Dear members of the AGBU Central Board,

In order to ameliorate the frustration and resentment felt by staff at the Melkonian Educational Institute with regard to certain statements in your position paper of 16th March, 2004, we would be grateful if you would issue a public statement to the following effect:

With regard to the central rationale statement of the Central Board:

‘MEI no longer meets the challenges of its mission in the present context of the Armenian world’.

  • ‘…its mission...’ in the statement above refers to the wider mission of the AGBU in furthering the interests of Armenians around the world and not to the mission of the school in fulfilling its role as an educational institute.
     
  • The statement should not be read as a reference to a failure in the current school curricular provision and its delivery.
     
  • The reason that the Central Board judges MEI to not be meeting its [the AGBU’s] mission is related to the changing world circumstances of the Armenian Diaspora rather than to detrimental changes in the recent and current provision of the school.
     
  • The Central Board views the current provision of the staff at the school as of a high professional standard.

 With regard to the following statement:
 

‘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.’ 

·        Reference in the statement above to the ‘current structure’ of MEI is not reference to the current quality of the staff at MEI who indeed do provide ‘exceptional opportunities’ for the young people in their care.

·        Neither is the statement a reference to the current curricular structure of the school, which has, in recent years, expanded considerably to offer students an increasingly wide range of learning opportunities. 

·        Recent progression by the school in the depth and breadth of curricular provision, external examination qualifications gained by students and the subsequent career progress of MEI graduates all bear strong testimony to rising, not falling standards of educational provision in the school. 

You will, of course, understand the degree of dismay the staff feel as, following your statements, there is a public perception that the standards and opportunities of the current school are inadequate. The statement above would be of great value to all in clarifying and correcting the widespread misinterpretations currently circulating.

We anticipate your earliest possible response, at latest by Tuesday, 25th May, 2004.

Yours sincerely,

MEI Staff

17th May, 2004