Sir, – The headline on Breda O’Brien’s article (Opinion, December 15th), “Skewed statistics do little to promote choice in education”, gives the impression there has been some distortion or misrepresentation of the facts. Furthermore, in the text of her article, she asserts that the methodology of the pilot survey “was flawed” without giving evidence for that assertion.
As chairman of the Advisory Panel to the Forum on School Patronage which recommended the first formal survey of parents as to their choice between a number of school patronage models, I consider it would be regrettable if the public formed the impression that the survey methodology, process and reportage were other than professional and above board.
For the record, it should be noted the survey could be conducted by paper as well as on-line. The availability of the paper-based version was publicised in local media and in information materials disseminated directly to parents through schools and early childcare centres. This was also supported by a free-phone helpline. The fact that 98.9 per cent of survey responses were submitted online would appear to demonstrate a strong willingness among the parent community for communicating by online means. While the overall response rate was disappointing, at about 30 per cent, it is worth noting that this was about the same percentage as those who voted on the national referendum on children’s rights, which benefited from much publicity and promotion.
It is gratifying Ms O’Brien agrees that the minority of parents who voted for a more diverse system should be offered choice. It will take a lot of goodwill, mutual understanding and co-operation at local level to facilitate the exercise of that choice. This is not helped by creating false impressions on an issue of considerable sensitivity. – Yours, etc,