Phase II Working Towards
Action Project Objectives
Objective 1
To re-examine and continue to support the development of mutual objectives
for the ONLC, MTCU and NLS.
Objective 2
To improve the capacity of the ONLC to support its constituents
Objective 3
To support processes toward the articulation of the Holistic Approach
to Native Literacy.
Objective 4
To develop an action plan that enables the ONLC to implement the findings
from Phase I of the Field Development Project.
Objective 5
To support the development of learners and practitioners in Native literacy
Preliminary Steps
ONLC engaged in a survey process during the Field Development Phase 1
Project (2001 -2002). The objective was to find out from practitioners
what could be done to support them in their jobs and then begin to address
the issues in the field. In that survey, practitioners clearly identified
the need for a Field Development Worker to assist them in meeting the
increasing demands of their positions. Unfortunately, the scope of Field
Development Phase I was too narrow in focus and a foundation for Phase
II was not laid. Phase I didn’t offer sufficient data or a practical
framework to allow the ONLC to move to the action planning stage as quickly
and efficiently as hoped. At the weekend Strategic Planning meeting of
May 2002, the ONLC and planning facilitator Jamie Hill assembled a working
document to facilitate the Strategic Planning component with the field
at the June 2002 AGM in Sudbury. It became abundantly clear at the AGM
that to move the field along in its development, required an approach
that the field had not fully appreciated. The question that needed to
be answered became obvious to ONLC, Jamie Hill and the field: What is
the capacity of the ONLC to serve this field? The realities of “time,
money and talent” had to be considered. Three areas of work that
the field was prepared to participate in and that were identified as priorities
for the ONLC were: 1 .Internal Governance 2. Language and Culture 3. Relationship
with the MTCU. Having looked at the capacity of the ONLC (Board of 6,
staff of 2) the field realized that the impetus to make changes had to
come from them. Three subcommittees were formed and Alphacom discussion
groups were set up to get the work started. The only active group is Internal
Governance. It begs the question: Was the strategy workable and is this
result a demonstration of capacity issues? The field clearly stated the
need for practical not philosophical strategies. Unequivocally, the ONLC
had to change the priorities for Phase II.
To reconcile some gaps from Phase I, it was necessary for Phase II work
to identify and take 3 preliminary steps:
|