I WAS surprised that Martin Ripley (TES, May 16) should attempt to shoot the messenger. Our report on foundation profiles commissioned from Warwick University was independent, valid and reliable.
The sample was based on National Union of Teachers members in foundation and key stage 1 working in 13 education authorities; a method approved by Warwick University. I have no evidence that NUT members' educational views are different from those of other members of the profession. Neither has he.
We make no apology for including key stage 1 teachers. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's handbook emphasises that the profile provides important information for Year 1 teachers.
All our members are qualified teachers which is why the views of others not so qualified were not sought. Does Martin Ripley think it is invalid to seek solely the views of qualified teachers? Finally, and contrary to his assertion, qualified teachers in the voluntary, private, independent sectors within the 13 LEAs were included.
Martin Ripley may not like the results of the research but he should concentrate on its findings. He might find in fact that both the NUT and Ted Wragg reflect teachers' views!
John Bangs Head of education, NUT