Safe and Supportive Schools Commission Meeting

March 22, 2017 10am-1pm

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA

MINUTES

Members Present:Rachelle EnglerBennett and Susan Cole (co-chairs), Sara Burd,Bill Diehl, John Doherty, Michelle Lipinski, Kate Lipper,Melissa Pearrow, Julie Perillo, Judy Styer, Richard Whitehead,

Others Attending/Participating:David Clark, Anne Eisner, Michael Gregory, Rob Hanna, Megan Harding, Paul Hyry-Dermith, Stacy Diaz, Lauren Griel, Natalie Harrington, Sarah Iddrissu, Bob LaRocca, Masseh Moradi, David Prudente, Helen Rave,Andrea Ricotta,Marissa del Rosario, Katie Ryan, Andrew Santana, Rebecca Shor,Emily Taylor

  1. Welcome –Commission report filed with Governor and legislature! Congratulations to all!
  • The co-chairs welcomed everyone and opened the meeting. It was announced that two previous members, Kristine Camacho and Anne Silver are no longer serving on the Safe and Supportive Schools Commission. The Commission will sorely miss their involvement and are grateful for all that they contributed.
  • The co-chairs announced that the 2nd Annual Report is in hands of legislature and the Governor and congratulated the group on the work that went into the report. Susan updated the group on this year’s budget. The Governor has recommended level funding for the Safe and Supportive Schools Line Item.
  • Susan Cole reviewed the agenda for the meeting today. The meeting includes a presentation by law students in the Harvard Education Law Clinic in two key areas on which the law requires us to investigate and provide recommendations—capacity and family engagement (get exact wording from the law).Following the presentation there will be time for discussion of implications for recommendations. There will also be updates from the three workgroups and a report from DESE on the grantee schools and the statewide conference.Before the meeting ends, there time is allotted for the workgroups to meet to finalize timelines and activities.
  • A membermoved to approve minutes from last meeting and another seconded the motion. A vote was taken, all voted yes. The minutes from the last meeting were so approved.
  1. Gathering Data (Strategic Objective 3)
  • Short presentation on interviews that were conducted by the Harvard Education Clinic law students under the supervision of Susan Cole and Michael Gregory to gather information on recommendations to the legislature as required by M.G.L., c. 69, section 1P on administrative capacity and parent engagementfollowed by group discussion on implications for recommendations.
  • Susan Cole reminded the group that the law calls upon the Commission to identify strategies for increasing schools’ capacity to carry out the administrative functions required to implement the Framework. The students will share information based on interviews with five prominent administrators from across the state. The purpose of these interviews is to gather data to help inform the recommendations to the legislature in the fall. Information gathering sessions are also being planned by DESE.
  • Harvard Law School (HLS) students, David Clark and Helen Rave presented the key findings of the report on capacity. The report contains information related to the following questions:

What is needed to help all schools in MA become Safe and Supportive? Recommendations include:

  1. The leaders doing this work need to see this as culture change
  2. Work must be done to change the mindset of those within and outside of school; barriers posed by differing philosophies must be overcome.
  3. Schools and districts need to be working to build internal capacity to create culture change.
  4. One person at the district level dedicated to this work (implementation of the Framework), so that they are driving system change throughout the district. This can be accomplished by hiring for a new position (e.g. SEL Director, associate superintendent in charge of culture change,) or reallocating duties of existing staff (e.g.lead teacher, re-define SAC role or school Social Worker roles to include this work).
  5. Working on messaging and buy-in, identifying local priorities, continuously stressing that working on the Framework impacts academic success.

What are the resources that schools and districts need?

Recommendations include:

  1. Retraining (there are already staff in place but need training on school culture change mindset)
  2. DESE could provide a list of experts to schools/districts so that they could have readily available consultation on culture change
  3. Outside consultants (with the recognition that external consultants may have a harder time getting buy-in)
  4. Collaboratives are helpful but theirrole may vary across districts

What are the funding needs in a district?

Recommendations include:

  1. Sustainable long term funding (re-structuring of chapter 70)
  2. An earmark for creating Safe and Supportive Schools
  3. A more general earmark for Social and Emotions health but letting schools have flexibility in spending
  4. Provide funding to those districts that opt to use the Framework
  5. Funding available for small changes that come up based on priorities

Accountability

Recommendations Include:

  1. Compliance monitoring should give credit for the actions that districts and schools are taking to promote SEL
  2. Safe and Supportive Schools Framework plans should be requires as part of school improvement plans.
  3. Teaching SEL should be incorporated into the model teacher evaluations
  4. Include in report cards
  • As the HLS students concluded the presentation, members and invited guests we invited to have a discussioninformed by the report.
  • The group began by acknowledging the work of the students.
  • One member pointed out that when Collaboratives are mentioned that it is important to refer to rural areas well as suburban areas.
  • One person asked how the 5 districts were selected and asked if the participating leaders were struggling or if they were already engaged in the work.
  • These interviewsincluded 3 members of the Commission and two urban superintendents who are actively working to create safe and supportive environments. These interviews were designed to jump start this discussion and DESE will continue.
  • There was a brief discussion about the gap in preservice licensure that needs to be addressed. Interviewees mentioned that training institutions aren’t preparing educators to work toward school culture change. One member asked if the Commissionwould want to make a recommendation around pre-service. It was suggested that this is an area that is worth exploring.
  • In addition to preservice, there also seems to be a big interest in in-service training.It was acknowledged that there is a challenge with outside experts coming in train in that they can’t get at the culture easily. Another member stated that it is not possible to do Professional Development in depth because of such limited time for it. There is a challenge in bringing teachers up to speed on issues going on with students and it was acknowledged that often new teachers struggle. There was recognition in the group that Professional Development is not enough. One member described her experience working on Safe and Supportive practices in her school and shared that the two key areas that seemed most important were that administration was 100% on board and was willing to take other things off the plate to give time, and a group of teachers who felt passionately about this, be in a committee to train their peers. Teachers were receptive. It was the team of teachers who drove the process and it was tremendously successful. Colleagues could work together and could address the resistance.
  • One member stated that Safe and Supportive Schools create safe and supportive school environments for adults, andthis may be one way to address teachers who work with students and are then experiencing secondary trauma.
  • One member asked if there was anything surprising in the interviews. The interviewers found it surprising that all five interviewees wanted accountability either by DESE (stating that they would like credit for the work they are doing to be Safe and Supportive) or in teacher evaluations and report cards. In response, one member asked if the leaders were looking for leverage points to ensure that it is happening. One clear suggestion was use of data.
  • One interviewee talked about the ESSA standards, and was hopeful that there would be a Social Emotional Learning accountability measure. The interviewee would like to see that the state values the work being done to address challenges (need time, funding and support for coordination at the district level). The interviewee pointed out that it is natural to focus on what you are held accountable for. There was wide spread agreement that Social Emotional Learning is a very important component of a safe and supportive school.
  • Rebecca Shor was invited to speak to the work that she has been doing, as an extension of the Wraparound Zone Initiative (previously funded by Race to the Top). She has been continued to convene a network of urban leader administratorswhoare working on school climate and student success related efforts. In the current iteration of their work, they want the network (among other things) to be a think tank for accountability around a conditions for learning metric. There are five different priority areas and they triangulate data to assess the state of their school:School Climate; Academic Engagement; Social Emotional Learning; System of Student Support; Parent and FamilyEngagement.
  • A guest asked if there any discussion around Meta skills? Yes, some expressed that leaders are interested in a train-the-trainer model and then have them do the implementation in-house. Recognition that facilitation skills are necessary and needed to develop a program in a school.
  • The discussion continued and it was asked if the school report card could be a way to include accountability around Social Emotional Learning. Several members of the group shared serious concerns about SEL being included in accountability because of fear of harsh or punitive judgements. The group discussed instead of an accountability measure would suggest gathering the data to use for on-going continuous improvementsand schools could either get bonus points or get targeted support.
  • After the discussion on administrative capacity, the next group of students presented the data they gathered on collaboration with families/parent engagement. The HLS students under the supervision of Professor Michael Gregory held interviews with those most directly impacted, families of children with behavioral health challenges. The students spoke not only with families but also identified groups of providers that work with these families including:
  • Home for little wanderers parents
  • High School Student Group (BSET)
  • Mental Health Clinicians – The Guidance Center
  • Family Partners –CSA
  • Family Resource Center School Liaisons

Interviews were conducted across the state, seven 90 minute focus groups were held.In preparation for the interviews with the service providers and families, the students interviewed Karen Mapp at the Harvard Graduate School of Education who shared seven core competencies of schools that are effective in their efforts to engage families. They include:

  • Building relationships
  • Linking to Learning
  • Addressing Differences
  • Supportive Advocacy
  • Sharing Power
  • Two Way Communication
  • Connecting to Community

The students presented findings from the interviews in each of these areas (see report for full explication). They shared this with parent serving agencies including with PPAL and MAC. The hope is that the Commission uses these findings and process as a basis for further inquiry and to inform recommendations that will be made in the Commission’s annual report. They proposed that the commission consider that the information be considered as we revise the Safe and Supportive Schools Framework (if there are useful things to include).

The co-chairs thanked the students and supervisors for the work, synthesis and analysis and the preparation for the presentations today.

  • Discussion followed, informed by the report.
  • One Commission member stated that it is important to recognize what is already being done at many schools to welcome and engage parents. This member wondered if we should explore an explanation for thedisconnectthat can happen when schools are doing their best yet families still feel unwelcome. The group agreed that this was an excellent question and turned the discussion to ideas for helping to ensure that a variety of strategies are used to engage parents and families.
  • Ideas included using text messages or skype to bring in working families, holding school conferences in the community rather than in the schools. There was recognition that there is not enough consistency in the wide range of resources to support parent engagement. One suggestion is go where parents and family members are e.g.,support groups, etc. One guest reminded the group that it is important to recognize that there are differences among the levels (elementary, middle school and, high school) in what kids want and what parents want.
  • The co-chairs reminded the Commission members that the goal is to come up with Recommendations according to our workplan. The information to date can help inform our recommendations on the capacity to implement the framework, including needed professional development, and parent engagement.There is a plan to continue gathering info through summer and then during the Commission retreat this summer to start working on recommendations.

III. Planning discussion for information gathering

  • The co-chairs reminded the group that they indicated interest in having Commission members talk with their associations/agencies about holding focus group interviews for more information gathering, and that DESE can support the efforts. It was reported that no one has sent confirmed dates, but a few are looking into it. If members are interested, please let Rachelle know. Referred to handout that was drafted for feedback, to help explain what the Framework is and guide some of the questions.
  • The co-chair let the group know that Emily Taylor is close to finishing a Reusable Learning Object on the Framework and Law, and that it will be posted and shared once complete.
  • The co-chairs reminded the group that there has been an on-going discussion about adapting the model used for ESSSA accountability information gathering/feedback. Rob Hanna shared that the HLS protocols look excellent. Members asked a few questions to clarify information for setting up focus groups. The group decided that a few questions should be answered including:
  • What kind of time commitment does it entail?
  • How will questions be designed for focus groups that have less time and less understanding of the Framework?
  • Do we want to have individual interviews, small group interviews, and large groups? How big? How targeted?
  • One guest asked for clarification about the purpose of the focus groups. A concern was expressed about groups pushing their policy agendas. The co-chair reminded the group that the Commission is charged with exploring the question of administrative capacity for implementing the Framework and noted that the Commission doesn’t have the capacity to get a representative research sample of stakeholder feedback. The strategy is to listen and hear from as many stakeholders as possibleto look for common themes and then reflect.
  • A Commission member asked if the upcoming Safe and Supportive Schools conference might be a good place to hold a focus group. It was also suggested that another option is to hold a big hearing at the legislature but feedback was shared that it wouldn’t be as effective.
  • One Commission Member asked for clarification about the questions on administrative capacity are these questions given to us by the legislature or did we come up with them? The co-chair explained that these were the questions that came up with the previous Task Force on Behavioral Health and Public Schools (see TFBHPS report to the legislature) and that the legislation charged the Commission with gathering answers to these questions.
  • These questions may drive an answer on whether some of these things are feasible. Should we look at creation of new questions or changes to these questions to get at innovations/creativity? It was recognized that it is unlikely that the revenue resource potwill grow and so how do we talk about moving around resources?One member pointed out that we don’t want to lose that a little bit of money spent on a leverage point can make a big difference and we wouldn’t want to lose that. Discussion ensued, and it was agreed that the focus group questions can be edited to elicit the most productive responses.

IV. Framework Updating Process (Strategic Objective 1)