Following the 2007 election, the notion of a provincial curriculum for adult literacy was introduced at a meeting attended by representatives from the ministry and the executive directors from Ontario’s adult literacy sectors, streams and regional networks.

Today almost, four years later, I pause to reflect on that important announcement and wonder at how little I really understood at that time what impact the OALCF would have on my work as CESBA’s ED and that of my colleagues. In this article I am eager to share with you my reflections on the collaborative process as I experienced it in working
with the other stream and sector executive directors.

In light of the huge and complex issues surrounding design, development and communication for the Ontario Adult Literacy Curriculum Framework, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities proposed a collaborative approach involving Ontario’s streams and sectors.  Clearly the work called for activity and expertise that exceeded the capacity of any single organization. Moreover, with the continuing rise of information technology and MTCU’s interest in supporting joint efforts in the literacy community, a collaborative enterprise was seen as a readily attainable goal.

Seeing beyond our differences —working together

The ED Advisory Committee was brought together by MTCU to provide oversight and direction to the combined and individual efforts of the OALCF development teams and to resolve any issues as they arose.  Ontario’s four adult literacy streams were represented by John McLaughlin, Ontario Adult Literacy Coalition (OLC); Ellen Paterson, Ontario Native Literacy Coalition (ONLC); Suzanne Benoit, Coalition ontarienne de formation des adultes (COFA); and Peggy Anne Gordon, Deaf Literacy Initiative (DLI). Ontario’s three sectors were represented by Lynne Wallace, College Sector Committee; Jette Cosburn, Community Literacy of Ontario (CLO); and Brenda King, CESBA. Alpha Plus also participated represented by Michael Coteau.

Our experience working together had, in the past, been limited. The political climate of LBS delivery inOntario had, in fact, often positioned us as competitors for research and development funding.  As a result, initially, we did not have the history of collaboration and cooperation that we needed for understanding the roles and expectations required for true collaboration.

It soon became apparent, however, that our collaboration was designed as a means to an end, not an end in itself.  Joint efforts in our assigned tasks proved that it was often our differences that contributed most to a sharpened focus, centralized processes, enhanced communication and increased odds for getting the project on the right track and keeping it there.

As I look back on four years of meetings what really emerges is that in order to be effective as a committee and to work collaboratively we had to develop what has been coined, “cultural
intelligence”. Cultural intelligence is the capability to adapt effectively across different linguistic, organizational and professional cultures. And so we learned that as a group we needed to develop capacity to work with colleagues who not only think and communicate differently but also function and value things differently.

Making it work for everyone

The road was not always smooth; in fact, much of our activity was negotiated on an unpaved surface. I think we all knew that conflict must be expected in any collaborative effort, but what I see now in looking back, and what is truly revealing, is that many times the conflict between us was an indicator that change was happening and difficult issues were being brought forward openly and honestly. Particularly in the first year, there were times when work seemed to stall, commitment seemed to wane and trust issues emerged. However, our project manager, a change agent of some repute, persistently navigated us forward until eventually it seemed that a new culture, an OALCF culture, separate from the culture of any individual organization, was created.A rich legacy...valuing interdependence

Every exit is an entrance somewhere else. Ontario’s sectors and streams have been on a journey together and while this leg of the journey has come to an end, as travellers we continue to move forward with new destinations. I discovered through the collaborative process that our work required us to continually return to the beginning, not to “start over” – but to learn, refine, shift and expand our vision to include others. We build on what we have done before; we expand the scope of our efforts and, ultimately, we move on.

Ontario’s streams and sectors have participated in a collaboration that has produced a commitment to mutual respect and mutual accountability for shared responsibility in a product that we have jointly developed.  As a result, I have benefitted greatly. I have replaced my previously held comfortable assumption of my own infallible independence of thought and effort with a new appreciation of interdependence between organizations with unique views. This spring I walk away from the ED Committee feeling proud of the project outcome yet realizing the year ahead will require continued effort. However the most powerful result of my participation on this committee will always be the new learning I acquired with regard to the collaborative process. And that, for me, is a rich legacy.

“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange
these apples, then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange
these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”
                                                     George Bernard Shaw

I discovered through the collaborative process that our work required us to continually return to the beginning, not to “start over”—but to learn, refine, shift and expand our vision to include others.