VOLUME 15 ISSUE 6 JULY 2011 BRIEFINGS Independent Schools Queensland Top Leadership Teams And How To Build Them If you could get all the people in the organisation rowing in the same direction, you could dominate any industry, in any market, against any competition, at any time (Patrick Lencioni, 2002). Few leaders would disagree that effective teamwork is essential to the good health of an organisation, but many would admit that the teams they lead do not function as effectively or efficiently as they would like. Why is this? Why is it that sincere, hardworking people who care about the places in which they work, cannot achieve the results that might be expected of them? A study by Ruth Wageman and Richard Hackman (2009) has some of the answers to these questions. Wageman and Hackman began by defining a leadership team as ‘a group of individuals, each of whom has personal responsibility for leading some part of an organisation but who also are interdependent for the purpose of providing overall leadership to a large enterprise’. They collected data on the performance of such teams from two sources: 1. 120 top management/leadership teams of businesses around the world, all of which headed entire organisations or major business units; and 2. A longitudinal study of leadership teams in a US civic association whose purpose was to mobilise volunteers to protect the natural environment. In relation to the first group the researchers analysed the finding of a team of 16 expert observers who used an array of archival, survey and observational data to rate each of the 120 teams on three criteria of effectiveness: (1) how well the team serves its main constituencies; (2) the degree to which the team shows signs of becoming more capable over time; and (3) the degree to which the net impact of the team is more positive than negative on the well-being and development of individual members. They also used a Team Diagnostic Survey (Wageman, Hackman & Lehman, 2005) to identify those features that most powerfully differentiated superb from struggling leadership teams. For the second set of teams, the findings were obtained from a longitudinal action research project on leadership development that included survey assessments, selfevaluation, assessment of the leadership skills of peers in the team and analysis of goals set and accomplished. Participants also completed the Team Diagnostic Survey mentioned above. As a result of the analysis of the data from each of the two studies, the researchers identified four, ‘ironic features’ about teams. Firstly, they found that, although leadership teams are composed of powerful people, they tend to be ‘under-designed, under-led and under-resourced’ compared with other kinds of task-performing teams (Wageman & Hackman, 2009). They are especially likely to have ‘unclear purposes, to work on poorly designed tasks, to suffer from a lack of information and material resources, and to receive insufficient hands-on coaching that could help with their work processes’ (ibid). And this is despite the fact they have much more influence than other groups in terms of setting their own agendas and accessing space, time and information. For both groups of teams studied there was clear evidence of problems with managing performance processes. Individuals in the team worked hard and completed their individual work well but performed with much less effectiveness within the team. For example, they were often detached, distracted or not in attendance at team meetings; they were plagued with mindless routines; they typically relied on individuals providing expertise in one arena only; and they placed heavy emphasis on their status in the team. Overall, however, the major problem seems to have been that the leadership teams found it an extraordinarily difficult conceptual challenge to define a compelling team purpose, although they were clear about their individual responsibilities. Rather than articulating the leadership functions Independent Schools Queensland BRIEFINGS VOLUME 15 ISSUE 6 JULY 2011 Top Leadership Teams And How To Build Them the team fulfils collaboratively, they defined unspecified and loose purposes such as, ‘providing the leadership to accomplish our strategy’ (Wageman et al, 2008). The second irony uncovered by the researchers was that although membership of the leadership team is important and coveted, members often don’t know who is on the team, and they do not really want to come to team meetings. Individuals participating in the studies clearly wanted to be on the leadership team for the power and status that membership afforded and because it gave them greater access to the leadership team’s leader and to resources (Finkelstine, 1992; Ocasio, 1994), but in the study only 11% of member could even identify how many people were in the team. What the researchers found, in fact, was that leadership teams were often porous and blurred in relation to their members and often overlarge for the task that needed to be undertaken. It seems that many people are included on leadership teams because they hold particular leadership roles in the organisation and not because of their capacity to contribute to a team task. Furthermore, not only did team leaders seem unable to clarify who was actually on the team, when they did they erred on the side of inclusiveness rather than on who could best contribute. This resulted in some teams becoming so large they were dysfunctional and the senior executive then used more informal groups for consultation about critical decisions, thus bypassing the team altogether. The consequences of porous, blurred and overlarge teams are powerfully negative (Alderfer, 1980; Mortensen, 2008). The major negative is that it is almost impossible to define a shared purpose for a large team. Leaders of such teams struggle to find a meaningful function for each member and for the organisation and to define team and individual accountability. Instead, these large teams become information-sharing bodies and little is debated or decided as a whole group. The third ironic feature of leadership teams is that although members of such teams are usually overloaded they tend to waste enormous amounts of time in team meetings. Wageman and Hackman (2009) point out that while the one of the major advantages of teams should be to share leadership functions in an organisation, the reality is that teams waste so much time in information sharing meetings and on trivial matters that can increase the load rather than reduce it. They identify three ways in which teams waste time: • • • 2 they spend inordinate amounts of time on trivial matters, such as where to have the staff Christmas party or what kind of food to serve; they become caught up in irresolvable conflicts; and individuals in the team spend time competing with each other to get the best for their individual team rather than making the best collective decisions for the organisation as a whole. The final ironic feature identified by Wageman and Hackman in their study of team functions was that although authority dynamics pervade and complicate team processes, members won’t talk about them. Senior leadership teams have all the authority they need to make decisions and chart their own course but they not only under-use the authority, they suffice with sub-optimal arrangements because of authority dynamics that involve the relationship between the team leader, usually the principal or CEO, and team members. What this means in practice is that team members defer to the authority of the team leader. While the team leader quite legitimately sets the team’s main purposes and guides the members in working together to achieve them, quite often he or she finds it difficult to give the team the latitude to determine how the purposes might be achieved. The result of this is individual members, rightly or wrongly, reach the view that their responsibility is to do what they are told and, hence, they abrogate their personal and collective responsibility to the team leader. The problem can be further exacerbated if the team leader believes that by setting the purposes and signalling the collective responsibility of the team, the work is done and the leader can now step back and let the team ‘get on with it’. If then the team doesn’t move forward competently and energetically, the temptation is for the team leader to take back control, thus reinforcing the view of members that they need not feel personally or collectively responsible for the outcomes of their work. Patrick Lencioni (2002) sheds further light on why teams, with all the goodwill in the world, are often dysfunctional. He says teams fail for five reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Absence of Trust Fear of Conflict Lack of Commitment Avoidance of Accountability Inattention to Results. In the context of building a team Lencioni defines trust as, ‘the confidence among team members that their peers’ intentions are good, and that there is no reason to be protective or careful around the group’. Members of trusting teams admit weaknesses and mistakes, ask for help, accept questions and input about their areas of responsibility, give one another the benefit of the doubt before arriving at negative conclusions, take risks in offering feedback and assistance, appreciate and tap into one another’s skills and experiences, focus time and energy on important issues, not politics, offer and accept apologies without hesitation and look forward to meetings and other opportunities to work as a group (ibid). Without trust, teams fear conflict even though conflict, provided it is not destructive fighting predicated on interpersonal politics, is essential for effective decision making and problem solving. When team members do not engage in open debate and do Independent Schools Queensland BRIEFINGS VOLUME 15 ISSUE 6 JULY 2011 not disagree on important matters, they often turn to harmful and destructive back-channel personal attacks or they spend so much time avoiding conflict that they ‘doom themselves to revisiting issues again and again without resolution’ (Lencioni 2002). On the other hand, when teams engage in conflict they have interesting meetings, extract and exploit the ideas of all team members, solve real problems quickly, minimise politics and put critical topics on the table for discussion (ibid). Effective teams make clear and timely decisions and obtain commitment from all executive team members, even those who vote against a decision. Without buy in from all members the potential to harm the organisation and affect organisational efficiency is high because workers have ambiguity about direction and priorities. Even the slightest disparity between executive team members can result in one department receiving orders that are not clearly aligned with colleagues in another department and small gaps then create a ripple effect. What may begin as a small gap can lead to lack of confidence, fear of failure, constantly revisiting and discussing the decision and secondguessing among team members. The two greatest causes of lack of commitment are the desire for consensus and the need for certainty. Great teams make sure that the views of all team members are heard and genuinely considered but they are not so unrealistic as to believe that members will agree on everything. In the end, a decision has to be made and all team members must commit to the decision. Effective teams find ways to get ‘buy in’ so even those once harbouring doubts are able to commit to the team decision. Functional teams are able to manage lack of complete certainty. They are able to commit to clear courses of action, even when there is no surety that the decision is correct, on the understanding that delaying important decisions until there is complete clarity leads to paralysis and lack of confidence. Lack of commitment can lead to another team dysfunction - the avoidance of accountability. When team members are unwilling to commit and when they will not ‘call’ a person on their lack of commitment because they fear interpersonal discomfort and difficult conversations, it is almost impossible to hold members accountable. Lencioni contends, ‘there is nothing like the fear of letting down respected teammates that motivates people to improve their performance’ and ‘one of the benefits is the reduction of the need for excessive bureaucracy around performance management and corrective action’. Teams that hold each member accountable, ensure poor performers feel pressure to improve, identify potential problems quickly by questioning each other’s approaches, establish respect amongst members who are held to the same high standard and avoid excessive bureaucracy in relation to performance management. Finally, Lencioni argues that teams are dysfunctional when they are inattentive to results. That is, they care about something other than the team’s goals, instead of maintaining a relentless focus on specific objectives and defined outcomes. In dysfunctional teams members focus on team and individual status instead of the outcomes of the team’s activities. For such team members, merely being on the school board or in the leadership team, for example, satisfies them and they are not driven to strive for improvement. Similarly, individuals on a team often have a tendency to focus on enhancing their own position or career prospects even if this is at the expense of their team. Such teams fail to grow, their companies lose achievement-oriented employees, they are easily distracted and members are encouraged to focus on their own careers and individual goals. So… with all the research available to explain why leadership teams don’t work is there any hope that organisations will ever develop functional teams, given that all teams are made up of imperfect human beings? Patrick Lencioni suggests a number of actions leadership teams might take in order to overcome the five dysfunctions he identifies as contributing to the lack of effectiveness of many teams. In making these suggestions he says team building is difficult, takes time and there is no ‘quick fix’ formula to develop an effective team. However, when teams are aware of those things which contribute to ineffectiveness they can begin to address them. Building trust, for example, is not going to happen overnight. Teams must share experiences, must observe multiple instances of follow-through and credibility and must build in-depth understanding of the attributes and skills of each individual member before they begin to develop trust. Beginning this journey might be as simple as going around the table at the first team meeting and asking members to share a little personal history with each other. Slightly riskier strategies include asking team members to nominate the single most important thing their peers can contribute to the team; using a personal and behavioural preference profile tool to identify team members characteristics and sharing them with the team as a whole; and undertaking experiential team exercises that build trust. Fear of conflict, the second of the identified dysfunctions, may be addressed simply by allowing constructive conflict as a normal part of team functioning. For example, Lencioni suggests teams should occasionally appoint a ‘miner of conflict’ whose role is to extract buried disagreements within the team, call out sensitive issues and force team members to work through them. In the process team members need to coach each other not to retreat from healthy debate by recognising when the debate is becoming uncomfortable and drawing attention to the fact that respectful conflict is important to effective teams. Leaders need also to recognise the importance of allowing such conflict to occur and not prematurely putting a stop to disagreements for the sake of their own comfort. Participants in a team should be given 3 Independent Schools Queensland BRIEFINGS VOLUME 15 ISSUE 6 JULY 2011 Top Leadership Teams And How To Build Them the opportunity to develop conflict management skills and it is an important role of leadership to both model appropriate conflict behaviour and to facilitate the development of others in this skill. When healthy conflict results in all team members feeling their opinions have been heard and respected it is likely that commitment to a decision will be higher. Other ways to ensure commitment are to: • • • • end each team meeting with an explicit review of the key decisions made at the meeting so it is clear that all members have a shared understanding about what decisions have been made and what needs to be communicated to other employees or stakeholders in regard to the decisions; setting clear deadlines for when decisions will be made and keeping to those dates with discipline and rigidity; analysing worse case scenarios and developing contingency plans before implementing a decision which is paralysing the team. Once the team realises the cost of an incorrect decision is survivable it is more likely to act; and in the case of a commitment-phobic team, Lencioni suggests ‘low risk exposure therapy’; that is, taking a decision in a relatively low-risk situation and analysing the outcome. Lencioni argues that for most decisions teams will discover they would not have acted much differently even if the team had engaged in lengthy, time-consuming study. After a decision had been made, and the team is committed, the next step for functional teams is to ensure accountability. Simple ways to hold a team accountable are to: • • • clarify publicly what the team seeks to achieve and who is responsible for the delivery of each outcome; regularly review progress towards the goal, communicate and give honest feedback; and provide team rewards rather than rewarding individual performance. If a reward is only available if the team is accountable as a whole, team members are likely to hold all other team members to account. The final team dysfunction – inattention to results – can be overcome by following similar strategies to those used to hold the team accountable. For example, publicly committing to achieve specific results is a strong way to ensure the team is focused on achieving what it broadcasts it will do, whereas committing to something like ‘we’ll do our best’, unconsciously prepares people for not achieving the stated goal. In addition, providing rewards tied to results is a powerful, but not the only, incentive to focus on results. 4 In the end, building functional leadership teams comes down to ‘practicing a small set of principles over a long period of time…(by) embracing common sense with uncommon levels of discipline and persistence’ (Lencioni, 2002). In a further look at what might assist in the development and functioning of effective leadership teams, Wageman and Hackman (2009) address a series of key functions that must be fulfilled. They argue that in order for teams to work organisations must: 1. Create a bounded entity that is defined by clear, shared purpose 2. Craft an agenda so that the work of the team is always focused on meaningful, interdependent activities 3. Shape members construal of their roles 4. Articulate explicit norms that promote attention to team strategies, and that minimise political dynamics 5. Coach the team. A real leadership team with a defined purpose works best when team leaders make thoughtful choices about who is on the team and define membership boundaries clearly. Every member of the team should be there because they have capabilities that will contribute to the team purpose, not because they hold a particular position in the organisation; however team leaders often allow teams to become large and unfocused simply because they are unwilling to upset egos by leaving anyone off the team. The first key function of the team leader is, therefore, to clearly define team membership. The second key function is to pay careful attention to the tasks team members will do to achieve their shared purpose. The danger for all teams is that without this attention they will become information sharing groups or that their energies will be diverted into long discussions about trivial matters. In their research into the 120 top leadership teams and the teams in a US civic association mentioned earlier, Wageman and Hackman found that functional team leaders created a short list of key decisions or activities to address every time their teams convened. In contrast, in teams where explicit attention was not paid to task demands the team typically generated a long list of small items, each of which was relevant mainly for only one or two team members. In the latter case, there were negative consequences with regard to attention and effort for those members who could not see the work as meaningful to them. Shaping team members’ construal of their roles is the third key function that must be fulfilled to build effective leadership teams. Berg (2005) notes that an important role of the CEO is to keep senior leaders focused on both their team role as well as their individual roles in an organisation. He refers to top leadership teams where the CEO describes the role of a new senior manager in terms of expectations as a team member before discussing the person’s individual role with the company as one way of ensuring employees are focused on organisational effectiveness as well as their own role. When members of an organisation perceive their role as contributing Independent Schools Queensland BRIEFINGS VOLUME 15 ISSUE 6 JULY 2011 to organisational effectiveness the evidence is they are more likely to develop shared criteria for decision making that maximise collective outcomes and are more willing to trade-off individual and local team benefits for organisation-wide benefits (Ganz & Wageman, 2008). Effective team leaders fulfil a further key function in that they articulate explicit norms appropriate to the task and situation about team behaviour. Paradoxically they also pay attention to the concerns of individuals about their own groups. In the research on both top leadership teams and civic teams outstanding teams were found to be more likely to place individual concerns on the table and to have members display high levels of empathy for each others’ concerns (ibid). Importantly, however, the norms were articulated and reinforced by leaders and acceptance of those norms negotiated in all of the most effective teams. Finally, the research identifies a key function of team leaders is to coach their teams. Hands-on coaching accounts for significant variance in the effectiveness of top leadership teams, and is especially important to help leadership teams develop shared definitions of the very facts they rely on in their discussions; to help the team members deal constructively with differences in their individual interests; and to help face the inherent challenges posed by teams where the structure involves high level, powerful individuals (Wageman & Hackman, 2009). Hackman (2004) argues that, overall, the function of the team leader is ‘to help team members take the greatest possible advantage of their favourable circumstances’. Leaders who do this seem to have four personal qualities that Hackman describes thus: ...effective leaders know some things – they are aware of the conditions that most powerfully shape team effectiveness. Second, effective leaders know how to do some things – they have skill in extracting from performance situations those themes that are most consequential for performance and in acting to narrow the gap between a team’s present reality and what could and should be. Third, effective leaders have emotional maturity sufficient for the demands of their role…finally, team leaders need a measure of personal courage. The challenge for leaders in our schools, and especially for the person who leads the leadership team, is to move the school from where it is now to some other, better place and to take the team, and the school, with him or her. This vital task cannot be achieved by one person without collaborating with a functional, effective leadership team. Recommended Reading Lencioni, P. (2002), The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass In this immensely readable book, Patrick Lencioni traces the journey undertaken by a new CEO who arrives at her company to find her leadership team is completely dysfunctional. Lencioni draws on the CEO’s experience to develop his view about what makes teams work well together and the jeopardy to the company or organisation if management is dysfunctional. Interesting sites Patrick Lencioni on the Importance of Trust http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=gwj9bMLiV4E We all know trust in teams is a fundamental for their success. But what does trust really imply? Here Patrick Lencioni, best-selling author, consultant and expert on building winning teams, discusses the importance of trust and the difference between predictive trust and vulnerability based trust within a company. 2.30 minutes Stephen Covey- Leading at the Speed of Trust http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=igyxxYShXYo&NR=1 Stephen M. R. Covey is the son of Stephen Covey, famous for his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. In this presentation he challenges the assumption that trust is merely a soft, social virtue and instead demonstrates that trust is a hard-edged, economic driver—a learnable and measurable skill that makes organisations more profitable, people more promotable, and relationships more energising. 6.12 minutes BIBLIOGRAPHY Alderfer, C. (1980), Consulting to Unbounded Systems, in C. Alderfer & C. Cooper (Eds.) Advances in Experiential Social Processes, Vol 2, New York: Wiley Berg, D. (2005), Senior Executive Teams: Not What You Think, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol 57(2) Finkelstine, S. (1992), Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement and Validation, Academy of Management Journal, 35 Ganz, M. & Wageman, R. (2008), Leadership Development in a Civic Organisation: Multi-level Influences on Effective, Working Paper, Harvard Kennedy School of Government Hackman, R. (2004), What Makes a Great Team? American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/ science/about/psa/2004/06/hackman. aspx Lencioni, P. (2002), The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Mortensen, M. (2008), Fuzzy Teams: Why do Teams Disagree on their Membership, and what does it Mean? Cambridge, MA: MIT – Sloane School of Management, Ocasio, W. (1994), Political Dynamics and the Circulation of Power: CEO Succession in US Industrial Corporations, 1960-1990, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 Wageman, R. & Hackman, R. (2009), What Makes Teams of Leaders Leadable? In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Advancing Leadership, Boston: Harvard Business School Press Wageman, R., Hackman, J. & Lehman, E. (2005), The Team Diagnostic Survey: Development of Instrument, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41 Wageman, R., Nunes, D., Burruss J. & Hackman (2008), Senior Leadership Teams: What it Takes to Make them Great, Boston: Harvard Business School Press Independent Schools Queensland BRIEFINGS VOLUME 15 ISSUE 6 JULY 2011 FROM THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR and others, begin to understand other people’s points of view, experience emotions that are important to the development of conscience (e.g., shame and guilt), have learned the rudiments of how to negotiate with others to achieve common goals, and can sit quietly with a group of children and pay attention for at least brief periods of time (Harvard University Centre for the Developing Child, 2007)1. The Queensland Government’s Education White Paper – A Flying Start for Queensland Children, provides a framework for three main educational objectives, these are: 1. Getting ready for school 2. Getting ready for secondary school 3. Boosting performance for all schools David Robertson, in the June edition of Briefings, considered two of these significant education reforms, the movement of Year 7 to secondary school and the establishment of an education standards authority. The other major educational objective affecting all education sectors is the Queensland Government’s commitment to the provision of universal access to kindergarten for all Queensland children. This initiative has arisen from considerable research about the importance of early childhood education with a national early childhood reform agenda progressed through COAG (the Council of Australian Governments) that aims to provide all children with access to high quality early childhood education and care services with an emphasis on a smooth transition from early childhood education and care to formal schooling. The research shows that between three and five years of age children are involved in increasingly complex social behaviour, develop their emotional capacities and problem-solving abilities, and are developing the pre-literacy skills that are essential building blocks for a successful life. Most children have learned, or are well on the way to learning, the basics of the grammatical system in their language, can detect and identify simple emotions in themselves At the same time, disparities in skill development, language acquisition and socialemotional health are already beginning to emerge. As early as 18 months, children in low income family where parents have less education are beginning to score lower on standardised tests and the differences typically increase into the school-age years. For example, formal assessments of language development show that young children in high income homes, where parents have a high level of education have more than twice the expressive vocabulary at age three than children raised in low socio-economic status homes (Hart & Risley, 1995)2. Given the clear evidence of the importance of the early years in positive child development and the need for quality early education and care programs, both state and federal governments in Australia are committed to lifting the outcomes for all children in the early years. To meet the standards set under the National Partnership for Early Childhood Education, the Queensland Government is delivering on this commitment in a variety of ways. A national early childhood reform agenda has been progressed through COAG (the Council of Australian Governments) that aims to provide all children with access to high quality early childhood education and care services with an emphasis on a smooth transition from early childhood education and care to formal schooling. To meet the standards set under the National Partnership for Early Childhood Education, the Queensland Government is delivering on this commitment in a variety of ways. Firstly, in partnership with the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government has committed to the establishment of up to 240 new kindergarten services by 2014. This will assist in the delivery of access to a quality kindergarten program for all Queensland children in the year before Prep. The State is contributing funding to the construction of these new services, which are to be co-located on school sites. Since 2010, 22 kindergarten services have been established, two of which are on independent school sites. Another 85 services are due to open next year, with nine co-located on independent school sites. Capital funding for the building of a kindergarten is not an application process but rather a State government decision process. In determining locations for kindergarten services to open by 2012, areas of need were identified using data based on Statistical Local Areas (SLAs). These areas were prioritised based on the gap between the number of kindy-age children and the number of kindergarten places available in both kindergartens and long day care services. Within each prioritised SLA, available schools were assessed for suitability to host a kindergarten. The assessment of available schools took account of the enrolment profile, availability of land or facilities for refurbishment, and local knowledge of the community. The planning process for sites to open in 2013 and 2014 will also assess the natural transport habits of local families. Capital funding for kindergartens to be built on independent school sites will be facilitated by Independent Schools Queensland. Secondly, through the Office for Early Childhood Education and Care, the Department of Education and Training has introduced a new funding scheme to support the provision of kindergarten programs in different service settings. The purpose of Independent Schools Queensland BRIEFINGS VOLUME 15 ISSUE 6 JULY 2011 the Queensland Kindergarten Funding Scheme (QKFS) is to assist with the costs of operating an approved kindergarten program and to ensure that cost is not a barrier to access. It has replaced the Department of Education Community Kindergarten Funding Assistance Scheme (DECKAS) and in doing so has opened funding support to a wider set of service providers. For the first time, long day care services are able to offer an approved kindergarten program and receive financial assistance to do so. For the independent sector, it means services on member school sites, both long day care and traditional style kindergartens, can now apply to receive program funding support for which they were previously ineligible. This will give parents and families’ choices with regard to their child’s participation in an education program in the year prior to Prep and at the same time continue to support those services that have received funding in the past. To be eligible for funding, kindergarten service providers must be approved by the Office for Early Childhood Education and Care as Kindergarten Program Providers (KPP) and they must also become a member of a Central Governing Body (CGB). In order to support our members, Independent Schools Queensland made an application to become a CGB and this application was approved in December 2010. To date four other organisations have been approved as CGBs. These are Queensland Lutheran Early Childhood Services (QLECS), The Gowrie, Queensland Catholic Education Commission, and Creche and Kindergarten Association of Queensland (C&K). Independent Schools Queensland CGB will be responsible for administering the QKFS funds to approved kindergarten program providers and providing advice and support to its members. Currently, we have 15 approved kindergarten program providers as members of our CGB. Indicators show that this number will expand significantly in 2012. A key feature of the funding scheme is the receipt of a standard subsidy per eligible child enrolled. That is, for children who are 4 years old by 30 June in the year they participate in an approved kindergarten program. Additional per child subsidies are available for services in areas of high educational need and disadvantage. There are two standard subsidy rates; one applies to long day care services and one to kindergarten services. The definition of a long day care service for the purposes of this funding is a service that is in receipt of Child Care Benefit (CCB) on behalf of its families. The subsidy is a lower rate for these services taking into account the CCB already reducing out-of-pocket fees for eligible parents. To be approved as a Kindergarten Program Provider, services need to make an application to the Office for Early Childhood Education and Care. Kindergarten services can apply at any time and long day care services can apply as funding rounds open. Apart from joining a CGB, there are certain requirements that services need to meet for approval. The most significant of these being that the education program must be delivered by a qualified early childhood teacher to children who are at least 4 years old by 30 June in the year they start kindergarten. The learning program must be aligned with the newly developed Queensland Kindergarten Learning Guideline and the program must be offered for at least 15 hours per week for 40 weeks per year. Independent Schools Queensland expressed great concern over this last requirement, as independent schools generally operate for less than 40 weeks per year. As a concession to this, the Department has made an allowance for kindergarten services on non-state schools sites only, to offer a program for 600 hours over a school year. Any services approved as a Kindergarten Program Provider from January 2011, will be funded under this new scheme. For existing services that have been in receipt of DECKAS funding until December 2010, transition arrangements have been put in place to provide support and guidance in moving towards the new requirements. Some of the other initiatives assisting in the provision of universal access to a kindergarten program include the development of a Queensland Kindergarten Learning Guideline by the Queensland Studies Authority; the offering of early childhood teaching scholarships to support early childhood educators to upgrade their skills; and the implementation of strategies to increase participation by additional needs and those in rural and remote areas. In addition to the above reforms, Queensland early childhood services have also had to absorb the significance of the new National Quality Framework, which will put in place the new National Quality Standard and National Regulations from 1 January 2012. This integrated approach to the regulation of services will include a quality rating and assessment system of services. Whilst many independent schools have been offering a quality kindergarten program for some time, the many changes instigated at both a state and federal level have meant much confusion for all concerned. As the creases are slowly ironed out, Independent Schools Queensland will continue to provide advice to support our members through this developing educational reform and the independent sector will continue to play a key role in the provision of early childhood education to Queensland children. Helen Coyer Deputy Executive Director & Director (Operations) 1 Harvard University Centre for the Developing Child (2007), In Brief: The Science of Early Childhood Development, Harvard University: National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2 Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995), Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, Baltimore, MD: Brookes 7 ISQ thanks its 2011 supporters SDS Proudly supporting QASSP PLATINUM ALLIANCE Pay by credit card REWARD DISCOUNT % GOLD ALLIANCES SILVER ALLIANCES !SÍPARTÍOFÍOURÍONGOINGÍCOMMITMENTÍ TOÍREDUCINGÍPURCHASINGÍCOSTSÍTOÍ 1UEENSLANDÍSCHOOLSÍ3$3ÍAREÍPLEASEDÍ TOÍANNOUNCEÍTHEÍINTRODUCTIONÍOFÍAÍnew 1.5% ‘pay now and save’ credit card discount.Í0AYINGÍBYÍCREDITÍCARDÍsaves transaction costs and reduces the paperworkÍREQUIREDÍFORÍEACHÍORDERÍ Your school will be rewardedÍWITHÍTHISÍ DISCOUNTÍBYÍPAYINGÍFORÍYOURÍGOODSÍATÍTHEÍ TIMEÍOFÍORDERINGÍTHROUGHÍ3$3Í/NLINEÍ 0LEASEÍENSUREÍYOUÍUTILISEÍTHISÍOFFERÍTOÍ maximise the savingsÍFORÍYOURÍSCHOOL To qualify for this discount you must: qÍ 0AYÍONLINEÍ qÍ 0AYÍATÍTHEÍTIMEÍOFÍORDERING qÍ 0AYÍBYÍCREDITÍCARD sdsonline.qld.gov.au PLEASE NOTE:Í4HEÍÍDISCOUNTÍONLYÍAPPLIESÍTOÍCREDITÍCARDÍPURCHASESÍWHENÍGOODSÍAREÍORDEREDÍANDÍPAID FORÍATÍTHEÍSAMEÍTIMEÍThis discount does not apply to EFT and cheque payments. www.sdsonline.qld.gov.au BRONZE ALLIANCE INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS QUEENSLAND Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication is to the best of our knowledge and belief correct at the date of publication. However, no warranty or guarantee is or can be given by Independent Schools Queensland or any member of its staff, and no liability is or can be accepted for any loss or damage resulting from any person relying on or using the information contained in this publication. COPYRIGHT © Independent Schools Queensland JULY 2011 Licensed under NEALS The Association of Independent Schools of Queensland Inc. PO Box 957 Spring Hill Qld 4004 Telephone: 07 3228 1515 Fax: 07 3228 1575 Email: [email protected] Web: www.aisq.qld.edu.au
© Copyright 2024