Academy District 20 voters deserve clear, honest communication, especially when candidates invoke research to back controversial positions. But in the case of D20 candidate Eddie Waldrep, a deeper look at the evidence reveals a troubling disconnect between what’s being cited and what it actually means.
On his website, Waldrep makes several policy assertions, including his support for:
- “Standardizing character building curricula with a focus on resilience and self-efficacy”
- “Removing any DEI and SEL curricula that undermine academic or character priorities”
- “Validating (School) Board Ends and character goals…”
These positions are paired with a quote pulled from a 2024 article in Scientific Reports, a journal not typically associated with education research. The quote reads:
The citation?
Shengyao, Y., Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, H., Mengshi, Y. et al. (2024). Academic resilience, self-efficacy, and motivation: the role of parenting style. Sci Rep 14, 5571.
On its surface, the quote sounds uncontroversial. Who wouldn’t want students to be more resilient or more confident in tough learning environments?
But dig even slightly beneath the surface, and the real issue becomes clear: this study doesn’t support Waldrep’s policy agenda. Not even remotely.
A Study of Chinese Graduate Students Is Being Used to Justify Curriculum Changes in Colorado Public Schools?
Yes. That’s the core problem.
The Shengyao study surveyed 518 Chinese students, most of whom were in their mid to late twenties. Some even older. Only about one-third were under the age of 25. Nearly 30% were master’s students, and almost 10% were PhD candidates. Some participants were as old as 45. Yet the paper and Waldrep’s usage of it repeatedly refer to “adolescents.”
That age mismatch alone should give pause to anyone considering using this study to craft K-12 policy in the United States.
Moreover, all of the students self-reported their own childhood experiences with one parent, often recalling decades-old memories. These same students then rated themselves on psychological traits like motivation and resilience. The result? A single-source, retrospective, correlational survey design, one that even the authors admit cannot establish causality.
As noted in the analysis of the study:
A sample taken at one moment in time, especially a framework with the mediator(s), may not be representative of the population at other points in time. If the sample does not adequately reflect the larger population, this can lead to biased conclusions.
This kind of survey-based research is already tenuous for scientific conclusions, but it’s particularly unsuited to public education policy.
Unsupported Claims, Misused Theories
The study’s methodology is riddled with problems:
- Self-reporting bias: All variables, including parenting style, were reported by the students themselves, long after childhood. This introduces major recall and social desirability bias.
- Narrow sample: Students were pulled from business-related majors across only four colleges in eastern China. There was no diversity in academic field, no control for confounding factors like socio-economic status, and no comparison across cultures.
- No intervention, no policy takeaway: The study doesn’t propose or test any actual school-based solution. It doesn’t study DEI or SEL curricula. It doesn’t evaluate school programming of any kind.
So why would a D20 candidate reference it when discussing changes to local character education or the removal of inclusive curricula?
That’s a question voters should ask.
About That Journal: Not All Nature Titles Are Created Equal
The paper appears in Scientific Reports, a Nature Portfolio journal. While “Nature” carries prestige, Scientific Reports has a complicated track record:
- It was blacklisted by a Chinese research center in 2018 for “poor quality.”
- It has published studies later retracted for data manipulation or flawed peer review.
- In 2017, 20 editors resigned in protest of how the journal handled a plagiarism case.
The journal publishes a staggering number of papers across nearly every scientific discipline, meaning the peer review in specialized areas (like education psychology) may not match the rigor of a targeted academic journal.
To make matters worse, other work by the same authors in 2024 recycles the same 518-student dataset to produce slightly different “findings”, a common tactic known as “salami slicing” that can dilute scientific integrity.
Policy Mismatch: What Works in Shanghai Grad Schools Doesn’t Apply to Colorado Classrooms
At its core, citing this paper in a school board campaign, especially to justify character curriculum changes or attacks on DEI/SEL, is an apples-to-oranges move.
Chinese college students navigating elite postgraduate education are not equivalent to middle or high schoolers in Academy District 20.
Even more importantly, the study says nothing about what schools should do. It’s a psychological survey of personal experiences, not a program evaluation. It doesn’t validate or invalidate DEI programs. It doesn’t address school counseling. It certainly doesn’t tell a local school board what should be added or removed from the curriculum.
Oversimplification: A Dangerous Framing
Here’s the biggest risk: Waldrep’s use of this study promotes a simplified message. That parenting style determines student outcomes, and by implication, schools should shift their focus to “character” instead of systemic supports.
That narrative:
- Shifts responsibility for resilience away from school structures
- Downplays the role of teacher support, inclusive curriculum, and mental health access
- Risks blaming parents without offering solutions that schools can control
And all of it rests on a study that doesn’t involve American children, doesn’t evaluate school programs, and doesn’t establish causality.
In a word? Misleading.
Parents, teachers, and community members should be able to expect that research cited in school board conversations will be:
- Relevant to the local context
- Transparent about its limitations
- Actionable in ways that improve real student outcomes
In this case, D20 candidate Eddie Waldrep has leaned on a flawed, misapplied study to justify curriculum positions that are already under scrutiny. It’s not just a questionable citation. It’s a misrepresentation of what education research is supposed to do: inform, not distort.
Let’s keep the conversation about our schools grounded in facts, not slogans. Or citations that crumble under scrutiny.