who collects ideas, clarifies things, and then brings things to the full
Commission. Under this idea everyone would be responsible for gathering
substantive information to add to the framework and submitting it to the vetting
committee.
o Another idea is that people would just bring ideas straight to the Commission.
o There was agreement that it would be less efficient with a big group doing all the
detail work; on the other hand there has to be transparency and the ultimate authority
for the Framework content has to remain with the full Commission.
The co-chairs asked each member (and participating guest if interested) to write on a post-it
note any Commission work area topic in which they have particular interest in the coming
year, to help inform the work plan and a rethinking as needed of workgroups. It was noted
that participants could also contact the Co-Chairs following the meeting to express their
6





interest as well. Each member placed his or her post-it note on a flip chart that had the
following categories of work. Member could place their post-its under an existing category
or on a separate flip chart if the work they want to do was not captured by the following
categories:
o Framework and Tool Improvements
o Funding
o Professional Development (e.g., related to the Framework/Tool, to safe and
supportive school environments, resources/models, what is needed)
o Streamlining/Aligning initiatives
o Consultation (related to information gathering as set forth in next steps)
Several members expressed the desire to continue to have a Professional Development
working group. Their view was that people are already doing a lot in districts, but they don’t
know what others are doing. They are reinventing wheels. What can we provide them in the
short term to help their efforts? Who are the vendors doing PD really well? How can we let
people know about these?
Volunteers will meet with the co-chairs in December to help review all the members’ work
group preferences and draft a work plan for next year.
The suggestion was made to this December workgroup that the streamlining/aligning and the
framework/tool group either be the same or work very closely together because there is great
overlap between these two areas.
A final suggestion was for this work planning group that meets in December to look back at
the “dots” from the flip charts at our summer retreat as another possible source of ideas about
where there is a clustering of interests.
The Co-Chairs will be in communication with members in December regarding a calendar of
meeting dates for 2016.
7