www.CaucasusNow.com

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.

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.

In 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 reopen.

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 usually 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 minority students in the society, it gives preference to bilingual education, when the mother tongue is different from the official language.

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 being 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.

UNESCO has published the 7th issue of its Science Policy series titled ‘Science and Education Policies in Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Caucasus and Baltic Countries’.

The 161-page document is the collection of papers submitted to the conference titled ‘Science and Education Policies’ that was held in Chisinau, Moldova, in 2008. The conference was organized by joint efforts of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova and the Ministry of Education and Youth of the Republic of Moldova.

The document provides insights on subjects related to the linkages between higher education and research and their importance for the development of a knowledge-based society in countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Caucasus and Baltic Countries. Experiences from other regions are also included in the report.

The following topics are specifically addressed:

- Strengthening the international impact of national research and education programs (section 1)
- Enhancing research in higher education (section 2)
- Developing a knowledge-based economy (section 3)
- Best practices on stemming and reversing ‘brain drain’ (section 4)

The document also includes the conference program as well as its final communiqué.

Caucasian Discretion

Despite having the Caucasus as one of the regions in focus, the report includes only one article on Georgia titled ‘Georgian National Science Foundation: a Key Player in Reforming the S&T Sector’ by Natia Jokhadze and Revaz Astiani. There are no articles on the Armenian or Azerbaijani education and science.

This is due to the simple fact that no one from Armenia or Azerbaijan attended the Chisinau conference.

From Georgia, two scholars attended the conference: Roin Metreveli, from Department of Social Sciences, Georgian Academy of Sciences, and Revaz Astiani from Science Division, Georgian National Science Foundation.

To download the document from a UNESCO site, please click here.

According to Bia Turkish online daily, the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party MP Hasip Kaplan has recently revealed the existence of an ‘action plan’, devised by Turkey’s Council of Higher Education (YÖK), to exclude Kurdish students from universities. The “5-year medium term plan” is aimed at “systematically arresting and detaining” Kurdish university students.

Mr. Kaplan brought the “Action Plan for Separatist Activities” to the Turkey’s parliament. YÖK has apparently sent the plan to the universities on 17 March 2010.

In an interview with Bia, Mr. Kaplan said; “this confidential action plan is being applied against Kurdish university students every year… The plan suggests watching students who are involved in ‘separatist’ activities such as attending Newroz celebrations or requesting education in Kurdish as their mother tongue.

There are outrages statements like saying that the students misused the rights provided by the European Union. The investigation and monitoring reports about the students should be sent to the deanery every 4 months. Recent attacks against Kurdish students in Muğla, Ankara, Manisa, Rize, Tokat and Instanbul were based on these directives. It even gets worse since the document is meant to be a ‘five-year medium-term plan’. This is a plan to systemize arrests and detentions of Kurdish students.”

“We will constantly bring this up at the parliamentary agenda and we will keep it updated. We do not accept to subject students to exclusion due to their identities. It is dreadful that this kind of issues can be found in an official state document. We will reveal that the AKP [ruling Justice and Development Party] government is insincere regarding the constitution and that they are false democrats”, Kaplan added.

Kaplan criticized Turkey’s National Education Minister, Nimet Çubukçu, for officially describing the recent death of Şerzan Kurt, a student at the University of Muğla (Aegean coast), as the result of a ‘bar fight’.

Kaplan said, “Çubukçu denied the existence of the document, when she was reminded of the attacks and the action plan. I sent the document to the National Education Ministry and to all parties represented in parliament. I disclosed the document of which Minister Çabukçu denied its existence. How is she going to explain a scandalous situation like this?

I invite the minister to bravely remain behind the decisions taken related to the ‘democratic initiative’. On one hand, you are saying ‘we are advocates of freedom’, on the other hand, you are ignoring Kurdish students and the Kurdish identity. We do not accept this.”

UNESCO has published the 7th issue of its Science Policy series titled ‘Science and Education Policies in Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Caucasus and Baltic Countries’.

The 161-page document is the collection of papers submitted to the conference titled ‘Science and Education Policies’ that was held in Chisinau, Moldova, in 2008. The conference was organized by joint efforts of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova and the Ministry of Education and Youth of the Republic of Moldova.

The document provides insights on subjects related to the linkages between higher education and research and their importance for the development of a knowledge-based society in countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Caucasus and Baltic Countries. Experiences from other regions are also included in the report.

The following topics are specifically addressed:

- Strengthening the international impact of national research and education programs (section 1)
- Enhancing research in higher education (section 2)
- Developing a knowledge-based economy (section 3)
- Best practices on stemming and reversing ‘brain drain’ (section 4)

The document also includes the conference program as well as its final communiqué.

Caucasian Discretion

Despite having the Caucasus as one of the regions in focus, the report includes only one article on Georgia titled ‘Georgian National Science Foundation: a Key Player in Reforming the S&T Sector’ by Natia Jokhadze and Revaz Astiani. There are no articles on the Armenian or Azerbaijani education and science.

This is due to the simple fact that no one from Armenia or Azerbaijan attended the Chisinau conference.

From Georgia, two scholars attended the conference: Roin Metreveli, from Department of Social Sciences, Georgian Academy of Sciences, and Revaz Astiani from Science Division, Georgian National Science Foundation.

To download the document from a UNESCO site, please click here.

The Armenian Association for Academic Partnership and Support (ARMACAD) has announced a discussion session on Wikipedia in Armenian language. The meeting will take place on 8 June 2010. The Association has invited all interested parties to participate.

During the meeting, questions concerning the content of Wikipedia in Armenian as well as the materials about Armenia and Armenians in foreign languages will be discussed. The administrators and the authors of Armeniapedia will also participate and present their insights.

For further information and participation, please click here.

Challenges Ahead

The issue of the Armenian presence on Wikipedia was recently raised by the members of a civil campaign against the government’s decision to reopen foreign language schools in Armenia.

In its statement, via ArmeniaNow online magazine, the group emphasized the need to implement a large-scale national program to “raise the competitiveness of the Armenian language”. Such a program would include massive translation of world literature into Armenian, creation of computer-based and online translator programs, and development of Armenian online resources on Wikipedia and similar platforms.

For a country that has announced ICT as one of its strategic development paths towards a ‘knowledge-driven economy’, the current generalized lack of interest in knowledge, the poor state of online resources in Armenian as well as the limited scope of computer and internet use in the country are surely anomalous.

The prices of computers and the Internet connection are surely part of the problem but they will be solved sooner or later. The government can surely play a major role in promoting better education and research systems, and is rightly being criticized for its ignorance and inaction.

However, the lack of public interest is a fundamental cultural problem that will be difficult to tackle. It is not hard to notice that the Armenian public, including the youth, in contrast to its obsession with cars and mobile phones, seems rather uninterested in computers and the Internet.

One of the manifestations of this apathy is the poor state of Armenian presence in cyberspace, including in leading online platforms such as Wikipedia.

Not Exactly a Eurovision-type Performance

On 29 May 2010, with 3,306,572 articles, English ranked first in the global ranking of 272 languages that are present in Wikipedia. With 9,045 articles, Armenian ranked 96th; after Tajik and before Yoruba.

The low ranking of Armenian became more apparent and troublesome when I considered other main languages spoken in the region:

Rank / Language / No of Articles

10 / Russian / 541,434
19 / Turkish / 144,922
33 / Persian / 93,921
50 / Georgian / 40,797
53 / Azeri / 34,634
88 / Kurdish / 12,910

It was interesting for me to note that Armenian, despite being a state language, ranked even lower than Kurdish which has official status only in Kurdistan province of Iraq and remains banned in other countries with Kurdish population.

Armenian ranked even lower than languages spoken by many ‘small nations’ such as Icelandic that is spoken by approximately 320,000 people (ranked 60 with 28,495 entries) and Chuvash, the official provincial language of Chuvashia (Russian Federation), spoken by 1,640,000 people (ranked 92 with 11,286 entries).

Again, remaining in our region, Armenian ranked slightly higher than Ossetian (ranked 105 with 6,937 articles) and Abkhazian (ranked 211with 430 articles).

Articles Concerning Armenia

As for articles written in English on Armenia, the Armenian inertia is, once again, striking. I did not search articles written in Russian or other languages.

Following some random search for Armenian higher education related topics, I realized that there were no entries for ‘higher education in Armenia’ (there is only an article on ‘education in Armenia’) or ‘the Ministry of Education and Science of Armenia.’ As for the Armenian universities, there were articles on the following 11 HEIs only:

American University of Armenia
Armenian State Institute of Physical Culture
Eurasia International University
Russian-Armenian State University
State Engineering University of Armenia
Yerevan State Linguistic University
Yerevan State Medical University
Yerevan State Musical Conservatory
Yerevan State Pedagogical University
Yerevan State University
Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction

Most of these articles were very brief, poorly edited and documented. Under ‘Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction,’ for instance, this is what was written:

“YSUAC is a university, located in Yerevan, Armenia.

History

A technical school opened within the newly-established Yerevan State University in 1921, graduating its first students in 1928. In July 1930, the Armenian Construction Institute, which by this stage had departments of Architecture and Construction, Hydrology and Chemical Engineering, was established with prominent architect Mikayel Mazmanyan as its first director.

It grew and developed until on 11 January 1989, the Institute was renamed the Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction by the Armenian SSR Council of Ministers. Its first rector (1989-2005) was Arest Baglaryan, since which time Professor Hovhannes Tokmajyan has been the rector.

Its 7 faculties contain 23 departments”.

The entry for the ‘Armenian Academy of Sciences’ was equally weak, inaccurate and incomplete.

Armeniapedia: Even Worse

The purpose of creating Armeniapedia, ‘the online Armenia Encyclopedia’ – a totally separate initiative from Wikipedia – is unclear to me. Probably, yet another manifestation of Armenian reclusiveness. As for its impact, I think it would be safe to say the project has clearly failed.

On 29 May 2010, it contained 5,670 articles only. Quality-wise, entries in Armeniapedia were even weaker than Wikipedia articles concerning Armenia.

I searched for the same entries on Armeniapedia. Here again, there was nothing on ‘higher education in Armenia’ or ‘the Ministry of Education and Science,’ and even ‘the National Academy of Sciences’ had no entry. Moreover, most Armenian HEIs were absent.

Instead, it was interesting to see entries for foreign HEIs such as Arizona State University and University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. I thought there had surely been good reasons to include such institutions on Armeniapedia; for instance, having departments of Armenian Studies or partnerships with Armenian HEIs.

Under ‘University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee,’ however, I discovered the following short and strange text:

“Dr. Christina Maranci, Professor of Art History
Dr. Bert Vaux, Professor of Linguistics”

The Armenian Association for Academic Partnership and Support (ARMACAD) has announced a discussion session on Wikipedia in Armenian language. The meeting will take place on 8 June 2010. The Association has invited all interested parties to participate.

During the meeting, questions concerning the content of Wikipedia in Armenian as well as the materials about Armenia and Armenians in foreign languages will be discussed. The administrators and the authors of Armeniapedia will also participate and present their insights.

For further information and participation, please click here.

Challenges Ahead

The issue of the Armenian presence on Wikipedia was recently raised by the members of a civil campaign against the government’s decision to reopen foreign language schools in Armenia.

In its statement, via ArmeniaNow online magazine, the group emphasized the need to implement a large-scale national program to “raise the competitiveness of the Armenian language”. Such a program would include massive translation of world literature into Armenian, creation of computer-based and online translator programs, and development of Armenian online resources on Wikipedia and similar platforms.

For a country that has announced ICT as one of its strategic development paths towards a ‘knowledge-driven economy’, the current generalized lack of interest in knowledge, the poor state of online resources in Armenian as well as the limited scope of computer and internet use in the country are surely anomalous.

The prices of computers and the Internet connection are surely part of the problem but they will be solved sooner or later. The government can surely play a major role in promoting better education and research systems, and is rightly being criticized for its ignorance and inaction.

However, the lack of public interest is a fundamental cultural problem that will be difficult to tackle. It is not hard to notice that the Armenian public, including the youth, in contrast to its obsession with cars and mobile phones, seems rather uninterested in computers and the Internet.

One of the manifestations of this apathy is the poor state of Armenian presence in cyberspace, including in leading online platforms such as Wikipedia.

Not Exactly a Eurovision-type Performance

On 29 May 2010, with 3,306,572 articles, English ranked first in the global ranking of 272 languages that are present in Wikipedia. With 9,045 articles, Armenian ranked 96th; after Tajik and before Yoruba.

The low ranking of Armenian became more apparent and troublesome when I considered other main languages spoken in the region:

Rank / Language / No of Articles

10 / Russian / 541,434
19 / Turkish / 144,922
33 / Persian / 93,921
50 / Georgian / 40,797
53 / Azeri / 34,634
88 / Kurdish / 12,910

It was interesting for me to note that Armenian, despite being a state language, ranked even lower than Kurdish which has official status only in Kurdistan province of Iraq and remains banned in other countries with Kurdish population.

Armenian ranked even lower than languages spoken by many ‘small nations’ such as Icelandic that is spoken by approximately 320,000 people (ranked 60 with 28,495 entries) and Chuvash, the official provincial language of Chuvashia (Russian Federation), spoken by 1,640,000 people (ranked 92 with 11,286 entries).

Again, remaining in our region, Armenian ranked slightly higher than Ossetian (ranked 105 with 6,937 articles) and Abkhazian (ranked 211with 430 articles).

Articles Concerning Armenia

As for articles written in English on Armenia, the Armenian inertia is, once again, striking. I did not search articles written in Russian or other languages.

Following some random search for Armenian higher education related topics, I realized that there were no entries for ‘higher education in Armenia’ (there is only an article on ‘education in Armenia’) or ‘the Ministry of Education and Science of Armenia.’ As for the Armenian universities, there were articles on the following 11 HEIs only:

American University of Armenia
Armenian State Institute of Physical Culture
Eurasia International University
Russian-Armenian State University
State Engineering University of Armenia
Yerevan State Linguistic University
Yerevan State Medical University
Yerevan State Musical Conservatory
Yerevan State Pedagogical University
Yerevan State University
Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction

Most of these articles were very brief, poorly edited and documented. Under ‘Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction,’ for instance, this is what was written:

“YSUAC is a university, located in Yerevan, Armenia.

History

A technical school opened within the newly-established Yerevan State University in 1921, graduating its first students in 1928. In July 1930, the Armenian Construction Institute, which by this stage had departments of Architecture and Construction, Hydrology and Chemical Engineering, was established with prominent architect Mikayel Mazmanyan as its first director.

It grew and developed until on 11 January 1989, the Institute was renamed the Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction by the Armenian SSR Council of Ministers. Its first rector (1989-2005) was Arest Baglaryan, since which time Professor Hovhannes Tokmajyan has been the rector.

Its 7 faculties contain 23 departments”.

The entry for the ‘Armenian Academy of Sciences’ was equally weak, inaccurate and incomplete.

Armeniapedia: Even Worse

The purpose of creating Armeniapedia, ‘the online Armenia Encyclopedia’ – a totally separate initiative from Wikipedia – is unclear to me. Probably, yet another manifestation of Armenian reclusiveness. As for its impact, I think it would be safe to say the project has clearly failed.

On 29 May 2010, it contained 5,670 articles only. Quality-wise, entries in Armeniapedia were even weaker than Wikipedia articles concerning Armenia.

I searched for the same entries on Armeniapedia. Here again, there was nothing on ‘higher education in Armenia’ or ‘the Ministry of Education and Science,’ and even ‘the National Academy of Sciences’ had no entry. Moreover, most Armenian HEIs were absent.

Instead, it was interesting to see entries for foreign HEIs such as Arizona State University and University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. I thought there had surely been good reasons to include such institutions on Armeniapedia; for instance, having departments of Armenian Studies or partnerships with Armenian HEIs.

Under ‘University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee,’ however, I discovered the following short and strange text:

“Dr. Christina Maranci, Professor of Art History
Dr. Bert Vaux, Professor of Linguistics”

Following Armenian Minister of Education and Science Mr. Armen Ashotian’s 4 day visit to Iran (21-25 May), it has been announced that Iran is ready to reconsider its decision not to recognize degrees granted by 3 Armenian HEIs: Yerevan State University (YSU), Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU) and State Engineering University of Armenia (SEUA). Iran’s recognition of Armenian degrees will most probably result in a major increase in the number of Iranian students coming to Armenia; an excellent news for all those who have traditionally thrived on the ‘Iranian student business.’

Presenting the results of his recent visit to Tehran, Mr. Ashotian said at a press conference that Iran has shown ‘the appropriate political will’ and before the next academic year, its Deputy Minister of Science and Technology will visit Yerevan to discuss bilateral issues.

Mr. Ashotian added that the Iranian side attaches great importance to its cooperation with Armenia in the fields of education and science. This was particularly stressed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his meeting with the Armenian delegation.

Previously, the Iranian official news agency IRNA had reported that ‘Dr. Ahmadinejad’ had called bilateral relations with Armenia as “fraternal and friendly,” adding that Iran and Armenia, along with “the other states in the region”, enjoy “inseparable” ties with each other.

According to IRNA, Mr. Ashotian had called Iran’s scientific progress “astounding” and had added that the two countries have plenty of opportunities for cooperation in the fields of education, science and research.

In his press conference in Yerevan, Mr. Ashotian also announced that the two countries will sign a cooperation agreement very shortly. Iran will provide 10 scholarships to Armenian graduate students in specific fields such as Iranian and Islamic Studies and will establish a center of Armenian Studies at one of its institutions.

Winners

The recognition of YSU, YSMU and SEUA degrees will surely increase the Iranian student inflow into these institutions. Iranian students, who are charged higher tuition fees, have been a good source of income for YSU, YSMU and SEUA in the past 10 years.

Iran’s Ministry of Science cancelled its recognition of Armenian degrees last year due to widespread corruption in Armenian institutions, low quality of instruction in programs hosting Iranian students (programs taught in English at YSMU and SEUA), and the lack of student services. Indeed, Iranian students have been constantly reporting to their embassy in Yerevan on cases of maltreatment by university officers, instructors’ inability to teach in English, lower standards in courses taught to foreign students, instructors asking for bribes, insufficient instructional equipment and material (computer labs, etc.), in general, and their discriminatory allocation to foreign students.

In case of YSU that never opened a separate English language stream for foreign students, the main problem was the institution’s policy to admit massive numbers of Iranian students to its doctorate programs and letting them earn degrees on less stringent bases. This attracted many Iranian civil servants who by getting an easy doctorate were automatically granted promotions.

It is not yet known what commitments Mr. Ashotian has made to his Iranian counterparts in terms of dealing with all these problems.

The recognition of YSU, YSMU and SEUA degrees will also be a very good news for all the other actors who, directly or indirectly, have benefited from the Iranian student inflow. The rather well-organized ‘corruption chain’ has typically included certain staff at the Armenian Embassy in Iran who, in collaboration with local student recruitment agencies, handle applications and later issue student visas up to the officers and staff at the Armenian Ministry of Education’s International Division who handle international admissions and allocate applicants to different HEIs. One should also mention the immigration officers (OVIR) who issue and renew annual resident permits to international students.

Losers

One of the losers of the recent agreement is surely Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction (YSUAC), another public HEI that has thrived on Iranian tuitions for a decade. It is unclear why YSUAC has been left out of the deal between the two ministers. Although corruption seems to be less of a problem at YSUAC, compared to the other 3 institutions, its International Division is known to be the least considerate of foreign student needs and its teaching staff the least prepared to teach in a language other than Armenian and Russian.

As to the Iranian students themselves, who are not exactly the best Iranian students going abroad but still have certain expectations on the quality of education and student services for which they pay, it will all depend on whether the hosting HEIs will be able to improve their offerings and practices in the future. Based on the past experiences and the inability of Armenian HEIs to improve themselves, I am afraid, they will be the main losers.

Following Armenian Minister of Education and Science Mr. Armen Ashotian’s 4 day visit to Iran (21-25 May), it has been announced that Iran is ready to reconsider its decision not to recognize degrees granted by 3 Armenian HEIs: Yerevan State University (YSU), Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU) and State Engineering University of Armenia (SEUA). Iran’s recognition of Armenian degrees will most probably result in a major increase in the number of Iranian students coming to Armenia; an excellent news for all those who have traditionally thrived on the ‘Iranian student business.’

Presenting the results of his recent visit to Tehran, Mr. Ashotian said at a press conference that Iran has shown ‘the appropriate political will’ and before the next academic year, its Deputy Minister of Science and Technology will visit Yerevan to discuss bilateral issues.

Mr. Ashotian added that the Iranian side attaches great importance to its cooperation with Armenia in the fields of education and science. This was particularly stressed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his meeting with the Armenian delegation.

Previously, the Iranian official news agency IRNA had reported that ‘Dr. Ahmadinejad’ had called bilateral relations with Armenia as “fraternal and friendly,” adding that Iran and Armenia, along with “the other states in the region”, enjoy “inseparable” ties with each other.

According to IRNA, Mr. Ashotian had called Iran’s scientific progress “astounding” and had added that the two countries have plenty of opportunities for cooperation in the fields of education, science and research.

In his press conference in Yerevan, Mr. Ashotian also announced that the two countries will sign a cooperation agreement very shortly. Iran will provide 10 scholarships to Armenian graduate students in specific fields such as Iranian and Islamic Studies and will establish a center of Armenian Studies at one of its institutions.

Winners & Losers

The recognition of YSU, YSMU and SEUA degrees will surely increase the Iranian student inflow into these institutions. Iranian students, who are charged higher tuition fees, have been a good source of income for YSU, YSMU and SEUA in the past 10 years.

Iran’s Ministry of Science cancelled its recognition of Armenian degrees last year due to widespread corruption in Armenian institutions, low quality of instruction in programs hosting Iranian students (programs taught in English at YSMU and SEUA), and the lack of student services. Indeed, Iranian students have been constantly reporting to their embassy in Yerevan on cases of maltreatment by university officers, instructors’ inability to teach in English, lower standards in courses taught to foreign students, instructors asking for bribes, insufficient instructional equipment and material (computer labs, etc.), in general, and their discriminatory allocation to foreign students.

In case of YSU that never opened a separate English language stream for foreign students, the main problem was the institution’s policy to admit massive numbers of Iranian students to its doctorate programs and letting them earn degrees on less stringent bases. This attracted many Iranian civil servants who by getting an easy doctorate were automatically granted promotions.

It is not yet known what commitments Mr. Ashotian has made to his Iranian counterparts in terms of dealing with all these problems.

The recognition of YSU, YSMU and SEUA degrees will also be a very good news for all the other actors who, directly or indirectly, have benefited from the Iranian student inflow. The rather well-organized ‘corruption chain’ has typically included certain staff at the Armenian Embassy in Iran who, in collaboration with local student recruitment agencies, handle applications and later issue student visas up to the officers and staff at the Armenian Ministry of Education’s International Division who handle international admissions and allocate applicants to different HEIs. One should also mention the immigration officers (OVIR) who issue and renew annual resident permits to international students.

As to the Iranian students themselves, who are not exactly the best Iranian students going abroad but still have certain expectations on the quality of education and student services for which they pay, it will all depend on whether the hosting HEIs will be able to improve their offerings and practices in the future. Based on the past experiences and the inability of Armenian HEIs to improve themselves, I am afraid, they will be the main losers.

An atheist family has won a case on compulsory religion classes in Turkey. According to the lawyer representing the atheist couple, the number of similar cases is increasing as more non-believers and members of other religions file lawsuits.

According to Anatolia news agency, via Hurriyet Daily News, an administrative court in Istanbul has ruled on 25 May 2010 that the child of an atheist couple can be exempt from compulsory religion classes at a primary school.

The couple first lodged a petition with the local administrator’s office in Eyüp, an Istanbul district known for its conservatism, to have their 4-grade child exempted from religion classes.

The office rejected the family’s request on the grounds that the religion class is compulsory in schools according to the Constitution.

The family then filed a lawsuit with the local administrative court which decided, by consensus, that the family had the right to have their child exempted from the classes.

Along with Christian and Jewish citizens, atheists should have the right to be exempt from religion classes, the court said, adding that the Turkish Constitution and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms protect freedom of belief.

“Religious and Moral Education” is a compulsory course for primary school students in accordance with Article 24 of the Turkish Constitution, which was prepared after the 1980 military coup and approved by a public referendum in 1982.

Despite this, the Council of State found compulsory religious classes in primary and secondary schools to be against the law based on its content in a 2008 ruling.

The classes have been especially criticized for allegedly only teaching Sunni Islam. Alevis, members of a community widely perceived as a liberal branch of Islam whose religious practices differ markedly from those of Turkey’s Sunni majority, have been fighting to abolish compulsory religious lessons or at least amend their content.

The Turkish government, which is slowly proceeding with European Union accession talks, amended the textbooks, but many Alevis remain unsatisfied.

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the right of an Alevi child to opt out of religion classes.

In a recent article in the University World News dated 16 May 2010, Mr. Eugene Vorotnikov writes that the level of corruption in Russian universities is steadily growing “despite the efforts of local authorities” (?) to eradicate it. Mr. Vorotnikov reveals some interesting, official and non-official, data and discusses a new form of corruption that is linked to the recently introduced standardized national university entrance examinations. Excerpts:

According to necessarily rough estimates, bribes paid for admission to Russian universities in 2009 totaled 1 billion USD. This is 40 percent more than in 2007, with the average bribe rocketing 5 times higher in just the last 2 years.

Experts believe that most of the traditional anti-corruption measures currently being implemented in Russia are useless and there is a need to change the whole system.

…Although the prestige of higher education declined in the first half of the 1990s, since the beginning of the 2000s it has considerably improved especially for Law and Economics. But, despite the country’s increased demand for higher education, the salaries of university professors remain low.

There is some disparity in information about how much the salaries actually are. Oleg Smolin, Deputy Chairman of the State’s Duma Committee on Education, said the average salary of university professors was about 17,000 rubles a month (600 USD). But according to Andrei Fursenko, the Minister of Education, the rate is much higher, at 50,000 rubles.

Even so, 50,000 rubles is inadequate for the ever-rising cost of living in Russia – and so conditions are created for corruption in the country’s universities.

Mark Levin, a professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow who has studied the issue, said corruption in universities took place not only during the entrance examinations but also those at the end of semesters. Levin said some students preferred to pay money to pass examinations and obtain a diploma.

The situation is aggravated further as most such crimes are often difficult to prove, because of a practice widely used to pay for tutoring and pre-study courses. Most tutors are members of the admission committees which can help a student gain a place at the university.

Another factor exacerbating corruption is the gap between the requirements laid down for school-leavers and the standards of applicants required by the universities.

For example, many universities sometimes use tests that go beyond the traditional curriculum, forcing applicants and their parents to pay for admission.

A unified state examination was introduced, with standardized tests for high school graduates replacing the entrance examinations to state universities. This was intended to reduce corruption but analysts believe the corruption flows were not destroyed, simply redirected to the secondary school level.

…Fursenko claims corruption exists only in those universities “which do not care about the results of their activities”. He says that to defeat corruption “there is a need to tighten control over the quality of the educational activities of such universities”…

In his recent speech at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Armenian Prime Minister, Mr. Tigran Sargsian, outlined his and his government’s vision for the development of science in the county and the role of NAS. Shockingly, he did not pronounce the word ‘university,’ even once, in his speech.

Formulated as ‘the 4 theses,’ Mr. Sargsian’s speech outlined various stakeholders in the innovation process, even the still non-existent Armenian venture capitalists. Different ‘triangles’ and ‘squares’ (NAS, businesses, venture capitalists, the government, etc.) were presented to the audience, mostly above 70-years old academicians. Universities were, however, completely left out.

By ignoring the role that universities play, or should play, in the development of science and in the innovation process, and by separating scientific research from higher education, the PM discredited his and his government’s vision.

His speech even contradicted with the document titled ‘Strategy for the Development of Science’ that the State Committee on Science published almost a year ago. In that document, SCS had set, as one of its 8 objectives, “to create a coherent infrastructure combining education, science, technology, and innovation,” and in the section dealing with the necessary measures it had identified “the foundation of real research universities” as one of them.

The topic of revitalizing the science system has been under discussion in Russia as well. Somehow, many processes evolve simultaneously in Russia and Armenia, or to be more accurate, Armenia usually follows Russia with a time lag of 1-3 years. To be even more accurate – the Armenian authorities tend to imitate most of the initiatives taken by their Russian colleagues, regardless of their relevance.

Instead of trying to convince the PM and his government of something that seems obvious to everyone else, I would therefore suggest that Mr. Sargsian studies closely what his Russian colleague, Mr. Vladimir Putin, is doing in Russia and save our universities additional 2-3 years of neglect.

Putin, Russian Universities & the Academy

Ria Novosti Russian news agency, via Nature, reports that in an attempt to counter the decline and to foster science-driven innovation, the Russian government is betting on its universities, by promising to invest an extra 90 billion RUB (3 billion USD) into higher education and market-oriented university research over the next decade, on top of an annual university research budget of about 20 billion RUB.

Doubts, however, remain about whether the initiatives can overcome weaknesses in the universities and the long-standing dominance of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the largest basic research organization in the country. The RAS, which employs more than 50,000 researchers in 480 institutes across the country, gets about 50 billion RUB per year in funding from the federal government. Yet it suffers from an ageing scientific workforce and poor links with the international scientific community.

As Russia struggles to overcome its economic dependence on mineral exports, academy researchers are criticized for contributing too little to Russia’s transformation into a high-tech economy. “Increasing domestic high-tech production will require a flow of well trained people to industry,” says Nikolay Ledentsov, a corresponding member of the RAS formerly with the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in St Petersburg, who now runs the optoelectronic company VI-Systems in Berlin, Germany, which he founded in 2006. “Improving universities, where most people are educated, makes sense.”

To strengthen neglected university research — mainly in applied sciences such as information technology — the government launched a competition in 2008 to transform a number of existing institutions into ‘national research universities’. On top of their regular funding from regional governments, these institutions will each receive an extra 1.8 billion RUB per year over the next decade from federal budgets for purchasing modern laboratory equipment. Twelve winners were selected last year, and a further dozen or so will be chosen this month out of 128 institutions that applied in the second round of the competition.

Last year, the government also created five ‘federal universities’ to bolster higher-education efforts in under-resourced areas; they will each receive around 380 million RUB annually in extra funding over the next three years.

Separate budget lines were also set aside to support Moscow State University and St Petersburg University, the two largest and scientifically strongest HEIs in the country.

Finally, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced a new grant program in April 2010 worth a total of 12 billion RUB. It is aimed at attracting high-profile scientists from within the country and abroad to work at Russian universities. Winners, chosen for their research and publication record, will receive up to 1 million USD per year to set up a team at a Russian university of their choice. A first call for proposals is being prepared, and the first grantees are to be selected later this year.

‘Merging Science & Higher Education’

Hopes of creating a Russian match for Harvard or Oxford, voiced by some institutions bidding to become national research universities, are wildly premature, says Konstantin Severinov, a biochemist based at both Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and at the RAS Institute of Molecular Genetics in Moscow. He and others warn that the new funding is still being funneled through a system that often fails to reward the best ideas, and lacks the transparent grant-assessment procedures developed and accepted by the international scientific community.

Still, Severinov says, promoting university research is certainly a welcome step towards breaking the unhealthy dominance of the RAS in favor of a more diverse science and higher-education system. “Merging science and higher education is the right approach,” he says. “If the new initiatives help get more Russian students involved in meaningful research early on it would be a good thing.”

Some researchers worry that boosting the universities could damage the RAS. “It’s in every¬body’s interest to have strong universities, but please not at the expense of damaging the RAS where the best science is done,” says Ledentsov. The best way to revitalize Russian science is to let both universities and RAS institutes to compete for public funding through a quality-based granting system, he says. “Russian science needs a fruitful combination of both, and it absolutely needs stronger links with Europe.”

Increased funding is only part of the remedy, adds Ledentsov. Russian government initiatives include a 318-billion-RUB nanotechnology program started in 2007 and plans for a new science city outside Moscow. But these must be supported by innovation-friendly business and legal reforms such as tax exemptions for company research and development.

“You can’t order innovation,” says Ledentsov. “But you can force the economy to be innovative if you create the right incentives. Seed it and it will grow.”