The Moss Model of Collaborative Leadership in Child Care, Beyond

The Moss Model of
Collaborative Leadership
in Child Care
Lita Kate Haddal
T rying out new
paths is not unknown
in the Norwegian
child care world.
Norway has a tradition
of diversity in its forms
of child care delivery.
The city and county
of Moss, nestled 40
miles south of the
capital city of Oslo, on
the east bank of the
Oslofjord and the
neighboring island of
Jeløy, is a ferry gateway to traffic going
west to the rest of
Norway and east
toward Sweden.
Lita Kate Haddal, MSEd,
works in Moss, Norway, as
a professional developer
in county-run early
childhood programs.
She is on leave from
the Wisconsin
Department of
Workforce Development’s Child Care
Information Center,
where she edits a
statewide newsletter and
resource bibliography and
serves with professional
development and state
policy advisory teams. She
also serves on the U.S.
National Board of OMEP (the
World Organization for Early
Childhood Education).
Recently, Moss has become another gateway, one of ideas
and planning methods, and the site of an adventurous
plan of community reorganization that is impacting and
energizing the child care community. “The road is being
built as we walk on it,” says Solveig Lundberg (personal
communication, February 2004), one of the sculptors of
the Moss model of collaborative leadership in child care.
Norway answering local needs
Norway offers child care users a variety of care options—half-day, mid-day, full day, after school, drop in, and
flexible hours, to name a few. There are group centers and
family child care, as well as a form of child care that takes
place outdoors only and is best described as “playground
supervision.” Offering child care in forms that suit the
needs of their residents has been characteristic of
Norway’s community administrations (BFD 1997a).
Another characteristic of the Norwegian child care
climate has been to regard centers as workplaces for
adults. As such, centers have addressed the labor needs
and rights of staff and families in more clear-cut terms
than they did the educational needs of children. In 1992,
however, the Norwegian Education Association initiated
legislation in the national parliamentary assembly,
Stortinget, that resulted in a national plan for
professionalizing the child care field (Pålerud 2000).
Norway’s creation of a national child care plan
The Rammeplan for Barnehagen, officially translated as
the Framework Plan for Day Care Institutions (BFD 1997b),
has become a handbook for nationwide reform of the
child care system. The aim is “to provide day care institution staff and coordinating committees with a binding
framework to follow when planning, implementing, and
evaluating the content of their institution” (p. 7).
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
1
The plan is neither a curriculum nor instructions for uniform results. Rather,
it is a descriptive framework identifying core ingredients and attitudes for
individualized planning. It reveals the writers’ insightful knowledge of adult
learning styles and assures the input of local community populations in an
emergent and ongoing process.
Focus on core content
In the Framework Plan, the child care center is described as a “mediator of
culture” (BFD 1997b, 57), providing children with a variety of age-appropriate
experiences to help them construct knowledge, skills, and attitudes (BFD
1997a). Five learning areas must appear in every child care program, regardless of the ages of the children involved:
• society, religion, and ethics
• aesthetic subjects
• language, text, and communication
• nature, environment, and technology
• physical activity and health (BFD 1997b, 60).
Creators of this core content see it as being holistically communicated
through play, creativity, joy, and humor (BFD 1997b, 60).Child care staff are left
to design the specifics of individual centers’ curriculum.
Addressing the child care trilemma Scandinavian style
In Norway, the
trilemma is whether
child care workers
can be convinced to
participate in
improving the
quality of care they
provide.
The trilemma of balancing the quality, accessibility, and affordability of
child care (Greenman 1990; Fiene 1997) is a problem in all Western countries,
including Norway. In social-democratic Norway, where the 2003 figures show
that 75 percent of the population is actively employed or training for the
workforce (CIA 2003), solutions to this trilemma have been simplified for employers and child care consumers through government regulation and taxfunded subsidization.
In the United States the question central to the trilemmatic child care
equation is, How can the bar on quality child care be raised without making it
inaccessible due to increased cost? In Norway, the trilemma, given universal
access to child care by families and ongoing government funding, is whether
child care workers can be convinced to participate in improving the quality of
care they provide.
Access and affordability
In 2003 Norway legislated that all children have a right to a place in child
care, and all counties must increase their child care supply to 100 percent
coverage. This mandate has caused an eruption of new private child care
businesses and a relaxation of start-up restrictions. To meet the mandate, the
Norwegian government is encouraging the opening of new centers by issuing
start-up subsidies, giving tax breaks, and structuring high reimbursement
rates that make the child care business more lucrative right now
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
2
(Trygdeetaten 2003). As a result, private child care business chains are
developing in Norway.
Quality and compensation
Issues ranging from universal access to well-trained staff have been partially
addressed in the public child care domain through Norway’s governmentstructured wage scale, which applies to a multitude of jobs countrywide and
easily identifies earning expectations and pay requirements. This national
pay scale is largely the result of strong labor unions, which have a tradition of
negotiating successfully for their members. Because preschool teachers
belong to the same union as do school teachers, both receive equal pay for an
equal level on the wage scale regardless of where they work. Sick leave with
pay is accrued, and after six months’ employment each staff person is entitled
to a minimum of four weeks paid vacation annually.
A consensus of Norwegian child care policy makers is that well-trained staff
deserve compensation that recognizes their three years of education and one
to two years of teaching practice. Although not regulated, typical classroom
staffing places two teachers with degrees in early childhood education, one
assistant teacher with training, and one assistant without formal training in
each classroom of 14 to 18 children. For care of children under the age of
three, the ratio of adults to children increases (BFD 1995). The combination of
high compensation and turnover spares most Norwegian child care center
administrators the headache of continuous staff change. Staff absences due
to illness are a typical daily occurrence, however, resulting in substitutes,
who have no training requirements, as a part of the staff. The composition of a
typical child care center staff is therefore a stable variety of competencies
and experience.
A spokesperson for children’s rights
Norway’s
ombudsman for
children likens his role
to that of an owl in a
treetop, watching
from his vantage
point and swiftly
intervening when
trouble is sighted.
Policy makers concur on the issue that children have rights that supersede
all other legislation. These rights are outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Norway in 1991. However, Norway’s
legislature took a historic step and incorporated the Convention into Norwegian law, effective October 2004. The watchdog or ombudsman regarding
Norwegian law and public administration adherence to the U.N. Convention on
children’s rights is the ombud for children (BFD 2004).
Norway’s activism for children’s rights has existed for decades. The Ombud
office was established in 1981, the first of its kind in the world (Barneombudet
2004). The office’s mandate is to promote and protect the interests of children
and young people (birth through age18) in Norwegian society and to be their
spokesperson through an active role in politics and public debate, including
rights to comment on proposed legislation concerning children and to
propose new legislation. Even though the ombud office cannot reverse
decisions made by the courts or government agencies, it has the right to
access all documents concerning the welfare of children.
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
3
Moss City and County Administration
In many ways an empowerment model, the Moss model is characterized by relatively few managers. Much of the
decision making has been moved to units within each institution, and staff memebers are supported by professional developers and collaboration managers (fiscal and administrative specialists). Also, staff members are rquired
to participate in developing and implementing an aggressive plan for evaluation and quality improvement.
New leadership on behalf of children
Policy makers in
Moss eliminated all
the director positions
in county-sponsored
child care centers and
moved program
control to those
providing direct
services to children.
Psychologist Reidar Hjermann became Norway’s fourth ombudsman for
children in April 2004. He likens his role to that of an owl in a treetop, watching from his vantage point and swiftly intervening when trouble is sighted. To
inaugurate his role, Hjermann used television to speak directly to Norway’s
children. He effectively modeled the concept of caring being a relationship as
much as it is action, a consistent theme throughout the framework plan (BFD
1997a). The legislation establishing his office can be a historic step forward if
Norwegian society chooses to view children as independent individuals
capable of their own thoughts and actions (Waage 2003).
Laila Davøy, Norway’s minister of children and families, says that one of the
most important rights of children is to have a say in their own lives (Naess
2003). For children to participate in decisions regarding their own situations,
discussions must take place where children are, in their home communities.
Cities and counties need to become informed of their increased obligation to
protect children’s rights by listening to children’s wishes and helping them
act on them.
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
4
The Moss model
Matching tasks to the
interests and competencies of individual
staff members results in
empowerment as
positive motivation
drives involvement and
task ownership forward
The need to comply with the national framework for child care planning, to
protect children’s rights by listening and supporting them, and to solve the
child care equation trilemma by developing quality paved the road for the
Moss model of collaborative leadership in child care. Policy makers in Moss
took unusual steps to implement the national child care plan and simultaneously cut the county budget. They began an aggressive reorganization of
the public services administration, eliminated all the director positions in
county-sponsored child care centers and moved program control to those
providing direct services to children.
Now the centers in Moss are clustered, forming three collaborations served
by centralized managers who deal predominantly with fiscal and policy administration. The management of daily routines is the domain of on-site
caregiving staff. In addition, each center has a position of professional developer, which was created to support staff training needs and ensure the quality
of care. This resource person’s role allows flexibility for both partnering with
and leading the staff team in exploring the potential of a new child care
model. (See ”Model Child Care Plan for Moss City and County, Norway.”)
Motivation and training in empowerment
By entrusting staff with more administrative roles
than before and requiring greater planning and
philosophical reflection, the new leadership model
gives unequalled staff power to uniquely mold center
curriculum and routines. In fact, the Moss model
encourages each center to assess its strengths in both
physical and human resources and to focus annual
planning and marketing on those elements, while at
the same time complying with the societal perspective
laid out in the Framework Plan (BFD 1997a).
Adjusting workloads to accommodate new tasks is
not easy. Classroom teachers cannot simply add the
duties of site administration—record keeping, staff
scheduling, and meeting planning—to their already
busy daily routine of managing their own classrooms.
The new leadership role of classroom teachers requires the delegation of sometimes cherished tasks to
other staff. Matching tasks to the interests and competencies of individual staff members results in empowerment as positive motivation drives involvement and
task ownership forward (Haddal 2002).
Vision building—The Moss model of
reorganization
A vision drawing describes caregiving goals without
depending on words.
The Moss model reorganization process is incremental. One of the first steps was to send all the lead
teachers, professional developers, and collaboration
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
5
© Lita Kate Haddal
managers to a training session on the framework plan to provide a shared
basis for understanding the upcoming planning process.
In the next step, teachers led their classroom staff through a visualization
exercise in which they drew individual pictures of their workplace and job
with children as they would like these to look. Some drew very realistic
pictures of the classroom and daily routine. Others used symbols to represent
abstract philosophies and interactions. Staff posted their drawings and took
turns interpreting each others’ visions, revealing insights not otherwise
readily expressed. As the staff began to put words to each others’ drawings,
commonalities of thought emerged.
Next was the step to create a single
vision for the classroom. Although at no
time were written words put to the visions, the now talkative staff, energized by
the exchange of ideas, readily identified
the elements they wanted to combine into
a merged vision drawing. The visualization
exercise took place again, first as each
group of staff created a vision drawing for
their center, and then as all of the centers
melded their ideas into a collaborative
vision.
Each time the vision became more
focused, until the final vision was a
picture of the collaboration’s shared
dream for the child care centers in which
they all worked. At last staff put words to
the picture and thought of a catch-phrase
or slogan that would inspire them now and
in the future. The professional developers,
Staff builds spirit by participating in an action rhyme during a planning session.
who also worked as a team, went through
this same process in formulating a common vision for their work, a slogan and a
vision statement.
© Lita Kate Haddal
Measurement of quality
Materials gathered during nature
walks between planning sessions
became a sculpture that the group
named ”Feelings.”
Evaluation, participation, and professional development are built into the
Moss model. Incorporated into this model are the framework plan’s five core
content areas of quality programs. They serve as measures of quality. An
annual plan is meant to indicate the progress made toward the vision.
Each center, through its vision planning, is able to select a core content
area in which to increase competency. Staff plan activities, themes, and
initiatives to support the content area selected. Through the collaboration,
centers share their areas of expertise, fulfilling needs in their partner centers.
At the year’s end, the staff and a team from central administration together set
aside a visitation day to review annual plans and photo documentation as
preparation to begin the next cycle.
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
6
Celebration of achievement
References
BFD. 1995. Familie-og barnehageavd.
FOR 1995-12-01 nr 945: Forskrift om
pedagogisk bemanning. Lovdata.
Online: www.lovdata.no/for/sf/bf/
xf-19951201-0945.html.
BFD. 1997b. Framework plan for day
care institutions—A brief presentation. Oslo, Norway: Barne-og
familiedepartementet (Ministry of
Children and Family Affairs).
Online: http://odin.dep.no/bfd/
engelsk/regelverk/rikspolitiske/
004005-990083/index-dok000-b-na.html.
BFD. 1997a. Rammeplan for barnehagen
(Framework plan for day care
institutions). Oslo, Norway: Barneog familiedepartementet.
BFD. 2004. Barneombudet. Oslo,
Norway: Barne-og Familiedepartementet. Online: http://odin.dep.
no/bfd/norsk/barn_og_ungdom/
fns_konv/barneombudet/index-bn-a.html.
Barneombudet. 2004. Om barneombudet. Barneombudet Informasjon. Online: www.barneombudet.
no/cgi-bin/barneombudet/imaker?
id=1600&visdybde=1&aktiv=1600.
Brassard, M. 1989. The memory
jogger +: Featuring the seven management planning tools. Methuen,
MA: GOAL/QPC.
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).
2003. Map & graph: Labor: Top
100 labor force. CIA Worldfactbook.
Online: www.nationmaster.com/
graph-T/lab_lab_for&id=no.
Fiene, R. 1997. Searching for a
solution to the child care
trilemma. Child Care Information
Exchange 117: 57–60. Online:
http://ecti.hbg.psu.edu/docs/
publication/trilemma.doc.
The cycle of annual planning starts with a celebration of achievements.
These accomplishments are self-reported in each center’s annual evaluation.
One center has chosen to specialize in stimulating language through play
using words and music. They celebrated one classroom’s creation of a library
room with a couch, cassettes to play, flannel boards, and dramatic play
props. Another classroom is working on making a sensory wall full of gadgets,
fabric swatches, knobby balls, and other tactile experiences to elicit
children’s responses and to prompt conversation. Over the changing tables
at all of the centers, staff posted placards with rhymes and verses for saying
and playing while babies are being changed and cared for.
Through their own journeys in reflecting and expressing themselves, staff
have come to recognize the many aspects of language embedded in daily
routines. Their professional development becomes a pleasant part of that
routine when “the learning that takes place in the quest to conquer job difficulties is very satisfying and becomes self-perpetuating” (Haddal 2002, 29).
Each center holds an overnight retreat at a conference center to immerse
themselves in their planning for the upcoming year. Before and during the
retreat, staff evaluate their work through a variety of methods, such as
conversations with children, questionnaires, checklists, reflection logs,
sunburst analyses, and affinity processes. Sunburst analysis is a particularly
popular method of collecting input from participants around a central
question, such as “How do we affirm children?” The responses, for example,
“listen in an interested way,” “accept participants’ feelings and help them put
words to them,” and “try not to take over the solution,” become the enlightening beams around the pulsating central question. The affinity process is
used to sort input collected during a brainstorming session (Brassard 1989).
Similar issues and thoughts are sorted and grouped together so that patterns
of thought and emphasis are made clearer and action steps can be readily
defined.
Lead teachers, the professional developer, and the collaboration manager
share the job of guiding staff through the process of using pictures, music,
games, walk-and-talk dialoguing, and other communication tools. These
activities led to a written assessment of the present status of care at their
center and action steps for further closing the gap between reality and
vision.
Summary
All staff members participate in the work of creating their center’s annual
plan. And all can expect assistance in developing professionally through onsite guidance and off-site training.
Many of Norway’s child care staff have not attended school beyond
grade10 and are sometimes fearful of reading, writing, and paperwork resembling schoolwork. This concern is recognized in the Framework Plan, which
identifies as a specific goal bringing the tacit knowledge of these caregivers
to the forefront (BFD 1997b). The Moss model helps staff to verbalize their
thoughts and conceptualize them through repetitive exercises in reflection
that lead gradually toward written expression. Short sessions and outdoor
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
7
Greenman, J. 1990. Living in the
real world—“Jean’s Pretty Good,
Kind of Affordable, Child Development Center” versus the child
care trilemma. Child Care Information Exchange 74: 29–31. Online:
http://search.epnet.com/direct.
asp?an=EJ420432&db=eric.
Haddal, L.K. 2002. Applying teacher
developmental stages to professional development: An information plan for the Wisconsin Child
Care Information Center. MS
thesis, Concordia University.
Naess, R.N.. 2003. Barnas rettigheter—Også et kommunalt
ansvar. Kommunal Rapport. Online:
www.kommunal-rapport.no/index.
db2?id=120954.
Pålerud, T. 2000. Profesjonshensyn
eller barnas beste?—Om Norsk
Lærerlags arbeid med Lov om
barnehager. In Barna under lovens
vinger—Barnehageloven 25 år i
Norge, ed. U. Bleken, Y. Armand,
A. Kaels, L. Cranner, 60–72. Oslo,
Norway: OMEP.
Trygdeetaten. 2003. Child benefit.
Child benefit scheme. Online: www.
trygdeeetaten.no/Trygdeetaten.no/
generelt/Pub/barnetrygd_eng.pdf.
Waage, T. 2003. Barnekonvensjonen
inn i norsk lovverk. Barneombudet
Nyheter. Online: ww.barneombudet.
no/cgi-bin/barneombudet/imaker?
id=3014.
break times; the use of overheads as visuals and one-on-one conversations in
natural surroundings; sculpture making with found materials; sharing silly
action rhymes, inspirational poetry, and thought-provoking illustrations; and
singing together as a closing provides changes that enhance participation.
When knowledge of adult learning styles and motivational tools are applied,
engagement becomes the measure of success in leading the entire staff
through the reflection and planning process.
The expectation of the Moss model is threefold: (1) the point of creating a
vision is to create a new reality; (2) closing the gap between vision and
reality needs to be a group effort; and (3) a responsive individual also
accepts responsibility. The emerging confidence of staff and increased
understanding of colleagues were evidence of staff job satisfaction. One
vision slogan applied as much to themselves as to the children they are
models for: “We dream, we dare, we do!” The slogan captured the staff’s
attitude.
Through repeated successful experiences that challenge child care staff to
participate and to stretch their personal competencies, the Moss model of
collaborative leadership is empowering the child care workforce and raising
the quality of care. The emphasis moves from external to internal mandates,
and staff find that leadership lies within themselves.
Copyright © 2004 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See
Permissions and Reprints online at http://www. naeyc.org/resources/journal.
Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web • September 2004
8