www.CaucasusNow.com

The first Armenian state award for contribution to the development of information technology was given to Mr. Craig Barrett, the former Chairman and Chief Executive of Intel Corporation, the world’s leading producer of microprocessors. The idea of the award came from the Armenian branch of Synopsis, the global IT company, and this year’s award was financed by Vivacell MTS, the leading mobile phone operator in Armenia.

In the awarding ceremony that took place in the presidential palace on 28June 2010, President Serge Sargsian said, “This Award is Armenia’s modest contribution to the global development of information technologies,” and expressed hope that it will also “attract attention of the Armenian youth toward information technologies.”

“We will encourage their studies and work in this area, we will search for and find new ways and means to do it,” he said. “Today, in the presence of Mr. Barrett I am sending a message to our youth: The future belongs to those who are endowed with knowledge, kindness and creativity, who rely on intellectual powers and possess the art of finding solutions,” Sargsian added.

Armenian students were not, however, the only group who were invited to be inspired by Mr. Barrett’s achievements. “This is my idea of the modern businessman,” Mr. Sargsian said. “I want the Armenian businessmen to consider this example. I want all our entrepreneurs to be like that … It’s not about benevolence; it is about the ability to assume responsibility, about the ability to refrain from short-lived and momentary profit if in the long-run it can jeopardize the well-being of the society. It is about not surrendering to the temptations of big money – greed and arrogance.”

Teachers, not Computers, are Magic

Azatutyun.am online news agency reports that, in a news conference the following day, Mr. Barrett emphasized the importance of good education for the development of IT in Armenia which has been declared a top economic priority by the government.

“Computers are not magic in the classroom,” he said. “Teachers are magic in the classroom.”

“I think obviously there is the opportunity to grow the IT industry on the basis of the educational background,” Barrett said when asked about the future of the Armenian IT sector.

News.am online news agency reports that when he was asked about Armenia’s education, he responded that he had met with students of the State Engineering University of Armenia and got an impression that Armenian students are “bright, aggressive and attentive. In short, they do not differ from students in other countries.”

He also said that he is aware of Intel Corporation’s interest in investing in Armenia’s education system and organizing trainings for teachers. “Intel always tries to employ the cleverest and brightest people,” he added.

The former Intel chief described as “very refreshing” his conversations with President Sargsian and other senior officials. As far as IT is concerned, they are all “speaking the same language,” he said.

An interesting article by Kate Chkhikvadze in the Financial, a Georgian online magazine, discusses the educational background of Georgian ministers. This inspired me to do a similar study of the Armenian cabinet of ministers.

According to the Financial article, Tbilisi State University (TSU) seems to be the institution where most Georgian cabinet members completed their first degree: Out of the 19 ministers, including the PM, 10 have graduated from TSU, 5 from the Georgian Technical University, 2 from foreign universities, 1 from Rustaveli State Cinema and Theatre University, and 1 from the Holy Seminary of Tbilisi.

A Master’s Degree is possessed by 13 ministers but in contrast with the case with the first degree, the majority holds a Master’s Degree from foreign HEIs in the USA, followed by Germany, the Netherlands and Russia.

Western Touch

As mentioned, the Georgian cabinet includes a significant number of western educated ministers.

Nikoloz Gilauri, the Prime Minister, graduated from TSU, obtaining a Bachelor of Arts in International Economics. He pursued his education at the University of Limerick, Ireland, where he studied Economics and Finances and gained a Master’s Degree in International Business Management from Temple University, USA.

Nikoloz Rurua, Minister of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sports, graduated from Rustaveli State Cinema and Theatre University and continued his studies in the USA. He graduated from the State University of Georgia, USA, with a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree.

The only female minister, Khatuna Kalmakhelidze, Minister of Corrections and Legal Assistance, is one of the two cabinet members who have done both their Bachelor’s and Master’s studies abroad. She graduated from Hunter College with a Bachelor Degree in Political Science. Then she was enrolled in Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, USA.

Kakha Baindurashvili, Minister of Finance, is one of the other western educated ministers. He received a Master’s of Arts degree in Economics from TSU and Master’s Degree in Economic Development from Williams College, USA.

Zurab Pololikashvili, Ministry of Economic Development, received a Bachelor’s degree from Georgian Technical University with specialization in International Banking and later studied at the Instituto de Empresa, Spain (degree unkown).

Aleksandre Kvitashvili, Minister of Labor, Health and Social Affairs, has a degree of Master of Public Studies from the the New-York University.

Davit Tkeshelashvili who is Minister for Infrastructural and Regional Development graduated from Emory University, USA, with a degree of Master of Law (LLM).

In Love with Law

According to the Financial, the majority of ‘the influential ministers’ has done their Master’s studies in Law.

In addition to Davit Tkeshelashvili and Nikoloz Rurua, and, obviously, the Minister of Justice, Zurab Adeishvili, who graduated from the Royal University of Groningen, the Netherlands, this is the case with the ministers of Defense, Education and Foreign Affairs:

Bachana Akhalaia, Minister of Defense, holds a Master’s Degree in Law from TSU. Dimitri Shashkin, Minister of Education and Science, has a Master’s Degree in Government, Tax and Criminal Law, again from TSU, and Grigol Vashadze, Minister of Foreign Affairs, received his Master’s degree in International Law from Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

Armenian Contrasts

The Armenian ministers have a very different educational profile. All except 3 have completed their higher education in the late Soviet period and half of them have studied in Russia. Unlike in Georgia, no discipline seems to be favored in Armenia.

Based on the information available on the official website of the Armenian government, I examined 18 out of 19 members of the cabinet as the profile of the newly appointed Minister of Labor, Arthur Grigorian, is not available at this time.

It is important to note that most educational backgrounds of the ministers are poorly written and therefore this review may be inaccurate. For instance, for the Minister of Economy it is written: “1993-1995, Yerevan State Institute of National Economy, post-graduate student at the Macroeconomics Department.” Being a student doesn’t necessarily mean that the person completed the program. The official website of the Ministry of Economy does not offer further clarifications.

Or, for the Minister of Justice it is indicated “1975-1983, Yerevan State University, Law Department.” It is unclear what degree the person earned at the end of 8 years of study, if he studied full-time and without interruption.

Out of the 18 members, including the PM, 4 have completed their first degree (5-year specialized degree program that was the norm before the adoption of the Bologna structure) at State Engineering University of Armenia (SEUA-Polytechnic), 3 have graduated from Yerevan State University (YSU), 2 from Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU), 2 from Institute of National Economy, and the rest at various HEIs.

It is interesting to note that 6 ministers have conducted their higher education entirely or mainly (except the first 1-2 years) in Russia. These are: Tigran Sargsyan, Prime Minister; Armen Gevorgyan, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Territorial Administration; Armen Yeritzian, Minister of Emergency Situations; Tigran Davtian, Minister of Finance; Edward Nalbandian, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Manuk Vardanian, Minister of Transport and Communication.

Those who have completed their 5-year degree program in Armenia and then have studied for a post-graduate degree outside Armenia (cannot say abroad as at the time Armenia and Russia were parts of the USSR) number 3. All these ministers have studied in Russia. They are:

Armen Ashotian, Minister of Education and Science, who after completing his studies in Medicine continued at the Moscow School of Political Sciences.

Armen Movsissian, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. After graduating from SEUA, he completed his postgraduate degree at the USSR Institute of Light Industry.

Gevorg Danielian, Minister of Justice, who earned his first degree in Law at YSU and then a Master’s degree from Institute of State and Law in Moscow, affiliated to the USSR Academy of Sciences.

One minister has studied in Azerbaijan: A native of Karabakh, Seyran Ohanian, Minister of Defense, studied at Baku Military Academy.

Interestingly, 8 ministers have done their entire higher education in Armenia. The most prominent among this group are: Nerses Yeritsian, Minister of Economy; and Haroutioun Koushkian, Minister of Healthcare.

Only one minister has had some western experience. This is, of course, if we ignore that Gevorg Danielian, Minister of Justice, has served in the Soviet Army stationed in the former German Democratic Republic for 2 years and has strangely included this in his educational profile.

So the only exception to the rule is Armen Gevorgian, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Territorial Administration, who simultaneous to his post-graduate studies at St Petersburg's Gertzen All-Russian Teacher Training University, completed a Master's degree in Programming of Educational and Training Systems at Twente University, the Netherlands.

Relevant Education

Most Armenian ministers seem to be involved in a field that is relevant to their educational background. There are, however, some interesting exceptions.

Hasmik Poghosian, Minister of Culture, for instance, has no academic background in arts and culture; she has studied Biology at YSU. The official website of the Ministry of Culture adds that she took piano lessons at school.

Hranoush Hakobian, Minister of Diaspora and the only other female minister, has studied Mathematics.

And more: Gerasim Alaverdian, Minister of Agriculture, has graduated from SEUA-Polytechnic whereas Vardan Vardanian, Minister of Urban Development, has studied at the Armenian State University of Agriculture.

The debate on the need and the ways to restructure the science system is currently taking place not only in the post-Soviet countries of our region (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia) but also in Turkey. For a decade, Turkish authorities have tried, with limited success, to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the country’s science system.

According to a report based on extensive interviews with 135 scientists, via Turkish Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey has not been able to achieve the status of a “scientific society” mainly due to the system’s heavy dependence on the state and political interference.

The 2009 Science Report by the Turkish Academy of Sciences, or TÜBA, states that Turkish universities and scientific research and development centers are lacking, and support for scientific initiatives is insufficient.

Citing data from the Turkish Statistical Institute, or TurkStat, the report notes that out of the total 6.89 billion Turkish Liras (4.4 billion USD) spent on R&D in Turkey, industry contributes 43.8 percent whereas the state contributes 52.2 percent. According to TÜBA, the private sector should ideally contribute 3–4 times as much as the government to R&D.

In addition, the fact that only 338 domestic patents, out of 2,268 applications, were accepted in 2008 means “there is a big gap to cover,” according to the report.

Lack of University Autonomy

“One of the most fundamental functions of the university culture being formed is, without question, independence and autonomy,” TÜBA notes in its report, adding that there is an insufficient level of autonomy at Turkish universities and within the Higher Education Board, or YÖK, which is the governing and regulating body.

According to the report, Turkey gets just three 0.5 points, for a total of 1.5 points, on the 8 criteria for university autonomy identified by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its 2003 Education Policy Evaluation.

These 8 criteria are:
- owning its buildings and facilities
- having the freedom to get resources
- using its budget for self-determined goals
- using its own initiative to build its academic structure and programs
- having the authority to hire and fire academic personnel
- determining the salaries of its personnel
- determining the number of students it will accept to its programs
- independently determining student tuition fees

For each of these criteria implemented in full, a country receives 1 point, while it gets 0.5 point for partial implementation.

Mexico, Holland and Australia topped the OECD’s list of 14 countries with 7 points each, while Turkey came in second to last with 1.5 points. Japan received just 1 point, putting it at the bottom of the list.

Waste of Resources

According to the TÜBA report, the science system in Turkey – which is largely affected by the country’s universities and the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, or TÜBİTAK, with TÜBA itself playing “a small but important” role – “does not have the authority to govern itself.”

“The decision-makers in power generally make decisions that determine the scientific activity in Turkey, such as the governing of the universities and the founding of new universities,” the report notes, adding that the resources dedicated to scientific activities are often allocated based on political calculations rather than need.

This leads, according to TÜBA, to situations where “expensive scientific equipment or infrastructure items may remain idle at units lacking the ability to use them.”

TÜBA plans to release a report on the state of science in Turkey on an annual basis. We hope that this initiative will be contagious to other academies of science in the region.

According to a government decision dated 17 June 2010, the Alikhanian Yerevan Physics Institute, better known as YerPhl, was granted the status of national research laboratory.

Following a report by an international commission of experts that was formed last year, the strategic development plan of YerPhl, including the issue of its renaming, was approved. Professor Yuri Hovannisian headed the international commission composed of world-famous scientists and experts.

According to the official Armenian government website, Prime Minister Tigran Sargsian thanked the commission for having exercised huge efforts to meet the task set before them. “We will continue consulting renowned scientists to get professional advice on important issues,” he said.

Noting that the program had some opponents, the head of government said that the commission members were confident that, if provided with consecutive approaches, the NRL might well turn into a truly unique center of excellence.

This does not seem impossible or difficult to achieve for an institution that has successfully preserved a significant part of its Soviet-era scientific excellence and capacity, and has been able to attract and integrate some young and talented research staff into its activities over recent years.

For background information on the Alikhanian National Research Laboratory, please click here.

One of the main themes of the ongoing debate on the reorganization of the science system in post-Soviet transition countries is the role that the national academy of science should play in the future configuration.

Here, we would like to present excerpts from an interview that News.az Azerbaijani news agency has conducted with Mr. Asef Hajiyev, member of the Azerbaijani parliament (Milli Majlis) from the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, member of the parliamentary committee for science and education, and a correspondent member of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan.

Mr. Hajiyev represents the conservative side of the debate as he argues for preserving the academy’s preeminent position in planning and conducting research despite the advent of new funding mechanisms. In line with like-minded people in Armenia, Russia and elsewhere, he even favors allowing the academy to carry out post-graduate education.

News.Az: What are the amendments to the Law on Education planned by the Milli Majlis?

AH: A bill regulating the funding of scientific research at private universities has been presented to the Azerbaijani parliament for discussion and approval. Under the amendments, private universities will have to spend at least 2 percent of their revenue on scientific research in their institutions. This expenditure should mostly be made in the form of grants.

Ten years ago we discussed the need for the private sector to allocate 0.5 or 1 percent of its revenue to scientific research. At that time, the proposal was put for public discussion. Now, the proposal has been integrated into the new bill.

These are very positive amendments according to which grant competitions will be declared by private universities. These grants may be won either by the private universities holding the contests or by other educational institutions. This system will lead to competition among scientists.

The amount of funds allocated to scientific research will not be limited by the amendments to the legislation since the state will also provide grants. The state grants will take the form of orders. For example, the state will declare that it is interested in scientific research in a specific field and hold a grant contest.

A scientist will win the grant on the basis of competition. Meanwhile, the state will receive reports on the work done by the scientist. If a scientist fails to do the work … they may be punished or not allowed to receive grants in future.…

... This system is applied throughout the world and now it will be used in Azerbaijan. In other words, the Soviet era slogan 'Science is the meeting of people’s interests at state expense' no longer applies in Azerbaijan.

What path should Azerbaijan take, that is, should it fund scientists working in universities or those working at the National Academy of Sciences?

This was set out in the decree of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev dated 21 October 2009 on the creation of the Science Development Foundation.

Under this decree, state grants can be provided to scientists at the academy and scientists working in universities. I think the Academy of Sciences and universities should not provide grants only to their own scientists; all scientists should be involved in the process.

Will the allocation of 2 percent of the income of universities and other educational institutions be enough for scientific research?

Certainly, these funds are not sufficient but this is a first step. The obligation that the bill puts on educational facilities to spend at least 2 percent of revenue on scientific work comes from the established concept that if 2 percent of the state budget is allocated to scientific development, science will start to make itself pay. For example, Russia has adopted this practice in its state budget.

Research work in the West is done in universities while in Azerbaijan it is done in the institutes of the National Academy of Sciences. May parallels be created with scientists engaged in research in the academy system and universities?

Every country has developed historically in its own way. The history of science in Azerbaijan is linked to the Academy of Sciences. Reform of the organizations involved in research work should not mean the dismissal of the 9,000 people working at the National Academy of Sciences only in order to comply with the Western system for science funding.

How will Azerbaijan benefit from the transfer of the functions of the Academy of Sciences to the universities? Today, it is impossible to compare the research done in the Academy of Sciences with the work done at universities since the level of research at the Academy of Sciences is very high.

There is no need to turn scientists into university instructors. Instead, the academy should be allowed to train staff. The Academy of Sciences can train people for bachelors' and masters' degrees....

A growing number of people are calling for the Academy of Sciences to be shut down.

How will Azerbaijan benefit from the destruction of such a body as the Academy of Sciences and the transfer of its structure to the universities? No one knows the implications of this step though I am sure it would have a negative impact since the people working at the academy are involved only in science, while those who teach at universities are involved in the educational process.

There is no need to share out institutes of the Academy of Sciences among the universities. It is at the least surprising that people speak in favor of shutting down the Academy of Sciences.

They say that the number of people who have a scientific degree in the universities is higher than in the Academy of Sciences. However, the scientific level must never be measured by the number of scientific degrees.

The same people explain … that the National Academy of Sciences of the United States is separate from the state and is a club. I would like to say that the National Academy of the United States is financed from the state budget. If the U.S. National Academy was a club, President Barack Obama would not have visited it.…

To read the interview in full, please click here.

The regular informal meeting of Armenia’s ICT leaders took place 12-13 June 2010 in Tsakhkadzor, a resort town near Yerevan. The forum brought together different actors in the ICT sector, including approximately 70 corporate directors and NGO representatives. This year, the main theme of the gathering was education.

Jointly organized by the Union of Information Technology Enterprises (UITE), the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Education and Science, this year’s ‘meeting without ties’ – an allusion to its informal format - focused on the lack of effective ties between Armenian HEIs and industry.

Ironically, the lack of such ties was illustrated by the total absence of HEI representatives at the event. The Minister of Education, Mr. Armen Ashotian, did not attend the gathering either. It was announced that he had to visit the family of late Prime Minister A Markarian on the 51st anniversary of his birth (!). Like his predecessors, Mr. Ashotian seems to prefer the ceremonial aspect of his position over more challenging and fundamental undertakings.

Déjà-vu

Almost nothing new was raised or discussed at this year’s forum which is really unfortunate as it shows nothing much has been done to improve the situation since last year (to read my post on last year’s meeting please click here).

The most interesting talks were given by 3 rather outspoken individuals: Mr. Karen Vardanian, Executive Director of UITE; Mr. Arman Atoyan, the young director of X-Tech; and Mr. Haik Chobanian, Director of Nork Information-Analytical Center.

Mr. Chobanian discussed the absence of genuine motivation among Armenian students. According to him, children should like to learn whereas now they just learn to avoid punishment or to be praised, and to get a certificate.

Mr. Karen Vardanian echoed Chobanian in an interview with H1 public television’s ‘Interactive’ news magazine. He said university education has become a way to postpone military service for boys and a way to increase the dowry for girls.

Mr. Vardanian also claimed that there is a shortage of almost 1,500 specialists per year in the ICT sector and the shortage has blocked or postponed many foreign direct investments in Armenia.

In his news conference, via Arka online news agency, Mr. Vardanian said that Armenian universities should be transformed into centers of science and technology. “It is a common practice all over the world that private technology companies, the state and other organizations sponsor universities since the main aim of such a partnership is the identification and fulfillment of concrete technical objectives that are necessary for practical applications,” he said.

Mr. Vardanian said that these objectives should be passed on to universities, and students should get involved in relevant projects.

“Many countries such as Israel have already taken this road. This makes it possible not only to restore full-scale activity at universities but also to develop the army by expanding its intellectual and technical capacity,” he said. Vardanian added that the Armenian Ministry of Defense should become a key ICT player.

Proposing this new role – sponsoring ICT education and training – to the Army was probably the only new idea raised this year.

The regular informal meeting of Armenia’s ICT leaders took place 12-13 June 2010 in Tsakhkadzor, a resort town near Yerevan. The forum brought together different actors in the ICT sector, including approximately 70 corporate directors and NGO representatives. This year, the main theme of the gathering was education.

Jointly organized by the Union of Information Technology Enterprises (UITE), the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Education and Science, this year’s ‘meeting without ties’ – an allusion to its informal format - focused on the lack of effective ties between Armenian HEIs and industry.

Ironically, the lack of such ties was illustrated by the total absence of HEI representatives at the event. The Minister of Education, Mr. Armen Ashotian, did not attend the gathering either. It was announced that he had to visit the family of late Prime Minister A Markarian on the 51st anniversary of his birth (!). Like his predecessors, Mr. Ashotian seems to prefer the ceremonial aspect of his position over more challenging and fundamental undertakings.

Déjà-vu

Almost nothing new was raised or discussed at this year’s forum which is really unfortunate as it shows nothing much has been done to improve the situation since last year (to read my post on last year’s meeting please click here).

The most interesting talks were given by 3 rather outspoken individuals: Mr. Karen Vardanian, Executive Director of UITE; Mr. Arman Atoyan, the young director of X-Tech; and Mr. Haik Chobanian, Director of Nork Information-Analytical Center.

Mr. Chobanian discussed the absence of genuine motivation among Armenian students. According to him, children should like to learn whereas now they just learn to avoid punishment or to be praised, and to get a certificate.

Mr. Karen Vardanian echoed Chobanian in an interview with H1 public television’s ‘Interactive’ news magazine. He said university education has become a way to postpone military service for boys and a way to increase the dowry for girls.

Mr. Vardanian also claimed that there is a shortage of almost 1,500 specialists per year in the ICT sector and the shortage has blocked or postponed many foreign direct investments in Armenia.

In his news conference, via Arka online news agency, Mr. Vardanian said that Armenian universities should be transformed into centers of science and technology. “It is a common practice all over the world that private technology companies, the state and other organizations sponsor universities since the main aim of such a partnership is the identification and fulfillment of concrete technical objectives that are necessary for practical applications,” he said.

Mr. Vardanian said that these objectives should be passed on to universities, and students should get involved in relevant projects.

“Many countries such as Israel have already taken this road. This makes it possible not only to restore full-scale activity at universities but also to develop the army by expanding its intellectual and technical capacity,” he said. Vardanian added that the Armenian Ministry of Defense should become a key ICT player.

Proposing this new role – sponsoring ICT education and training – to the Army was probably the only new idea raised this year.

The anniversary of Iran’s 12 June 2009 disputed election went away in peace. University student protests, however, continue in different forms.

Tara Nesvanderani writes in Politico that Iran’s hard-line regime may seem to have the upper hand but student resistance is alive at campuses across the country.

On 10 June this year, the opposition leaders cancelled public protests on the anniversary of the disputed presidential election for fear of casualties and “to preserve people’s lives and property.”

Student protests have become a regular flash-point since a government crackdown began blocking mass street demonstrations this year. At least one third of detainees arrested since these protests began one year ago are students, according to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

Students on at least a dozen campuses have carried out more than 20 protests over the past 4 months.

In Tehran’s Azad University, for example, students held 2 days of protests in the month of May. There were mass arrests, and student activists were expelled. The university had to cancel classes.

Students have also been brazen in confronting top officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards Chief Commander. Hundreds of students protested the unannounced presidential visits at Tehran University on May 1 and at Shahid Beheshti University on May 10.

On May 18, students at Khajeh Nasir University in Tehran doused green paint—the color of the opposition Green Movement — on a car carrying Maj. Gen. Aziz Jafari, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards chief.

Students in Tehran also have protested at lectures by Ahmadinejad’s top adviser, Mojtaba Samaereh Hashemi, and a Revolutionary Guard commander, Saeid Ghasemi. They waved banners, chanted slogans and demanded freedom for political prisoners.

In the past 6 months, the most active campuses have been Amir Kabir University, Iran University of Science and Technology, University of Tehran and Shahid Beheshti University.

To read Nesvanderani’s article in full, please click here.

Deviating from the Desired Path of the People

As a response to the continued student protests, it seems that the Ministry of Science and Technology is planning a large-scale crackdown on the university community. It is important to note that the government has not been very soft with the opponents so far. In addition to imprisoning and dismissing many students, the government has already dismissed a number of instructors or has forced them into early retirement.

According to Radio Zamaneh, via Payvand Iranian news agency, Iran’s Minister of Science and Technology, Mr. Kamran Daneshjoo, has declared that all those who deviate from "the desired path of the people" will have no place in Iranian universities.

As we have already noted here several times, Mr. Daneshjou who has been accused of plagiarism and fabricating some of his credentials was the head of the election headquarters during the disputed election last year.

Mehr news agency, via Payvand, reports that in a meeting with professors and heads of universities, the Minister of Science announced; "being a member of the academic elite is not a license to do whatever they want." He added that universities are not a place "for political games" and said; "universities are a place of science and faith; they should not be transformed into a training ground for some people's foot soldiers."

The continued absence of local and international education experts in the ongoing debate over the Armenian government’s recent initiative to reopen foreign medium schools is surprising and highly regrettable. The debate has unfortunately turned into a purely political one, and various nationalist and ultra-nationalist forces have taken the lead in opposing the planned revisions to the Law on Education and the Law on Language.

The government and its Minister of Education, Mr. Armen Ashotian, on the other hand, continue to demonstrate their inability to explain their objectives and justify their initiative. Mr. Ashotian presented the bill today in the National Assembly and is expected to defend it tomorrow, 10 June 2010.

Using a street vendor-style negotiation tactic, Mr. Ashotian recently made some changes in his proposed bill. For instance, he lowered the number of proposed foreign medium schools from the original 28 to 15 but even the watered-down version of the ‘deal’ has not convinced anyone.

Treason!

Nationalist forces have gone so far as to accuse Mr. Ashotian of treason. At a press conference on 27 May, via Tert Armenian online daily, Mr. Parouir Hairikian, one the leading figures of the Armenian independence, said that the opening of foreign-language schools was a "very dangerous initiative." He called the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) to halt the initiative and recall the Minister of Education.

"They may blame anyone, the President, the Prime Minister, but HHK has better stop this initiative and officially recall the [education] minister it has appointed," he said, adding that there is nothing more repulsive than such a ‘display of contempt’ toward the Armenian language in the independent Armenia.

"The point is that they say in order to integrate into the achievements of world civilization and science, the Armenian language should be abandoned and, instead, the youth should be educated in a foreign language. This is a humiliating treatment of the Armenian language," he added.

Hairikian even expressed his fear of a violent backlash, such as armed attacks against such schools by radical groups, when and if they open.

Focus on the Learner

The debate continues between those who are for the “defense of the Armenian language and identity” and those who see no risks in this regard. What is, however, apparent is that neither side has a clear understanding of the roles and the objectives of schooling (primary and secondary education) which, to great extent, determine the question of the medium of instruction.

Schools, as modern day institutions, have two main functions: An academic one (transmission of knowledge, favoring personal development, development of skills) and a social one (preparing for the future integration into the society as citizens, qualifying for work or further education).

The primary choice for the language of instruction, both as a subject and a medium, is always given to the mother tongue as, according to all scientific evidence, this allows the student to lean better and the school to fulfill its first function effectively.

The complexity arises for minority students in multilingual / multiethnic societies as instruction in the mother tongue can prevent the school to perform its second function (prepare the student to exercise citizenship). For this reason, in democratic societies, schools usually adopt a bilingual education system. There have been extensive studies in post-Apartheid South Africa as well as in Quebec, Canada, which show the effectiveness and the desirability of bilingual education in such contexts.

The European Council recommendation 1740 dated 2006 on 'the Place of the Mother Tongue in School Education’ is also founded on these considerations. It stipulates:

“In European societies, everyday use of the official language is the main precondition for the integration of children whose main language is different from the official one of the country or region. However, a large amount of research yields common results on one point: immediate schooling of such children in a language they do not know well, or not at all, seriously jeopardizes their chances of academic success. Conversely, bilingual education based on the mother tongue is the basis for long-term success.”

In other words, EC prioritizes education in the mother tongue but, to prevent the marginalization of students whose mother tongue is different from the official language, it gives preference to bilingual education.

Back to Armenia, where the state language is Armenian and the mother tongue of the majority of students is equally Armenian, the use of Armenian as medium of instruction is a twofold requirement and hence the government’s recent initiative is, simply put, absurd – contrary to the interests of the learner (the student) and to the principal objectives of schooling.

Interestingly, even Mr. Ashotian has become somewhat knowledgeable about this. In explaining his latest watered-down version of the bill, via Hetq online daily, the Minister mentioned that there would be no foreign language schools at the elementary level (grades 1 to 4). “Upon consulting with experts, we came to the conclusion that a child’s language-based thinking develops in elementary school,” he said (what a revelation!).

In this way, he clearly admitted that:
1.
He and his team had devised a Law on Education and had sent it to the parliament before consulting with experts.
2.
He and his team at the Ministry of Education don’t know much about primary and secondary education.

Whose Rights?

One fundamental issue that also seems neglected in the current debate is the primacy of the right of the child, the learner, to have access to effective and relevant education. The rights of all other parties and stakeholders, including the parents, political parties, religious and ideological organizations, etc. are inferior.

As for the State, its main role is to protect the interests and the rights of the student – its future citizen – for whom it has the obligation to establish and protect the appropriate education system.

In Armenia, however, even the country’s Ombudsperson, Mr. Armen Haroutiunian, who is supposed to promote and defend human rights, seems confused in this regard. As one of the few people who have thrown their support behind the government’s initiative, he announced in an interview with RFE/RL’s Armenian Service, via ArmeniaNow, that “anyone has the right to education that would give them sufficient grounds for continuing it on the international level in the future”.

He implicitly recognized the predominance of the right of the parent to decide on the child’s schooling – as no one can expect the child to make such a complex decision. This declaration went unnoticed; not surprising in our paternalistic society.

The Way Out

At this point, I think the followings are needed to deal with the current confusion:

- Withdrawal of the proposed bill from the parliament
- Organization of public discussions with significant involvement of local and international education experts
- Resignation of Minister Ashotian and his team on the basis of their incompetence

For further reading on Council of Europe’s Language Policy, please click here.

The continued absence of local and international education experts in the ongoing debate over the Armenian government’s recent initiative to reopen foreign medium schools is surprising and highly regrettable. The debate has unfortunately turned into a purely political one, and various nationalist and ultra-nationalist forces have taken the lead in opposing the planned revisions to the Law on Education and the Law on Language.

The government and its Minister of Education, Mr. Armen Ashotian, on the other hand, continue to demonstrate their inability to explain their objectives and justify their initiative. Mr. Ashotian presented the bill today in the National Assembly and is expected to defend it tomorrow, 10 June 2010.

Using a street vendor-style negotiation tactic, Mr. Ashotian recently made some changes in his proposed bill. For instance, he lowered the number of proposed foreign medium schools from the original 28 to 15 but even the watered-down version of the ‘deal’ has not convinced anyone.

Treason!

Nationalist forces have gone so far as to accuse Mr. Ashotian of treason. At a press conference on 27 May, via Tert Armenian online daily, Mr. Parouir Hairikian, one the leading figures of the Armenian independence, said that the opening of foreign-language schools was a "very dangerous initiative." He called the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) to halt the initiative and recall the Minister of Education.

"They may blame anyone, the President, the Prime Minister, but HHK has better stop this initiative and officially recall the [education] minister it has appointed," he said, adding that there is nothing more repulsive than such a ‘display of contempt’ toward the Armenian language in the independent Armenia.

"The point is that they say in order to integrate into the achievements of world civilization and science, the Armenian language should be abandoned and, instead, the youth should be educated in a foreign language. This is a humiliating treatment of the Armenian language," he added.

Hairikian even expressed his fear of a violent backlash, such as armed attacks against such schools by radical groups, when and if they open.

Focus on the Learner

The debate continues between those who are for the “defense of the Armenian language and identity” and those who see no risks in this regard. What is, however, apparent is that neither side has a clear understanding of the roles and the objectives of schooling (primary and secondary education) which, to great extent, determine the question of the medium of instruction.

Schools, as modern day institutions, have two main functions: An academic one (transmission of knowledge, favoring personal development, development of skills) and a social one (preparing for the future integration into the society as citizens, qualifying for work or further education).

The primary choice for the language of instruction, both as a subject and a medium, is always given to the mother tongue as, according to all scientific evidence, this allows the student to lean better and the school to fulfill its first function effectively.

The complexity arises for minority students in multilingual / multiethnic societies as instruction in the mother tongue can prevent the school to perform its second function (prepare the student to exercise citizenship). For this reason, in democratic societies, schools usually adopt a bilingual education system. There have been extensive studies in post-Apartheid South Africa as well as in Quebec, Canada, which show the effectiveness and the desirability of bilingual education in such contexts.

The European Council recommendation 1740 dated 2006 on 'the Place of the Mother Tongue in School Education’ is also founded on these considerations. It stipulates:

“In European societies, everyday use of the official language is the main precondition for the integration of children whose main language is different from the official one of the country or region. However, a large amount of research yields common results on one point: immediate schooling of such children in a language they do not know well, or not at all, seriously jeopardizes their chances of academic success. Conversely, bilingual education based on the mother tongue is the basis for long-term success.”

In other words, EC prioritizes education in the mother tongue but, to prevent the marginalization of students whose mother tongue is different from the official language, it gives preference to bilingual education.

Back to Armenia, where the state language is Armenian and the mother tongue of the majority of students is equally Armenian, the use of Armenian as medium of instruction is a twofold requirement and hence the government’s recent initiative is, simply put, absurd – contrary to the interests of the learner (the student) and to the principal objectives of schooling.

Interestingly, even Mr. Ashotian has become somewhat knowledgeable about this. In explaining his latest watered-down version of the bill, via Hetq online daily, the Minister mentioned that there would be no foreign language schools at the elementary level (grades 1 to 4). “Upon consulting with experts, we came to the conclusion that a child’s language-based thinking develops in elementary school,” he said (what a revelation!).

In this way, he clearly admitted that:
1.
He and his team had devised a Law on Education and had sent it to the parliament before consulting with experts.
2.
He and his team at the Ministry of Education don’t know much about primary and secondary education.

Whose Rights?

One fundamental issue that also seems neglected in the current debate is the primacy of the right of the child, the learner, to have access to effective and relevant education. The rights of all other parties and stakeholders, including the parents, political parties, religious and ideological organizations, etc. are inferior.

As for the State, its main role is to protect the interests and the rights of the student – its future citizen – for whom it has the obligation to establish and protect the appropriate education system.

In Armenia, however, even the country’s Ombudsperson, Mr. Armen Haroutiunian, who is supposed to promote and defend human rights, seems confused in this regard. As one of the few people who have thrown their support behind the government’s initiative, he announced in an interview with RFE/RL’s Armenian Service, via ArmeniaNow, that “anyone has the right to education that would give them sufficient grounds for continuing it on the international level in the future”.

He implicitly recognized the predominance of the right of the parent to decide on the child’s schooling – as no one can expect the child to make such a complex decision. This declaration went unnoticed; not surprising in our paternalistic society.

The Way Out

At this point, I think the followings are needed to deal with the current confusion:

- Withdrawal of the proposed bill from the parliament
- Organization of public discussions with significant involvement of local and international education experts
- Resignation of Minister Ashotian and his team on the basis of their incompetence

For further reading on Council of Europe’s Language Policy, please click here.