‘If the teachers proceed with this threat (not to issue end of year grades) they will be doing a disservice to the students. Withholding grades is going to harm these students as they proceed onto higher education.’

Response: If the AGBU proceed with the closure of MEI they will be doing a disservice to the students. Closing the school is going to harm these students for life.

The MEI Staff wrote to the AGBU on 8^th April, asking for clarifications over issues raised in their position paper of 16^th March. After a delay of one month, on 13^th May, 2004, the Staff were informed that the Central Board would not respond to the enquiries contained in the letter. The Staff sent two further communications, to no avail; the questions asked remained unanswered.

Only at this point did Staff decide to take more radical action.

It is of note that the AGBU did finally write to the MEI Staff on the morning of their strike action last Thursday, when an unsigned letter was rushed out to demonstrating teachers at the school gates. We now understand the sort of thing to which the AGBU does respond.

However, the questions asked in the Staff letter of 8^th April still remain unanswered.

The Central Board of the AGBU would have been held in higher regard by the Staff than they are currently if they had responded to our letters and enquiries with the same speed and efficiency with which they responded to press coverage of our strike action.

 Despite the fact that the May 27^th letter to Staff is not signed by every member of the AGBU Central Board (AGBU have asked all members of MEI Staff to personally sign letters to them), the Staff will meet to formulate a response to their communication. This issue is of too grave and serious an import to mess around playing the silly games instigated by representatives of the Central Board. The AGBU cannot be surprised that suspicions of ulterior motive gain credence when direct and simple questions are avoided.

 The Staff have decided, with the exception of graduating students, not to issue end-of-year grades and reports until the AGBU respond, in writing, with direct and unambiguous answers to the questions asked in our letter to Mr. Gordon Anderson dated 8^th April, 2004 (copy attached).

AGBU Fact:

‘The announcement by the AGBU indicated that the boarding operation would close in June of 2005.The announcement went on to say that the Central Board of AGBU will be considering a number of options for continuing as a day school. These options are now under consideration and an announcement will be forthcoming.’

Response: ‘Indicated’ is the correct word here; there was no reference to ‘the boarding operation’ as a separate entity in the AGBU announcement. Staff, students and parents are still waiting while the Central Board ‘considers’.

This is what the AGBU March 16^th announcement said, prominently:

‘…the Central Board resolved unanimously to close MEI at the end of the 2004-2005 academic year.’

This is an unequivocal statement which cannot possibly be read as applying to the boarding operation only. Of course, the whole reading of the paper is thrown into confusion by this distinction and qualification. Which parts of the paper refer to the whole school, which to the boarding operation only and which to day students? We sought clarification in our letter of 8^th April and we still await a satisfactory answer.

The AGBU position paper went on to say, in its final page, that ‘In Cyprus, the Central Board is considering a Melkonian presence by maintaining a Melkonian High School for the local resident community.’ 

This consideration, as far as we are told, continues, despite the obvious need to know for current students and parents considering their future options. The current school operates a three two-year cycle curriculum, with the second and third cycles tied closely to external IGCSE and AS/A2 level programmes. Knowing what is to be in place for the academic year 2005-2006 is of vital importance to parents, students and teachers. It is very late in the day for planning and decision-making, having already reached the beginning of June, 2004.

The options for continuing a day school were actually presented to MEI Staff by Mr. Anderson at a meeting on 7^th April, 2004. As we rapidly approach the end of the academic year, there is still no decision on any day school to operate beyond June 2005, nor any detail of what the curricular provision of such a day school would be. It is within this chaotic state of affairs that students and parents are being asked to make decisions about the next school year.

AGBU Fact:

‘Administrators of the school have been contacting parents of the international students to discuss possible options for their children following June 2005 or, if their parents desire, prior to that if the transition is more beneficial to the children earlier, given curriculum issues.’

Response: The Staff would like to thank the AGBU for letting us know what is going on in our school through the pages of a newspaper.

This is the first statement that the Staff have seen, be it a little clumsily put, that seeks to explain a new school policy. It is little wonder that speculation and suspicion abound when the work of the school is conducted in secret. One question: how can parents make such decisions when the option of a day school is still being considered?

AGBU Fact:

‘The position paper of March 16 did not say that ‘teaching standards were not up to scratch’, but rather pointed to other conditions.’

Response: This is what the position paper said:

‘AGBU has… 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.’

Subsidy is being withdrawn, so forgive us here for thinking that we have been judged by MEI’s educational performance, which we should be, and found wanting. However, we would like some clarification of the criteria and evidence upon which this judgement was based, as requested in our letter of 8^th April. We would also be interested to know just what level of educational performance would warrant continued subsidy.

It is a fact that, in making a judgement about the educational performance and opportunities provided at Melkonian, not one qualified person, or, for that matter, any other person on behalf of the AGBU, has visited one classroom or examined the work of one student. Not one statistic has been presented to substantiate the unfavourable comparison of the current school with that of the 1960s. Little wonder then, that Staff question the basis of the judgement made in the statement above.

We are well aware of how statistics can be manipulated to suit best interests and understand better than most why the use of figures to make judgements about a school and its students should always be regarded carefully and in proper context. However, we find it difficult to see where ‘MEI’s recent educational performance’ can be held to be less than that required to warrant ‘substantial subsidisation’ when examining, for example, the GCSE performance of the current graduating class:

(In the UK, a widely accepted benchmark of high academic achievement for individual students is 5 or more GCSEs at grade C or above. The percentage candidates with 5 or more grade C or above GCSE passes in the UK is 50% (2003). The percentage students with 5 or more grade C or above passes in the current Melkonian 7^th form is 63%, well above the average for non-selective schools.)

 We feel that in recent months we have either been subject to incompetent or indifferent management by the representatives of the Central Board, or the Central Board does indeed have something to hide. Either way, our frustration is genuine and borne of a deep professional concern and commitment. We would like straightforward, factual answers to the questions contained in our letter to Mr. Anderson of 8^th April, 2004, not placatory missives issued only in response to strike action. Only then may we begin to see the realities referred to in your newspaper announcement more clearly.

 MEI Staff

 Copy: Staff letter to Mr. Anderson, 8^th 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 7^th 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 16^th March, 2004 are currently subject to misinterpretation; we hope that the intended interpretations can be elucidated by your response.

With reference to the following paragraph of the Central Board’s position paper, issued with its statement of School closure on March 16^th, 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