At the same time it is important to note that learning styles can and have been used to prohibit school learning for Aboriginal people. There are many interpretations of Native learning style and historically education systems have used them more than adapted them in the classroom to indicate many things but rarely has it been used to indicate equal capacity to learn. Some of the reason that Aboriginal people have not accessed higher education is because many educators mistook Native Learning styles to mean simple and much of the programming was held to such a simple level that students did not have the requirements when the time came to move on. This is another issue practitioners are having to work through with their learners.

Realities of hierarchy tied to Preliminary Step 3 : Enhancing Communications
Embedded in the practitioner requests for demographic information about programs and the literacy field in general, are issues of lines of authority, jurisdiction and protocol. Prior to this project ONLC had never had access to the business profiles of the 26 programs they are expected to represent and advocate for. Without essential information and authority, ONLC cannot be effective in advocacy. Having been denied the information by MTCU, ONLC was advised to get the information for itself As a result during this project information was collected from 2lprograms. The ONLC is committed to maintain and share the most current program profile information. This information makes it possible for ONLC to advocate for and support practitioners and programs. When issues with the seven different consultants, hosts and MTCU initiatives come up the ONLC can respond from a more informed place. The new Continuous Improvement Performance Management system was announced to the literacy field in January 2003. The Coalition learned of this new MTCU initiative at the same time as the field, leaving no opportunity for the ONLC to support the field in terms of learning and using this new system. The ONLC was unable to fulfill two of its core functions because of the way this new system was announced, these two functions being 1) to provide informed advice to MTCU and 2) to support MTCU initiatives. When added to the issue of the MTCU’s decision to not train ONLC staff on IMS, it brings to light the need for the field to articulate the role of ONLC and give the ONLC a clear mandate with the accompanying authority.

Another area of information sharing that the ONLC should pursue is in the area of budgets. There is no doubt room for advocacy in this area but once again without essential information, this is not possible.

The following protocol chart is designed to explain some of the perceived communication and action delays that beset the field. Included in the process is the needed understanding by parties at all levels, that ONLC, despite the label “coalition”, in fact has only 2 paid staff who broker between 26 programs with their combination of 26 host organizations! local governments/Boards of Directors. In addition the ONLC E.D. provides the liaison between programs and MTCU directives. The 7 consultants who cover 2 different and separate parts of program delivery, and work to promote provincial and community awareness of literacy are not known to the E.D.
Recommendation 5 of this project states...
That ONLC make every effort to effect the requirement that MTCU consultants receive the same cultural, orientation training as the practitioners. An annual symposium with the ONLC Board of Directors and Staff and MTCU consultants who evaluate Native literacy programs should be made a requirement.