TEACHERS at the Melkonian Educational Institute (MEI) in Nicosia yesterday refuted arguments by the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) on the closing of the school, which the New York-based organisation published in full-page advertisements in the Greek Cypriot press at the weekend.
Following a staff meeting yesterday, the teachers issued a statement rubbishing the AGBU’s claims.
In its announcement, the AGBU, which has said it will be closing the 78-year old school in June 2005, denied staff claims that administrators had been trying to persuade parents not to send their children to MEI from September this year.
It said that in view of the fact that boarding facilities would be discontinued, it was calling international students to discuss their possible options following 2005. “The Armenian population is declining in Cyprus and this has limited the number of students that enter from Armenian elementary schools in Cyprus… less than six students a year in recent times,” the AGBU said. “Moreover significant numbers of Armenian parents in Cyprus do not send their children to Melkonian.”
Teachers say that last year the school’s population was reduced from 260 to 210 after the AGBU unilaterally decided to reduce scholarships to underprivileged children from the Armenian diaspora.
The AGBU has said the advertisement for 2004/2005 enrolments was directed towards Cypriot students. It also denied saying that poor educational standards had influenced its decision to close the school, and that the staff strike last week was a “disservice” to students.
“If the AGBU proceed with the closure of MEI they will be doing a disservice to the students,” the staff announcement said yesterday. “Closing the school is going to harm these students for life.”
The loss-making Melkonian is sitting on £40 million worth of real estate in the capital’s commercial district, which leads many to believe the AGBU merely wants to “take the money and run”. Staff have been angered by the AGBU’s comments on standards.
The AGBU said in a ‘position paper’ earlier than month that: ‘AGBU has… focused its attention on MEI’s recent educational performance and its current ability to fulfil 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.”
The staff yesterday hit back: “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 April 8. We would also be interested to know just what level of educational performance would warrant continued subsidy,” the announcement said.
It also included details of student grades, which show that while the UK average for five or more Grade C or above GCSE passes was 50 per cent in 2003, MEI’s was 63 per cent.
“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,” the staff announcement said, adding that the AGBU had not answered any of the questions put to it regarding the future of the school.
“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,” said the statement. “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.”
Staff said they want straightforward, factual answers to the questions contained in their letter to the AGBU on April, 8 “ not placatory missives issued only in response to strike action”.
“Only then we may begin to see the realities referred to in your newspaper announcement more clearly,” they said.
