Reference is made to part of Josanne Cassar’s article regarding Church Schools and the 2006 Health Promotion Unit survey (TMIS, 29 June).

As has already been explained before, the facts are as follows:

The questionnaire concerned was distributed to Church Secondary Schools without prior consultation and approval.

It emerged that there were parents who voiced their concerns and objections about their children having to answer certain questions in the survey.

As well as taking into consideration the parents’ views regarding certain questions in the previous 2002 survey, it was felt that it was not in the best interests of secondary school students to be asked certain questions as presented in the 2006 survey. For instance, the way certain questions were worded appeared to imply that students had already had certain sexual experiences. It was considered that this kind of approach was not the right way for the better education of children about certain delicate issues.

The Church Secretariat for Education called the Health Promotion Unit (HPU) to discuss the questionnaire that had already been distributed to Church schools. The HPU suggested the removal of the pages with the objectionable questions in the Maltese and English versions. However, the questions and the pages in the questionnaire were numbered. Moreover, the objectionable questions were on two pages, thus requiring the removal of more than one page forming part of the health questions. It was felt that such a move would have also given rise to speculation and gossip among students about the missing questions.

Had the Church Secretariat for Education been consulted before going to print, the Secretariat would have agreed to have the questionnaire printed without the objectionable questions in the first place.

The way questions are structured in such surveys is very important.

Charles Buttigieg

Public Relations Officer

Archbishop’s Curia