Thursday, October 12, 2017

Spring 2016 PARCC Results: HHS ranked 285 out of 388 NJ High Schools in Mathematics and 332 out of 371 NJ High Schools in English/Language Arts for Students "not meeting expectations"

Columbus Park- Hoboken NJ
Results of the Spring 2016 PARCC New Jersey State Testing in English/Language Arts and Mathematics were released and reported a few months ago on Patch.com. Data was complied from the New Jersey Department of Education database. The NJ PARCC is graded on a scale of 1-5, students who score a 4 or 5 are considered to be meeting or exceeding grade level expectations. Students who score a 3 are approaching those expectations and those with a 2 or lower are not meeting expectations. 

According to Patch “We have the list of high schools, from best to worst, based on the percentage of students whose spring 2016 test performances showed they are "not yet meeting expectations" in the Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II sections or in Language Arts.” Not all of the state's high schools are listed, largely because some schools didn't provide sufficient data for those high school-level subjects.

Using the objective, third party analysis by Patch.com based on New Jersey Department of Education data, Hoboken High School is ranked 285 out of 388 NJ high schools in students not yet meeting expectations in Mathematics and 332 out of  371 NJ high schools in students not meeting expectations in English/Language Arts based on the Spring 2016 PARCC assessments. Again, the designation of "not meeting expectations" means a score of 2 or lower on the NJ PARCC scale. 

How does Hoboken High compare to other high schools within their own district factor group (DFG)? Click here for details

NOTE: Under my control as Assistant Superintendent and the previous Board majority and district leadership, Hoboken High School was the 2nd Most Improved High School in New Jersey in 2007 as designated by New Jersey Monthly and won consecutive Bronze Medal awards in 2008 and 2009 by US News and World Report.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

October 10, 2017 Hoboken Board of Education Full Agenda

Full agenda for the October 10, 2017 Hoboken Board of Education meeting. The meeting will be held at 7PM in the Demarest Auditorium. 


id="doc_50652" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0">

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Educational Accountability Measures During an Era of Fake News and Blogging: A Case Study of the Hoboken School District and the QSAC DPR in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRM 2008-2016

Figure 1: Erroneous Chart from a Social Media blog
Concerning a NJ District's QSAC Scores
Click to Enlarge
During a recent Board of Education election in Hoboken, NJ social media became fairly active. As most people know, there is little peer-review or journalistic standards on social media so people can often post whatever they wish. This is not necessarily all bad nor is it all good but it does make an argument for informed, critical thinking skills when presented with information on the internet. 

The following is a case study of a chart that was posted online (Figure 1). I provide explanation and documentation indicating aspects of the chart that were either not accurate, deliberately or ignorantly deceptive, of simply misleading. The post was made by a Hoboken blogger with no official affiliation with the Hoboken School District but someone who has provided online support for a political group successful in its attempt to secure majority rule of the Hoboken Board of Education since May 2009. 

BACKGROUND: It appears many supporters of the existing Board leadership do not want voters and taxpayers to know that the school district has failed NJDOE monitoring in INSTRUCTION and PROGRAM for 5 straight years. This seems true especially after the district passed with an 87% by an opposing administration and under my leadership as Assistant Superintendent (QSAC is scored between 0 and 100 and based on a number of criteria and benchmarks).  One way misinformation has been propagated is by attempting to create a "new narrative" of QSAC scores on INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM and QSAC in general by combining all 5 QSAC measures into a "total score" thereby washing out the impact of the failed score in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM. This is incorrect since 1) you cannot add averages and 2) each of the QSAC categories have different criteria and benchmarks. Simply put, QSAC is already an attempt by the State of NJ to evaluate a district in 5 key autonomous areas with a percent score for each. Combining of QSAC DPR's is not done anywhere on any New Jersey Department of Education analysis of district accountability

I have pointed out 7 areas that require further explanation on a recently published chart from one of these blogs and provide a detailed explanation below concerning the misinformation.  In addition, I provide the NJ QSAC scores over the years for the Hoboken School District. If the Hoboken Board of Education decided to post their QSAC scores publicly like neighboring Bayonne does, perhaps there would be more productive and informed discussions about the school district and its accomplishments and challenges. 

For the following, please Refer to Figure 1 above: 

1) There is no such thing as a QSAC TOTAL SCORE. This is a made up score. QSAC is known as the Quality Single Accountability Continuum and it has 5 seperate scores since they each have very different criteria. The five areas or DPR’s  are: instruction and program; personnel; fiscal management; operations management; and governance. 

2) The district passed 2 DPR’s - Operations (83%) and Personnel (80%). Hoboken Curriculum Project begins.  

3) The “reformers” take control of the district in May 2009, they had little to do with the 2009 QSAC scores. The “rise” from 2008 to 2009 is attributed mostly to previous board and district leadership. Interim score Instruction and Program QSAC December 2009- 77%

4) Hoboken Curriculum Project approved by Board of Education on Tuesday December 15, 2009. First QSAC assessment AFTER completion. Instruction and Program QSAC score 87% (passed). 

5) Beginning of 5 consecutive years of failed QSAC DPR’s in Instruction and Program with scores of July 2011- 69%; February 2013- 68%; June 2014- 45%; May 2015- 75%; July 2016- 76% during "reform" leadership of "Kids First", "Parents for Progress", "Reach Higher", and "Forward Together"

6) A low of 45% in QSAC DPR for INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM during the "reform" era. 

7) The New Jersey Department of Education does not report QSAC scores as Totals at all. It is deceiving to source this data as being attributed to the New Jersey Department of Education. 

DISCUSSION: The current example is simply a look into the way in which data is often reconstituted and presented to parents, taxpayers, and community members seeking clarity and information in making choices about the education of their children or the effectiveness of the local school system. While it is notable that data is publicly available, too often school districts engage more in public relations communication than actually grappling with uncomfortable accountability measures. 

In the case of the Hoboken School District, the narrative has been "this is an improved school district"- the objective, third party evidence paints a decidedly different picture whether it is violence and vandalism, graduation rates, state testing scores (also link, link, link) , SAT scores, designation by the New Jersey Department of Education as a "District in Need of Improvement", or in this case...QSAC scores on the DPR for Instruction and Program failing for five years in a row after scoring as exemplary and highly effective during practices and policies developed and enacted during the previous board of education majority and my district leadership in Instruction and Program as Assistant Superintendent of Schools. 

"Its easy to say things are improving in Hoboken, its much harder to prove it" - anonymous 


Sunday, October 1, 2017

2016-17 NJ Teacher Salaries- Hoboken District in top 5% of State and Top Earners in Hudson County

Recently, Patch.com published the whole list of New Jersey school districts and charter schools, and their 2015-16 median teacher salaries, from highest to lowest. All data was taken from the New Jersey Department of Education. There were 647 districts included in the analysis.

This list simply parses the traditional public school districts in Hudson County, NJ. Charter schools in Hudson County were excluded from the analysis since the salary numbers are skewed low due to the relative newness of charter schools and the relatively low years of experience of the typical teachers.

The Hoboken School District tops the list of Hudson County traditional public schools and is in the top 5% (5.4% actually) of the entire state of New Jersey. New Jersey pays its teachers very well. A recent analysis by WalletHub ranked New Jersey #1 in the United States for teacher pay. So, to be at the top of the list in New Jersey means not only are you among the highest paid teachers in the state of New Jersey but among the top in the country (see Figure 1).

Median is not an average. Median is the number which splits the dataset into half. Therefore, there are just as many people ABOVE the median as there are BELOW the median. The median is often a better statistic to look for when comparing salaries since a few highly skewed salaries can over influence an “average” but has much less effect on the “median.” These salary numbers do not include stipends or summer employment.

Hudson County, New Jersey- Traditional Public School Districts
2015-2016 Median Teacher Salary (NJDOE)
(county rank) State Rank.

(1)   35.    Hoboken, Hudson $79,614
(2)   73.    Jersey City, Hudson $72,960
(3)   84.    Harrison, Hudson $72,002
(4)   95.    North Bergen, Hudson $71,100
(5)   193.  Union City, Hudson $66,050
(6)   237.  West New York, Hudson $64,463
(7)   241.  Hudson County Vocational, Hudson $64,257
(8)   261.  Kearny, Hudson $63,589
(9)   482.  Weehawken, Hudson $56,230
(10) 495.  Bayonne, Hudson $55,690
(11) 535.  Guttenberg, Hudson $53,790
(12) 647.  East Newark, Hudson $40,922



Monday, September 25, 2017

Hoboken School District Fails QSAC DPR in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM for 2015-2016 - 5th Consecutive Year

Halloween- Hoboken NJ
On July 6, 2016, the Hoboken School District was notified by the New Jersey Department of Education that the district had failed the 2015-16 QSAC DPR in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM. This was the fifth consecutive year the district has failed QSAC (receiving a score below 80) in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM. The QSAC scores were eventually reported 4 months later at the November 15,  2016 Hoboken Board of Education meeting (CLICK HERE) which coincidentally were a few days after the November 8, 2016 Hoboken Board of Education elections.

Other than the safety and well being of children, there is no other priority more important to a school district than curriculum, instruction and subsequent student learning. Athletics, clubs, facilities, governance, benefits, salaries, budgets while all important take a back seat to safety and well being of the children and of learning, instruction, and curriculum.  

When we view the entire detailed report (see below) we read some interesting findings: 

1) The district received no points on the criteria of meeting the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) in language arts literacy (LAL) for the district's total population.

2)  The district received no points on the criteria of meeting the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) in mathematics for the district's total population.

3) Language Arts: The district received no points on the criteria of meeting at least 95% of the total student population achieved proficiency (proficient plus advanced proficient) in the most recent year assessed (NJDOE goal);

4) Mathematics: The district received no points on the criteria of meeting at least 95% of the total student population achieved proficiency (proficient plus advanced proficient) in the most recent year assessed (NJDOE goal);

5)  The district received no points for meeting the criteria of at least 95%, according to the most recent NJDOE-published high school graduation rate (N.J.S.A. 18A:7E-3  ); 

6)  The district received no points for meeting the criteria at least 90%, according to the most recent NJDOE-published high school graduation rate (N.J.S.A. 18A:7E-3  );


As many of us know, it is easy to say something is improving. It is much more challenging to see evidence of improvement by independent, 3rd party, objective evaluations by unbiased entities. Five consecutive years of failure is not progress...especially in light of the fact that the district scored an 87 under my (and others) leadership in Instruction and Program the first full assessment after the then "new" curriculum was completed (see 2010-11).

QSAC RESULTS- HOBOKEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 
2012-13 DPR INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM** - FAILED 
First QSAC DPR assessment in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM after completion of the Hoboken Curriculum Project under the leadership of Dr. Petrosino and the Hoboken Curriculum Committee. QSAC was new to the district in 2007 when I came to the district and in a little over 24 months, the DPR score in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM went from an initial score of 34 to 87. 
** QSAC DPR assessment in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM under current Board majority. 


  July 7, 2016 QSAC Letter by zz on Scribd


What is most distressing is that it wasn't that long ago, under different Board and District leadership, that the Hoboken School District scored an 87 on the QSAC DPR for INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM. Despite proclamations that the school district is "improving" or statements that Kids First/Reach Higher Hoboken inherited a failing district-- the reality is that much of the gains in instruction and program that were achieved and independently verified by the State of New Jersey have eroded...reaching the lowest point at 45 in the spring of 2014. Poor leadership, 7 superintendents in 6 years, 5 high school principals in the same period of time, multiple district configurations, and numerous other principals and administrators during the Kids First/Reach Higher Hoboken/Forward Progress leadership (2009-present) have taken a toll. 

The ongoing failure of QSAC DPR in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM is a contributing factor to the district receiving the designation of a "District in Need of Improvement" in November of 2011. Whether the continued failing scores in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM are related to the district's violence and vandalism rates, or other factors is open to discussion and interpretation. 


To view the full 2015-2016 Interim Review of the QSAC Report on INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM see below: 


Thursday, September 21, 2017

Hoboken School District Ranked 65th out of 77 Peer NJ School Districts on Most Recently Published PARCC Scores

Hoboken High School, Hoboken NJ
Compared to similar school districts in the State of New Jersey, the Hoboken School District is ranked 65th out of 77 on the most recent PARCC scores.

An earlier post reported on PARCC scores of all  high schools in New Jersey. Some regular readers contacted me about wanting information about district data on PARCC measures. This appeared to be a reasonable request. I used composite PARCC scores (all tested grades, in Math and Language) as is common practice when using district wide data. The data was not difficult to obtain but took a little time to compile. There are a number of ways to compare this data. You can compare districts within a county (i.e. Hudson County). You can compare districts based on population or even region. One useful way to look at this data is to compare the PARCC scores to similar districts--districts with similar socio-economic characteristics of the families who use the public schools. Fortunately, the New Jersey Department of Eduction makes this fairly easy to do with its district factor grouping. 

In New Jersey the District Factor Groups (DFGs) were first developed in 1975 for the purpose of comparing students’ performance on statewide assessments across demographically similar school districts. 

The Hoboken School District is classified as an "FG" district and currently is ranked 65th out of 77  FG school districts on the 2016 composite PARCC scores (see Figure 1). All FG districts have similar occupational status, adults without high school diplomas, people living in poverty, and median family income etc...

Figure 1: Hoboken School District compared to NJ school districts
with similar student demographics designated by the New Jersey
Department of Education (District Factor Group)- "FG"
The DFGs represent an approximate measure of a community’s relative socioeconomic status (SES). The classification system provides a useful tool for examining student achievement and comparing similarly-situated school districts in other analyses. The DFGs do not have a primary or significant influence in the school funding formula beyond the legal requirements associated with parity aid provided to the Abbott districts.

Efforts are always made to improve the methodology while preserving the underlying meaning of the DFG classification system. After discussing the measure with representatives from school districts and experimenting with various methods, the DFGs are calculated using the following six variables that are closely related to SES:

1) Percent of adults with no high school diploma
2) Percent of adults with some college education
3) Occupational status
4) Unemployment rate
5) Percent of individuals in poverty
6) Median family income.

Therefore, using the district factor group classification is one of the most reliable methods for comparing a school district with other districts since socio-economic status is accounted for or "factored in" the calculations. Consequently, compared to comparable school districts in the State of New Jersey, the Hoboken School District is ranked 65th out of 77 similar school districts or in the lower 16%. What is especially surprising is many elected officials in the City of Hoboken believe this ranking is indicative of an improving school district and of a school district making forward progress. I struggle to understand that perspective and offer no other commentary on the topic at this time. 



DISTRICT NAME DFG  MEAN SCALE SCORE
1. LONG BEACH ISLAND FG 775
2. NORTHVALE BORO FG 769
3. SPRING LAKE HEIGHTS BORO FG 766
4. CLARK TWP FG 762
5. LITTLE FALLS TWP FG 762
6. MATAWAN-ABERDEEN REGIONAL FG 761
7. MONROE TWP FG 761
8. SANDYSTON-WALPACK TWP FG 760
9. BLOOMINGDALE BORO FG 759
10. HOPE TWP FG 759
11. HOLLAND TWP FG 758
12. STONE HARBOR BORO FG 758
13. DUMONT BORO FG 757
14. FORT LEE BORO FG 757
15. NORTH HALEDON BORO FG 757
16. BORDENTOWN REGIONAL FG 756
17. POINT PLEASANT BEACH BORO FG 756
18. POINT PLEASANT BORO FG 756
19. WOODBURY HEIGHTS BORO FG 756
20. HOWELL TWP FG 755
21. ROCHELLE PARK TWP FG 755
22. SOUTH PLAINFIELD BORO FG 755
23. MANTUA TWP FG 754
24.COLLINGSWOOD BORO FG 753
25. LINCOLN PARK BORO FG 753
26. MIDDLESEX BORO FG 753
27. NEW MILFORD BORO FG 753
28. GIBBSBORO BORO FG 752
29. MAYWOOD BORO FG 752
30. SOUTH HARRISON TWP FG 752
31. UPPER TWP FG 752
32. HAINESPORT TWP FG 751
33. HARDYSTON TWP FG 751
34. LOGAN TWP FG 751
35. OLD BRIDGE TWP FG 751
36. ROCKAWAY BORO FG 751
37. STILLWATER TWP FG 751
38. BERGENFIELD BORO FG 750
39. HASBROUCK HEIGHTS BORO FG 750
40. NUTLEY TOWN FG 750
41. PORT REPUBLIC CITY FG 750
42. SPRINGFIELD TWP FG 750
43. WOODSTOWN-PILESGROVE REG FG 750
44. EAST GREENWICH TWP FG 749
45. WEST MILFORD TWP FG 749
46. WOOD-RIDGE BORO FG 749
47. CINNAMINSON TWP FG 748
48. KNOWLTON TWP FG 748
49. RIVERDALE BORO FG 748
50. BOONTON TOWN FG 747
51. POMPTON LAKES BORO FG 747
52. VERNON TWP FG 747
53. BLAIRSTOWN TWP FG 746
54. FRANKFORD TWP FG 745
55. MILLTOWN BORO FG 745
56. MINE HILL TWP FG 745
57. BURLINGTON TWP FG 744
58. DUNELLEN BORO FG 744
59. NORTH BRUNSWICK TWP FG 744
60. EATONTOWN BORO FG 743
61. HADDON TWP FG 743
62. HAMILTON TWP FG 743
63. WASHINGTON TWP FG 743
64. WEST LONG BRANCH BORO FG 743
65. HOBOKEN CITY FG 742
66. BARRINGTON BORO FG 741
67. LUMBERTON TWP FG 739
68. KINGWOOD TWP FG 738
69. OCEAN TWP FG 737
70. DELRAN TWP FG 736
71. EASTAMPTON TWP FG 736
72. MANSFIELD TWP FG 736
73. PITMAN BORO FG 736
74. HOPATCONG FG 735
75. SOMERVILLE BORO FG 732
76. OGDENSBURG BORO FG 730
77. ANDOVER REG FG 728

Monday, September 18, 2017

Hoboken Board of Education- Tuesday, September 12, 2017 Full Agenda


One item of particular interest resonated...If administrators are willing to accept bonuses for students doing well on state testing, are they willing to take salary deductions for under-performing state testing performance as well?

Item 9.16 is the Approval of Performance Based Bonuses in Accordance with Administrators and Supervisors Contracts for raising PARCC scores.

Recommended Action RESOLVED, that the Board of Education, upon recommendation of the Superintendent and in accordance with Article 18 of the Agreement between the Hoboken Board of Education and the Hoboken Administrators Association, approves a payment to the following administrators for the attainment of the following goals:

Administrator 1 (identified on Agenda)
By June 2017, Hoboken Middle School will increase the number of regular education students testing at level4 and level 5 by 30% on the Grade 7 and Grade 8 Math PARCC assessment administered in Spring 2017.

Administrator 2 (identified on Agenda)
By June 2017, Hoboken Middle School will increase the number of students testing at level 4 and level 5 by30% on the ELA PARCC assessment administered in Spring 2017.By June 2017, Hoboken High School will increase the number of students testing at level 4 and level 5 by30% on the ELA PARCC assessment administered in Spring 2017.

Administrator 3 (identified on Agenda)
To improve the student achievement in English Language Arts for sixth grade students so that there is a proficiency rate (students performing at a level 4 or 5) of 41.7% on the PARCC ELA test.

Administrator 4 (identified on Agenda)
By June 2017, there will be a 5% increase in the school-wide (3rd - 6th) Mathematics proficiency level onPARCC.By June 2017, the current 4th grade ELA Average Scale score will increase by at least 5 points to 746.


There are few things more potentially problematic than linking increased high stakes test scores to economic bonuses for administrators. It sets up a whole series of potential problems. Aren't administrators and supervisors already there to have students perform as well as possible? What is the purpose of an economic incentive? What will administrators and supervisors do now that they weren't doing before? 

Here's how to do it right: CLICK HERE
Here' is why performance pay for test scores is problematic: CLICK HERE  



   HBOE Sept2017 by Anthony Petrosino on Scribd

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Petrosino, A. J. and Mann, M. J. (2017). The challenges of understanding fluid in fluid density

The following is some research that has been conducted over the past few semesters with preservice STEM teachers' understanding of fluid density. Density is a concept taught in almost all elementary, middle, and secondary schools across the nation and is a central concept in the physical sciences. It is also historically a difficult concept to understand since it involved mass as well as volume and is multidimensional. Even more difficult in many respects is fluid density (fluids in fluids). The fluid density of a liquid is determined by its consistency with respect to its state in temperature and pressure. The temperature and pressure play an important role individually in determining the density of a fluid. Therefore, oil based drilling fluids and water based drilling fluids have different densities. In this paper a colleague and myself explore some of the especially difficult ideas embedded within fluid density and some efforts we have made to address this conceptual understanding for preservice teachers (n= 140).

Petrosino, A. J. and Mann, M. J. (2017). The challenges of understanding fluid in fluid density. Journal of Continuing Education and Professional Development. Vol. 4 No. 1 pp. 28-38.

Friday, September 8, 2017

HOPES Dedication Ceremonies for the new Frank Raia Annex

Mr. Frank Raia Addressing the Audience
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 Mr. Frank Raia was recognized for his decades of leadership, philanthropy, and volunteerism to the people of Hoboken in general and the friends and families of HOPES in particular with the naming of the beautiful new HOPES Annex in his honor (for a thoughtful and in depth profile of Mr. Raia, please click here). 

HOPES was established in 1964 under Lyndon B. Johnson' administration because of the Economic Opportunity Act. As a CAP (Community Action Program), HOPES helps people to help themsleves in achieving self sufficiency. From the beginning, HOPES (Hoboken Organization against Poverty and Economic Stress) was charged with the responsibility of combating poverty in Hudson County, NJ by providing a variety of social service for the community.  

The Frank Raia Annex
Mr. Frank Raia is the current Board Chairman and has served on the HOPES Board of Directors since 1984. Raia has had the responsibility to oversee the governance of the agency and to ensure that HOPES' mission and agency goals are being met via strategic planning while maintaining financial stability. 

Over the years, Frank Raia and HOPES have been committed to addressing the barriers and causes of poverty through empowering individuals and families toward self-sufficiency. This is a core value and has been the guiding philosophy as HOPES provides a diverse set of programs for expectant mothers (engaging families in the area and development of their child/children; Promoting health in Expectant Women and children), infants and toddlers (fostering the development of young children, birth to 5 years old), preschool education (preparing children for school readiness), adult groups (assisting adults through social services and education opportunities), and senior services (helping seniors maintain independent lifestyles).  With the new Frank Raia Annex these programs will not only continue but they will expand in a modern, state of the art facility expanding on the 100+ year old David E. Rue Building.

Congratulations Frank Raia and thank you to the leadership of HOPES for recognizing Mr. Raia's commitment to the people of Hoboken and to the families of HOPES.



Thursday, August 31, 2017

2016 Grade 3 PARCC Mathematics and Language Arts Results for the City of Hoboken- Traditional Public and Public Charter Schools

SUMMARY: Every Hoboken charter school scored above the state average in 2016 Grade 3 PARCC Language Arts and in Grade 3 PARCC Mathematics; Every Hoboken charter school scored above every Hoboken Traditional Public School on 2016 in Grade 3 PARCC Language Arts and in Grade 3 PARCC Mathematics exam. 

Results for the 2016 New Jersey State Testing (PARCC) were released recently and are available on the New Jersey Department of Education website. I thought it would be interesting to look at how all of the public schools in Hoboken are doing at the early grades level in Mathematics and in Language Arts. Grade 3 is the earliest fully tested grade so I decided to look at that grade (for Grade 5 Results CLICK HERE). All 6 Hoboken public schools are included in the analysis including the 3 traditional public schools (Calabro, Connors, and Wallace) as well as the 3 public (free) charter schools (Hola, Elysian, and Hoboken Charter). 

Grade 3 was also selected because these students in the traditional Hoboken Public Schools have been under the full stewardship of the Kids First/Forward Progress/Reach Higher Board (recall, this group gained full majority of the Board of Education in May of 2009). The students tested were infants and toddlers when Kids First/Forward Progress took control of the Hoboken Board of Education. So, it is both fair and reasonable to say that these students have been exposed to nothing educationally other than what the Kids First/Forward Progress board approved and funded (curriculum, staff, instructional resources, school configuration, etc..,). 

A quick summary for new readers: 

Calabro- Traditional Public School 
Connors- Traditional Public School
Elysian- Charter School
Hoboken Charter- Charter School 
Hola- Charter School  
Wallace- Traditional Public School

Here is the raw data presented as mean scale scores by the New Jersey department of Education for the 2016 PARCC Grade 3 Language Arts for all charter and traditional public schools in the City of Hoboken. State average mean scale score for Grade 3 Language Arts is 746


School  Mean SS
Hola 772
Calabro 741
Connors 736
Wallace 760
Hob. Chart 773
Elysian 771

Here is the raw data presented as mean scale scores by the New Jersey department of Education for the 2016 PARCC Grade 3 Mathematics for all charter and traditional public schools in the City of Hoboken. State average mean scale score for Grade 3 Mathematics is 750.  

School  Mean SS
Hola 770 
Calabro 726
Connors 739
Wallace 757
Hob. Chart 765
Elysian 763

* Every Hoboken charter school scored above the state average for 2016 Grade 3 PARCC Language Arts and for Grade 3 PARCC Mathematics. 

* Every Hoboken charter school scored higher than any Hoboken Traditional Public School on 2016 Grade 3 PARCC Language Arts and on Grade 3 PARCC Mathematics exam. 

* Wallace School scored above the Hoboken Schools trend line for Grade 3 PARCC Mathematics. 

Sometimes to get a better understanding of data it is best to display the data in a chart or graphically. When we plot the mean scale scores in Grade 3 Mathematics and in Grade 3 Language Arts and use a  trend line to statistically divide the population into schools above and below the trend line we see a definite pattern emerge. Think of data points above the trend line as "above the population trend" and data points below the trend line as "below the population trend" when the population include the children being educated in Hoboken by both the traditional and charter public schools. For example, in the 2016 PARCC Grade 3 Language Arts chart below we can plainly see Hoboken Charter above the trend line, Wallace School slightly below the population trend, and Calabro below the trend line. 

2016 Grade 3 PARCC Language Arts All Hoboken Schools 

Figure 1: 2016 PARCC Grade 3 Language Arts
CLICK TO ENLARGE 


2016 Grade 3 PARCC Mathematics All Hoboken Schools

Figure 2: 2016 PARCC Grade 3 Mathematics
CLICK TO ENLARGE 

Soon we will take a look at some other grades in a similar fashion to see whether the Grade 3 score distributions are the norm or not. Here is some preliminary data on the 2016 5th Grade Language Arts Results (NJ state average mean scale score = 751) where we see similar distributions.


CLICK TO ENLARGE

Click to Enlarge 











Wednesday, August 30, 2017

2016 PARCC Scores in Grade 5 Mathematics and Language Arts Scores for all Hoboken Charter and Traditional Public Schools

Proposed American Legion Development- Hoboken, NJ 
SUMMARY: Every Hoboken charter school scored above the state average for the 2016 Grade 5 PARCC Language Arts and for Grade 5 PARCC Mathematics; Every Hoboken charter school scored above every Hoboken Traditional Public School on 2016 Grade 5 PARCC Language Arts and for Grade 5 PARCC Mathematics exam; Every Traditional Hoboken Public School scored below the state average in Grade 5 PARCC Language Arts and for Grade 5 PARCC Mathematics exam.

Results for the 2016 New Jersey State Testing (PARCC) were released recently and are available on the New Jersey Department of Education website. I thought it would be interesting to look at how all of the public schools in Hoboken are doing at the early grades level in Mathematics and in Language Arts. Grade 5 is a very important grade and curriculum becomes increasingly discipline specific. All 6 Hoboken public schools are included in the analysis including the 3 traditional public schools (Calabro, Connors, and Wallace) as well as the 3 public (free) charter schools (Hola, Elysian, and Hoboken Charter). 

The following are the Grade 5 2016 PARCC Scores in Mathematics and Language Arts Scores for all Hoboken Charter and Traditional Public Schools.

Click to Enlarge 

Click to Enlarge 

Grade 5 was selected because these students in the traditional Hoboken Public Schools have been under the full stewardship of the Kids First/Forward Progress Board (recall, this group gained full majority of the Board of Education in May of 2009). The students tested were not even in school yet when Kids First/Forward Progress took control of the Hoboken Board of Education. So, it is fair to say that these students have been exposed to nothing educationally other than what the Kids First/Forward Progress board approved and funded (curriculum, staff, instructional resources, school configuration, etc..,). 


Recall, beginning in 2008, the political group known as "Kids First/Forward Progress" began their take over of the Hoboken Pubic Schools by decrying issues of low student test scores along with the cost of educating each student, and the fact that teachers paid little to no money for their health benefits.