June 7, 2004

Dear Mr. Setrakian and Members of the Central Board,

Further to your letter of May 27^th, we, the Staff at MEI, would like to thank you for your words of assurance about our performance and capabilities.

However, it would seem that your essential message is that, no matter how well or badly we had performed over recent years, the decision to close the school would have been taken. Rather, you cite changing ‘sociopolitical and geo demographic realities’ as the fundamental reason for closure. Although there is a lack of specific clarity about what you mean here, such changes are clearly ones which are not related to the school’s educational performance.

The question naturally arises then about why any reference at all was made to ‘educational performance’ and the provision of ‘exceptional opportunities’ in your background paper, linked, as it was, to the withdrawal of AGBU subsidy. We feel proud of our recent performance and that of the young people graduating from Melkonian. You must understand how slighted we feel when educational performance is made public as a reason for not warranting continued subsidy of the school.

Further, it would also seem to us, given the changed international realities you claim, that the whole process of appointing Mr. Anderson to evaluate the work of the school was nothing more than a charade. Why send someone to make a judgement about the school when the reasons for considering the closure were to do with a ‘changing broad and all-encompassing context’?

We sought clarifications about your rationale for closing the school in our letter to Mr. Anderson on 8^th April last. We asked simple, straightforward questions; those questions to this day remain unanswered. We will continue our industrial action of withholding end of year grades and reports for all but the graduating class until satisfactory answers are forthcoming.

As an aside, as you say ‘some’ of us wanted these clarifications, we would like you to know that that should have read ‘the overwhelming majority of staff’.

Far be it for us to make judgements about professional performance outside of teaching: we are not qualified. We are aggrieved, however, when we are subject to public vilification over standards based on an unsubstantiated judgement made by your appointee, equally unqualified as far as quality of teaching and learning and standards achieved in a school are concerned.

In closing, we would note that we have, in extremely difficult circumstances, worked in a co-operative and amicable manner. Unfortunately, we have not always received the same in return and have had to resort reluctantly to industrial action. We too would prefer a co-operative and amicable working relationship and, to this end, we look forward to a more direct and open dialogue with yourself.

Sincerely,

Melkonian Educational Institute Staff