Safe and Supportive Schools Commission Meeting
January 23, 2017 10:00am-1:00pm
Hilton Garden Inn, Devens, MA
MINUTES
Members Present: Susan Cole and Rachelle Engler Bennett (Co-Chairs), Donna Brown, Sara Burd, Angela Cristiani, Bill Diehl, Ellen Holmes, Anne Silver, Melissa Pearrow
Others Attending/Participating: Laurie Burnett, Cathy Cummins, Stacy Diaz, Anne Eisner, Lauren Gablinske, Rob Hannah, Lisa Harney, Paul Hyry-Dermith, Colleen Labbe, Bob LaRocca, Kristin McKinnon, Steve Mongeau, Andrea Ricotta, Marissa del Rosario, Katie Ryan, Emily Taylor, Kirby Wycoff, Sarah Zuckerman
Primary Goal: Discuss an decide upon a 2017 work plan and workgroup membership
1. Welcome, agenda review, 2017 meeting schedule
· The Co-chairs introduced themselves and welcomed the group.
· The group was invited to introduce themselves.
· The co-chairs reviewed the agenda for the day and reminded the group of the purpose of today’s meeting. The group was reminded that though everyone is invited to contribute to the conversation and to the work, once a motion for consensus is made, only voting Commission members will be asked for consensus.
2017 COMMISSION MEETINGS, all 10am-1pm unless otherwise noted:
· Mon 1/23 Devens
· Wed. 3/22 Malden
· Fri. 5/12 likely Marlborough or Devens (To Be Confirmed/TBC)
· Mon. 6/2 likely Marlborough or Devens (To Be Confirmed/TBC)
· Mon. 6/26 – 5-7 pm Special Board Meeting , Malden
Recommendation Presentation; shared meeting with Commission on LGBTQ Youth
· Wed. 8/2 Retreat, likely 10-3 at Harvard Law School in Cambridge (if available)
· Tues. 10/3 likely Worcester Public Library (TBC)
· Wed. 11/15 Malden
· 3rd Annual Report drafted early Nov/ finalized early Dec/ Due end Dec.
2. Legislative Update
Susan gave a quick update on the current legislative environment. There is some indication that there will be an education reform bill worked on during this session of the legislature which may provide opportunities to participate and discuss recommendation 2 (foundation budget funding). She also reported that efforts will be made by MAC and the Harvard Clinic to continue advocating for Recommendation 1 (Rec 1 states, “The Commission recommends funding for the Safe and Supportive Schools line item (7061-9612) during FY18”).
3. 2017 Work plan vision, Proposal, and Deliberation
· The co-chairs described the current workgroups (Strategic Group 1- Framework revision-, Strategic Workgroup 2- Integration, Strategic Workgroup 3-Communications). The co-chairs shared that the work to update and revise the Safe and Supportive Schools Framework has a deadline of early June, to be ready for the June 26, 2017 Board presentation (documents need to be sent to Board members by the start of June).
· The co-chairs shared that Melissa Pearrow agreed to be the point person for the revisions to the self-assessment tool. She will join the strategic workgroup 1 so that the iterative process of refining the tool in undertaken alongside work with the next iteration of the framework.
· Each workgroup presented about work completed or underway.
· The co-chair shared that this spring, Mike Gregory and Susan Cole will work with the Harvard law clinic students to develop question protocols related to the goal of gathering information from district leadership around capacity. There will also be efforts made to gather input to include the parent voice and the student voice. A report on information gathered will be presented at the March 22 meeting, to inform Commission discussions.
· The Department (DESE) is looking into ways to engage students from two of the youth advisory boards that already exist.
· Interviews and focus groups will be convened this spring and Summer to gather information to inform the Commission, largely but not exclusively with Commission member organizations (to the degree possible). As a way to assist in the planning for these convenings, Rob Hannah reported on the five forums that DESE convened to get feedback for suggestions on an accountability measure for ESSA. Rob described a “brain swarming” activity that was used to solicit feedback (using note cards, capturing themes, etc.). DESE provided both a facilitator and a note taker for these convenings. DESE also had an online survey and provided multiple opportunities to give feedback. DESE will assist the Commission in these endeavors. Commission members responded with gratitude, and others indicated they would be willing and able to assist as well.
· Participants agreed to provide any information about meetings of the groups they represent that could host a focus group by February 15 (or as soon as possible if later). Please provide the date and time of the meeting, the location of the meeting, an estimate of the number of attendees, and any other pertinent information. Ideally these will be done as a part of a gathering that is already happening of the organization or its leadership, etc. Please send this information to Rachelle at .
· Tool:
There was some discussion about the Tool. Highlights included: Self-assessment Tool is designed to help schools identify priority areas for growth and develop a plan to address these areas. The audience is a team at the school level coming together to work on identifying the needs, priorities and creating action plans. The goal in refining and revising the tool is to align it with the revisions to the Framework.
· Framework:
ESE staff had provided feedback from an ESE review team about the draft revised Framework earlier in the month to Susan Cole (with MAC/TLPI colleagues Anne Eisner, Mike Gregory, and Marissa del Rosario). Rachelle shared some highlights from the feedback. A cross-center team had been asked to review the revised draft knowing that this was a work in progress, and with this question in mind: “Is this resource one that can be valuable and used by you and the field in support of your work, and what would it take in terms of changes/further changes to this document for it to be most likely to be used/useful?” Feedback received included:
o Acknowledgement that a tremendous amount of valuable content is contained in the document
o The document could help lead local communities in self-reflective work
o The current document needs work so that it is more clear
o Suggested further editing to make the document more organized so that it makes more sense to follow
o Suggested editing the introduction to make it more clear and concise for people who are not familiar with the Framework
o Suggested that there be something shorter and that the introduction more directly explain who the audience is intended to be and how to use the document. It was acknowledged that because the Framework is meant to be used by a team, it is a challenge to write for broad audience.
o Suggested that there could be some real focus and refining of the introduction and first section (or one section) to get a tone and organizational structure that works and then once there is agreement, revise the other sections of the Framework based on the revisions to the introduction and Section 1.
Commission discussion notes:
· It was noted the draft Framework’s Introduction section could potentially be pulled and used for the focus groups and could frame the focus group questions. Work groups 1 and 2 could discuss how this plan sounds.
· It was noted that the Commission has discussed working with ESE’s Planning for Success (PfS) model and potentially creating guidance on ways the Framework and Self-Assessment Tool can be used as resources that help inform school and district improvement goals. The goal is to work on this over the course of this year, and that once created information about it could likely be included in the Commissioner’s weekly update.
· The difference between the PfS guidance and Framework guidance (in the Framework Intro), is the latter is likely more detailed about how to use the Framework/Self-Assessment Tool (and may note various purposes/ways the info can be used), and the former is likely more detailed about how to effectively incorporate safe and supportive schools related goals into school and district improvement planning processes, and speaks to how the Frameworks/Self-Assessment Tool can be a helpful resource to help in doing that (and may note other resources/data sources too).
4. Breakouts for the Three Strategic Objectives
· The co-chair reminded the group that by the end of the meeting today, there should be list of participants in each of the workgroups. The co-chairs asked the group to try to get as clear as possible about what is being taken on and what the work plan is between now and the next meeting.
· Participants selected their workgroup. Workgroup members discussed and revised a draft work plan for their objective. The leader or a volunteer member facilitated the discussion, relying on chart paper on the wall to sketch out the schedule in three month increments (Quarter 1-2017, Q2, Q3, Q4) and determined who will do what tasks to accomplish their objectives. DESE staff took notes during the session.
BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES:
· Strategic Group 1 (Framework):
Discussed the lenses already reviewed (trauma sensitivity, SEL, and Alternatives to discipline/positive behavioral supports) and integrated into the current draft of the Framework. Facilitators led a discussion of due dates, the timeline, and some steps to be completed before the next Commission meeting. The facilitators proposed the next lenses to address: equity (inclusion of students with disabilities and race and cultural identity), substance abuse prevention, and bullying prevention. The group discussed and came to a consensus on proposing those lenses to the larger commission group.
· Strategic Group 2 (Integration):
Discussed overall challenges of the Framework and tool and the need for identifying opportunities for integrating its use with other school/district initiatives. Integrating what is required by law with the framework is the next step determined by the group. They plan to: go through the tool and map to more information about the laws – and making sure that the description of the framework includes a note that this is a law and not just good practice.
· Strategic Group 3 (Communication):
Discussed 2 goals and steps to complete these: Complete feedback gathering on two recommendations (capacity and parent involvement) by August 2nd and Hold a Public Hearing at the State House (Commission Members providing testimony).
5. Report out/Next Steps
Briefly report outs on session discussion and next steps.
· Strategic Objective 1 (Framework/Self-Assessment Tool)
o The group presented a Timeline –for doing two things: updating Framework and the Self-Assessment Tool
o The group will go through the process of incorporating three more lenses before the June board meeting. This process involves interviewing the lens experts, doing the synthesis of the new knowledge and make edits to the Framework document
o The workgroup plans to bring an edited draft of The Framework to the May 12 meeting and ask the Commission for final for consensus on the edits by the June 2 meeting.
o In addition to the work on the Framework, there is a subgroup of Work Group 1 who will be working with Melissa Pearrow on revising the Self-Assessment Tool. The sub-group plans to get together to work on edits to the Tool and plans to have a beta version ready by the June 2017 Commission meeting to then be ready to pilot with schools by November 2017.
o The workgroup announced that it could use help and invites anyone interested to join the group.
o The Workgroup leader asked for consensus on the next three lenses to be incorporated. The workgroup leader reminded the group that the law iterates 10 initiatives (as examples) to align in safe and supportive schools, and to date workgroup 1 has incorporated 3 lenses (social emotional learning, trauma sensitivity and positive discipline practices).
o The workgroup leader proposed that the next three lenses to be incorporated include: equity, bullying prevention, and substance use prevention and asked the group for consensus to move forward with these three lenses, noting that equity is not mentioned as such, but relates to a number of the initiatives noted.
o The voting members present voted and all agreed (9 voting members present and all voted yes) that workgroup one will move forward with incorporating the lenses of equity, bullying prevention and substance use prevention. Additionally, the group working on equity was given an okay to work on putting forth a definition for the Commission to approve.
· Strategic Objective 2 (Integration)
o The workgroup divided their work into two parts. The first part is creating a work plan for looking at legal documents by Feb. 3 and the second part is coming up with a draft of the guidance. The group noted that some pieces from last year are in place and will be built upon.
o The group plans to meet before February vacation
o Co-chairs who spoke to John Doherty (who couldn’t attend) that he agreed to lead the work on the integration with school/district improvement plans, as he had done last year.
o Since only one Commission member was able to join that discussion, more discussion will need to happen at the March Commission meeting about next steps and a timeline for work.
o Work will begin this winter/spring to create a guidance document that is a part of DESE’s Planning for Success initiative, as noted in an above section, and the Commission (and this workgroup) and interested schools/districts can help inform the creation of it, with a goal of having it be available for school year 2017-2018, with possible subsequent iterations of it as we get more feedback on it over time.
· Strategic Objective 3 (Communications)
o The workgroup will work with associations to
§ By 8/2/17 the commission aims to write a report on focus groups with administrators concerning the request by the legislature to gather information on the administrative capacity needed to implement the framework.
§ By 8/2/17, the Commission aims to have recommendations to discuss related to parent engagement and services (sponsored by PPAL but open to the public)
§ Spring: the Commission aims to schedule public hearing hopefully with legislators.
o A work group member proposed that DESE staff do a train the trainer model so that more groups can be facilitated.