|
Dear Sir,
We, the Staff at Melkonian
Educational Institute, would like to draw your attention to the following,
with regard to the planned closure of the school and the rationale by which
this has progressed.
After many months of unsettling
speculation, the Central Board of the AGBU announced on 16th
March, 2004, that MEI was to close at the end of the academic year
2004-2005. In making the announcement, the Board attached a position paper
outlining the rationale for this closure.
On 7th April, 2004, the
Staff met with Mr. Gordon Anderson, the on-site representative of the
Central Board, in order to clarify some of the issues arising from both the
decision of the Central Board and the detail of the rationale which directly
concerned standards and opportunities in the school. Following this meeting,
there remained several points which required further elucidation; these
points were put to Mr. Anderson in a letter from the Staff. A copy of the
letter is attached below.
After a delay of one month, on 13th
May, 2004, the Staff were informed by Mr. Anderson that the Central Board
would not respond in writing to the enquiries contained in the letter. Thus,
the following important questions remain unanswered:
Is there going to be an AGBU
funded day school on the current site of MEI after June 2005? If so, what
will be the detailed curricular provision of such a school?
This question is important
because:
- The original decision made
no separation of the international boarding students and local students
in the school, yet cited non-fulfilment of mission as the fundamental
reason for closure. The Staff would like to know just how the school’s
provision could simultaneously fulfil its mission for those students
living locally, yet not fulfil its mission for those resident outside
Cyprus; all students are, of course, availed of exactly the same
curricular opportunities. Unless, of course, the reference to
non-fulfilment of mission is not a reference to the curricular
provision; in which case the Staff would like a clear and unambiguous
statement from the Board to this affect, as their professional
competence is called into question otherwise.
- Further, the provision of a
day school would seem to completely undermine the Board’s fundamental
assertion that, with regard to MEI, the challenges of its mission are no
longer met. As there is no detailed definition of the mission, it is
difficult to respond to this assertion. However, the possible provision
of a day school, with a closure of the boarding provision only,
suggests that there is a need to close the school because the annual
subsidy of the AGBU substantially provides for the food, shelter and
supervision of those boarding students whose families cannot afford to
pay. This is very different to mission failure; indeed, such subsidy of
students from less affluent Armenian families would seem very much to be
in the absolute spirit of the original mission of the school. Has the
mission changed?
- There are many implications
for the current body of students and their parents which hinge upon the
exact nature of any day school. For example, local students entering on
to two-year I GCSE or AS/A2 level courses need to know exactly what will
be provided, if anything, from September 2005 onwards; this may also
apply to international students who may seek approved residence in
Cyprus, but outside the school, to take advantage of a continued day
school provision. Information about i) the provision of a day school
from September 2005; ii) the detailed curricular structure of any such
school, is long overdue.
Is the Central Board of the
opinion that curricular standards and opportunities in the school are simply
not good enough?
This
question is of great concern to Staff at the school for obvious reasons; in
a year when the Staff have, we believe, continued to provide high quality
learning opportunities in the most difficult of circumstances, the Central
Board is seeking to present falling standards as a key element of the
rationale for closure.
Since the publication of the Central Board’s position paper, it seems to
have become taken as read that, i) there is some absolute criteria of
achievement by the student body which is a requirement for continued
subsidy; ii) that the MEI is currently failing to meet such standards. Yet,
not one classroom has been visited, not one student’s work has been
examined, not one comparative statistic has been presented in coming to
these conclusions. As a staff, we feel professionally condemned without any
evidence to refute or challenge.
As far as we are aware, MEI has never been an elitist, selective school; nor
has there ever been performance criteria against which the school is judged.
Suddenly, there are such criteria, hidden from us, yet used to judge us.
We firmly believe that, recent progression by the school in terms of the
breadth and depth of curricular provision, the external examination
qualifications gained by students, the subsequent career progress of
graduates and the intangible, but hugely significant, general personal
qualities of recent MEI graduates, all bear strong testimony to rising, not
falling standards.
We are both professionally affronted and naturally suspicious that such
citation is a convenient scapegoat for ulterior motives. We would like
either a retraction or a substantiation from the Central Board of their
statements over curricular standards and opportunities.
Of course, the Board’s reluctance to respond to our enquiries over this
issue is inevitably read in some quarters as an indication that financial,
not curricular issues are in reality the main motive for the school closure.
If this is the case, then we would appreciate an open and honest statement
of such by the Central Board.
We feel proud as a Staff body of the way that
we have managed to maintain a professional dignity and preserve the best
interests of our students over recent months. This in a period when the
Central Board and its representatives have doggedly refused to respond to
our genuine professional concerns. Without wishing to descend into the
hearsay and gossip which has surrounded this whole affair, it would appear
that there have been deliberate attempts to factionalise staff and drag
discussion to a level which has sought to personalise what is an issue of
serious import to all concerned with the school. This is not the way to
conduct matters.
We are not prepared to continue to be
maligned in public over standards which do not even have published criteria,
never mind stand proven. We seek the support of the Central Board in putting
the public record straight, in writing.
In the meantime, we remain frustrated and uncertain, but committed to
providing the best possible opportunities for the young people in our care.
Yours sincerely,
MEI Staff
Copy: Staff letter to Mr.
Anderson, 8th April, 2004
The Central Board of the AGBU
has refused to offer written response to the enquiries contained herein:
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Further to our meeting of 7th
April, 2004, as the representative of the AGBU Central Board, we would be
grateful, in the interest of clarity and confirmation of communication, if
you would respond to the following queries in writing. It is evident that
you believe that significant parts of the communication of the Central Board
of the 16th March, 2004 are currently subject to
misinterpretation; we hope that the intended interpretations can be
elucidated by your response.
- Are we to understand the
statement in the Central Board’s letter to Staff of 16th March,
2004 that ‘…the Central Board resolved unanimously to close MEI at
the end of the 2004-2005 academic year’ is now to be understood as
meaning that the boarding capacity of the school operation only is to
close, with provision for day students to continue? And, that that
provision is to be one of three options as follows:
- An AGBU day school at the
current site of MEI; or,
- A joint venture with another
privately owned school for a day school on the MEI premises; or,
- The development of an Armenian
dimension to the curriculum of another school, not at the MEI site.
- In the same letter, is the
statement that ‘MEI no longer meets the challenges of its mission in
the present context of the Armenian world’ to be taken as
referring only to the provision made for boarding students and that the
mission of the MEI is being met for locally resident students?
- Does the reference to the
non-meeting of the mission refer to a failure in the current School
curricular provision and its delivery?
- Are we to understand from your
statements at the meeting that the decision of the Central Board is,
essentially, that the MEI should close because the annual subsidy of the
AGBU substantially provides for the food, shelter and supervision of those
boarding students whose families cannot afford to pay and that, in the
Board’s judgement, that money could be more efficiently spent in terms of
the mission of the AGBU?
- Is it the view of the Central
Board that Armenian students from Armenia and Lebanon should only attend
Armenian schools in their local area and that they should, therefore, not
have a continued opportunity to attend an AGBU sponsored school in Cyprus?
- Should any student of Armenian
descent from Armenia, Lebanon or other country wish to attend any future
provision for an AGBU day school in Cyprus, under what conditions of local
accommodation would this be acceptable to the AGBU?
With
reference to the following paragraph of the Central Board’s position paper,
issued with its statement of School closure on March 16th, 2004:
‘MEI’s continuing deficit levels have been taken into consideration, but
have not been the primary issue of concern throughout the evaluation
process. AGBU has, instead, focused its attention on MEI’s recent
educational performance and its current ability to fulfill
(sic) a role similar to that which it fulfilled
through the late 1960s. If MEI’s current structure provided exceptional
opportunities to its students as it had done in the past, substantial
subsidization under those circumstances would be warranted. Unfortunately,
this is not the case, in spite of the diligent efforts of committed School
Board members, the Principal and the teaching staff.’
(i)
Is it to be understood, therefore, that some absolute criteria of
achievement by the student body has been, and still is, a requirement for
continued funding subsidy of the MEI by the AGBU? Do such criteria apply to
all AGBU sponsored schools?
(ii)
Can the Central Board furnish the teaching staff with the criteria of
educational performance which would justify substantial
subsidization?
(iii)
Can the evidence upon which the judgement was made of recent
educational performance, in comparison with the 1960s, be presented to the
teaching staff?
(iv)
Which particular aspects of MEI’s current structure do not provide
exceptional opportunities to its students?
It is understood that the Board has
considered several different options for the future of the MEI. Can the
staff be furnished with a summary of those options and an outline of the
reasons why such options were rejected?
You will be aware that there has
been widespread speculation that the central Board has an ulterior motive
for closing the MEI, related to the future sale of the premises and property
of the MEI. Can you and/or the Central Board categorically dismiss such
speculation as totally false?
We would further appreciate any
additional information or comment which you feel would assist staff in
coming to an understanding of the reasons for the Central Board’s decision
to close MEI in June 2005. In the interests of the current smooth running
and morale of the School, we would appreciate your earliest possible
response.
Yours sincerely,
MEI Teaching Staff
8.4.2004
This letter is submitted on behalf
of the teaching staff at MEI following a staff meeting held on the 8th
April, 2004, during which there was unanimous approval for the submission of
this letter to Mr. Anderson.
Signed,
------------------------------------ Ms. Elleni Kallitsis
------------------------------------ Mr. Demitri Aristidou
Staff Representatives
|