ESchool News points to a story that is bound to raise the hackles of many. Starting with this misleading headline, "Parents, kids don't see need for math, science skills," the article focuses on a report titled, "Important, But Not for Me: Parents and Students in Kansas and Missouri Talk About Math, Science, and Technology Education." The report, commissioned as part of a $25 million, 10-year initiative by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation to improve math, science, and technology (MST) education throughout the Kansas City area, suggests that the "2,600" parents and students surveyed clearly understand the importance of math, science, and technology skills -- they simply do not see it as important for themselves.
The report was compiled by Public Agenda, a nonpartisan opinion research organization. They include in their report details of their data collection methods lending a certain level of validity to their findings.
Interestingly enough, I found it a bit odd that Public Agenda offers a video on it's site that argues for the critical importance of math, science, and technology education in Kansas and Missouri:
This led me to wonder why a self-proclaimed, nonpartisan research organization would provide a video outlining the importance of math, science, and technology education on a site offering a "non-biased report" about parents and students being unenthusiastic about math, science and technology skills?
In then struck me that Public Agenda clearly has an agenda on controversial topics. As a matter of fact, Public Agenda has a clear agenda about many topics including abortion, child care, the economy, the environment, gay rights, immigration, medical research, race and many others. I am not writing today to take issue with Public Agenda's agenda, but I am concerned about the credulity of their research given their claim of unbiasedness.
If we look at their methodology section provided with the report, we can see that they based their findings on three data sources: (1) a telephone survey consisting of "over 50 questions" presented to 1,295 participants; (2) 12 focus groups composed of different teacher, student, and parent groupings; and (3) 15 "expert" interviews. What we don't know is how the focus groups were selected, as well as what counts as "expert" status, and who selected the experts.
This then leads me to wonder about the accuracy of the research findings. There is no mention in the report about the triangulation of data. In other words, how do the three data sources combine to support the findings and conclusions?
Luckily, you don't need an advanced degree in science, mathematics, or technology to review the full survey results (.pdf) which are provided on the report's website. Here we are able to see how the questions are framed (e.g., positively, negatively, neutrally) as well as the response percentages.
On page 2 (item 6) of the questionnaire I noticed that the respondents seem to show a strong agreement about the importance of understanding advanced sciences like physics (23% reporting "absolutely essential" and 63% reporting "important but not essential"). A complex issue the report seems to focus on is the categorical distinction between "absolutely essential" and "important, but not essential." Is the notion of importance clearly different from the notion of essential? Well, that depends. Both connote significance and authority, yet "essential" connotes an absolute necessity which is not quite conveyed in the notion of importance. Plus the category clearly states, "important, not essential" so as not to confuse respondents. In this context, essentiality carries much weight. Either science or mathematical skills are critical or not so critical. This framing reminds me of the essential nature of the boiling point of water. At 100 degrees celsius, water is said to be at the boiling point. At 99 degrees celsius, it's near boiling, but not technically boiling. Are they both extremely hot to the touch? Yes. Will they both cook my pasta at about the same rate? Yes. But one is boiling and the other is close to boiling, but not officially boiling. Does this seem relatively banal? Am I splitting hairs? You bet. Does the questionnaire split hairs by asking respondents to categorize answers as "essential" and "important, but not essential"? Perhaps.
For some one who never took physics or never had a good physics teacher probably is not aware of the role physics plays in their daily lives. Thus they might be inclined to down play the essential need of a solid understanding of physics. For some one who had a great physics experience, perhaps then physics would be an essential part of their child's curriculum. Is this splitting hairs or does it point to the situated nature of decision-making?
If asked if I think it is important for my kids to go to school and take advanced physics or calculus, I would ask my children if this is something that interested them. If not, I would say, no, they do not need these courses in high school. If my daughter said she wanted to build bridges for a living, I would think physics and calculus would be quite important for her to understand. Would I expect her high school to do the job of educating her appropriately? To be honest, I would hope so, but sometimes I just don't know if I believe so.
I find that, with the exception of my daughter's international baccalaureate (IB) program, most of the secondary schooling my boys have received has been close to rubbish. I think this can be traced back to the tracks that children are assigned to early on in their academic life. If your child is assigned as "gifted" then education is often framed in terms of being playful and adventurous. If they are assigned to a general curriculum, then make way for a monotonous skill and drill train that regularly takes all the fun and excitement out of learning. Even my children's advanced coursework was relatively tedious overall. Again, with the exception of my daughter's IB program, my sons teachers rarely worked as a team in constructing lessons and activities. It was each teacher for themselves, damn the rest.
Two of my favorite questions, 21 and 22 (page 6), ask, "When compared with other teachers your child has this year, would you say that your child's current MATH/SCIENCE teacher is: especially good, average, below average, don't know." For math teachers, respondents reported 43% especially good, 43% average, 10% below average, and 3% don't know. So what does this say about the way parents and students feel about their mathematics teacher? So-so? How do we judge our children's teachers? Do we spend time in the classroom? Do we take the word of our children? Hmmm. Makes you wonder. I applaud those respondents who report "don't know." This tells me they do not have enough information to make an informed decision. These are the parents whose opinion could potentially be most valid. However, we could also say with some reliability that most people make decisions off the tops of their heads without gathering all the facts, and thus this survey clearly reveals this condition.
In the end, the Important, But Not for Me report shows us that parents have different opinions and understandings about schooling. Surprised? Public education is a complex enterprise where some individuals come out ahead, others behind. Will this ever change? Can it be changed? At some micro and meso levels, yes. But again, it depends on the collective effort of individuals in their community. Regulating education sounds good on paper, but the everyday realities of life make that a much more political and thus difficult enterprise.
Keywords: agenda, bias, education, essential, gifted education, Google video, important, international baccalaureate program, Kansas, learning, mathematics, physics, Public Agenda, research methods, school, science, survey, teaching, technology, truthiness
Comments
I beleive this may be the same Public Agenda research was also cited by our state (FL) in the argument for increasing rigor and relevance in the high school curriculum. According to the research, Parents and students found no relevance in their secondary education. Also, students said that they were more likely to work harder if the curricula were more challenging. I, like you, looked into the study and found that the research conducted was a phone interview of individuals around Kansas City.
Our legislature has since then solved this problem of secondary student apathy by requiring middle school students to research a career path and have incoming high school freshman to declare a major.
Guest, Thank you for your comment. This "heavy sigh" is for you ; )
Jeff, law makers seem to suffer an affliction noted in the research as an apprenticeship of observation -- because they have attended school for 16 years or so, they think they understand teaching and learning. Many educators know this isn't the case, yet we all must pay the price for their ignorance. This "heavy sigh" is for you, too! Thank you for dropping by and commenting.
Yes it was a bad survey, but no worse than most of what we see posing as research these days.
And I went searching for Public Agenda's 'bias' but was unfortunately not able to find it - neither in the reserach materials they publish, which seem to scrupulously outline various points of view on an issue, nor on the wider web, where I found the foundationn's work widely cited but not criticized at all.
Perhaps you can tell me at least which position they are biased toword, so I can look at the materials in that light.