Ignored, Divided, and Speaking Out: Residents Challenge Hoboken School Board Decision on Israel Independence Day Celebration

At the April 14, 2026 meeting of the Hoboken Board of Education, many community members spoke out with strong concerns about the Board’s decision to allow school property to be used for an Israel Independence Day celebration. Speakers argued that this decision was not neutral and showed a pattern of the Board ignoring parts of the community. Several residents said this was not the first time the Board failed to listen. 

One speaker noted that about a year ago, more than 150 people sent letters claiming a violation of Board policy. According to the speaker, those letters were ignored. This led to a broader criticism that the Board does not respond to grievances unless they come from certain groups. Some called this behavior dismissive and said it reflects a deeper problem in how decisions are made.

 

Click on Video to watch the public portion of the April 14th Meeting 

A major concern raised was whether school property should be used for events tied to political or international conflicts. Multiple speakers argued that schools should not host events they see as politically divisive. 

They questioned why the Board would approve a celebration connected to a country currently involved in a highly controversial and violent conflict. For these speakers, the issue was not just about one event, but about what schools stand for and who feels welcome in those spaces. 

Emily Wirt, a local small business owner, spoke about the impact of the conflict on children in Gaza. She described reports of schools being destroyed and students harmed, and asked how the Board could support an event that, in her view, ignored that suffering. She criticized the Board’s claim of neutrality, saying that allowing the event was itself a political act. She also pointed out that Hoboken is already a divided city and warned that decisions like this could make those divisions worse. 

 Zackery King, a sociologist, also spoke strongly against the decision. He argued that the event was not neutral and compared it to supporting apartheid-era South Africa. He described the situation in Gaza as severe and ongoing, and said the Board should be more informed before making such decisions. His comments reflected a broader frustration that the Board may not fully understand the issues it is stepping into. Other speakers raised concerns about fairness and empathy. Some said that when a local arrest related to terrorism occurred in Hoboken, Muslim and Palestinian residents did not receive public support or words of comfort from the Board. They contrasted that silence with the Board’s willingness to approve this event, calling it inconsistent and hurtful. 

Across these comments, a clear theme emerged: many residents feel the Board is not acting in the best interest of the entire community. Critics described the Board as unresponsive, selective in whose voices it hears, and out of touch with the concerns of many families. The meeting showed that this issue goes beyond one event. It reflects deeper questions about leadership, fairness, and whether public institutions are truly serving all members of the community.

Here is a clear, organized list of the main critical points raised by speakers during the public portion of the April 14th meeting:

• The Hoboken Board of Education has a pattern of ignoring community concerns, including over 150 letters sent last year alleging policy violations.
• The Board is seen as selectively responsive, listening to some groups while dismissing others.
• Residents described a broader failure of leadership, saying the Board is not fulfilling its duty to represent the entire community.
• Strong objections were raised to allowing politically charged or divisive events on school property, especially those tied to international conflicts.
• Speakers argued that hosting an Israel Independence Day event is not a neutral act, but a political decision with real community impact.
• Several speakers described the event as insensitive to Palestinian residents, particularly in light of ongoing violence and humanitarian concerns in Gaza.
• Concerns were raised about lack of empathy and inconsistency, noting the absence of public support for Muslim or Palestinian residents during past local incidents.
• The Board was criticized for remaining silent in the face of controversy, with some calling that silence “cowardice.”
• Some speakers accused the Board of failing to understand the seriousness of the global conflict and the implications of its decisions.
• Comparisons were made to historical injustices, with claims that the event was akin to supporting apartheid-era policies.
• Speakers highlighted reports of harm to children and destruction of schools in Gaza, arguing that this makes the event inappropriate on school grounds.
• The Board’s stance of neutrality was rejected by many, who argued that “neutrality” in this case enables harm rather than avoiding it.
• Broader concerns were raised about Hoboken itself, with claims that the city is deeply divided and segregated, and that this decision could deepen those divisions.
• Calls were made for the Board to change its policies to prevent similar decisions in the future.

Note: Some statements (especially about international events) reflect opinions or interpretations.

UPDATE on Hoboken Municipal Budget

UPDATE: On April 15 it was reported on the City of Hoboken's Facebook page via video that "working closely with the City Council and our community, we’ve made meaningful progress to reduce the budget gap from $17 million to $14 million, ultimately lessening the impact on your tax bill while protecting core services. We’ve made targeted cuts and balanced this with what we heard matters most to you. I know there’s still work ahead, but we are moving in the right direction."

Putting the $1 Million in Director Reductions in Context to the Overall Hoboken Municipal Budget Proposal

 

As we look ahead to Hoboken’s next municipal budget, there are some important numbers worth slowing down and thinking about carefully.

In August 2025, the Hoboken City Council approved a $150.26 million budget. That budget came with a 4.5% tax increase for residents. Now, early estimates suggest that next year’s budget could be about 20% higher.

Let’s put that into perspective.

A 20% increase on $150.26 million would bring the new budget to about $180.31 million.

Calculation:
$150.26 million × 1.20 = $180.31 million
That’s an increase of roughly $30 million in just one year.

Recently, there has been reporting noting that city directors have identified $1,000,000 in reductions. Any effort to reduce spending is worth recognizing. But it is also important to understand how small that number is compared to the overall budget.

Let’s break that down.

First, $1,000,000 out of $150.26 million:
$1,000,000 ÷ $150,260,000 ≈ 0.00665
That is about 0.67% of the current budget.

Now, if we compare it to the projected $180.31 million budget:
$1,000,000 ÷ $180,310,000 ≈ 0.00555
That is about 0.56% of the projected budget.

In simple terms, the savings found so far amount to well under 1% of the total budget, whether we look at this year or next.

Now consider the projected increase of about $30 million. A $1 million reduction covers only a small portion of that gap. It does not come close to offsetting the kind of growth that residents may be asked to support through higher taxes.

This is not to dismiss the effort. Finding savings in a municipal budget is not easy work. But the scale matters. When budgets grow by tens of millions of dollars, savings in the range of one million dollars, while helpful, will not significantly change the overall picture.

Residents of Hoboken are paying attention. Many are likely expecting to see more substantial efforts before a final budget is approved. That could include deeper cost reviews, clearer explanations of new spending, or a more detailed plan for managing long-term growth.

At the end of the day, budgeting is about priorities. It is also about trust. When costs rise quickly, people want to know that every reasonable step has been taken to control spending.

As this process moves forward, transparency and continued effort will matter. The numbers suggest that more work remains to be done.

To put things in perspective...the municipal budget issues come at a time when the Hoboken Board of Education has proposed a 27.4% budget increase to next year's budget. 

UPDATE: On April 15 it was reported on the City of Hoboken's Facebook page via video that "working closely with the City Council and our community, we’ve made meaningful progress to reduce the budget gap from $17 million to $14 million, ultimately lessening the impact on your tax bill while protecting core services. We’ve made targeted cuts and balanced this with what we heard matters most to you. I know there’s still work ahead, but we are moving in the right direction."

Hudson County State Aid: A Clear Look at the Numbers for 2026–27

As budget discussions continue across the region, it’s important to understand what is actually happening with state funding. Looking at the latest figures from the New Jersey Department of Education, the data for Hudson County tells a consistent story: state aid is increasing, not decreasing.

For the 2026–27 school year, Hudson County is projected to receive $887,903,631 in total K–12 state aid. This is an increase of $1,803,797 over the 2025–26 total of $886,099,834, representing a +0.20% increase.

While the increase is modest, it is still a net gain in funding, not a loss.

Here’s how the aid breaks down across major categories:

• Equalization Aid: $660,857,935
• Special Education Aid: $151,041,062
• Security Aid: $54,289,117
• Transportation Aid: $18,415,722
• School Choice Aid: $3,174,384

Equalization aid remains the largest component, reflecting continued state support for districts with greater financial need.

So what should we take from this?

At the county level, the numbers reinforce what we see locally: the idea of widespread “cuts” in state aid is not supported by the evidence. While increases may vary by district and may not keep pace with rising costs, the overall direction of funding is upward.

Clear understanding matters. When public conversations focus on school budgets and taxes, decisions should be grounded in verified data. In Hudson County, that data shows steady, if limited, growth in state support.

Hoboken vs. Hudson County: A Clear Gap in State Aid Growth

The latest data from the New Jersey Department of Education shows an important difference between Hoboken City and the rest of Hudson County when it comes to state aid.

Hoboken’s state aid is increasing by +4.77% for 2026–27. In contrast, Hudson County as a whole is only seeing a +0.20% increase.

That means Hoboken’s growth rate is more than 20 times higher than the county average.

In dollar terms, Hoboken is gaining $411,171, while the entire county—across many districts—is gaining about $1.8 million total. This shows that Hoboken is receiving a relatively strong boost compared to its peers.

The takeaway is simple: Hoboken is not being left behind. In fact, it is doing significantly better than most districts in Hudson County when it comes to increased state support.

Hoboken Schools: The Truth About State Aid in 2026–27

 There has been a lot of discussion about the Hoboken Board of Education’s proposed 27.4% budget increase for the 2026–27 school year. One of the main reasons being shared is a supposed “loss of state aid.” But when we look at the actual numbers from the New Jersey Department of Education, that claim does not hold up.

The data shows that Hoboken City will receive more state aid, not less.

For 2026–27, Hoboken is projected to receive $9,027,407 in total K–12 state aid. That is an increase of $411,171compared to the 2025–26 amount of $8,616,236. This represents a +4.77% increase in aid year over year.

Breaking it down further:

• Special Education Aid: $4,780,419
• School Choice Aid: $3,174,384
• Security Aid: $877,411
• Transportation Aid: $195,193

There is no reduction in any major category that would support claims of a funding cut. In fact, the district continues to receive substantial support, particularly in special education and school choice programs.

So what does this mean?

It means that the narrative of “losing state aid” is simply not supported by the data. While there may be other reasons driving the proposed budget increase, a decline in state funding is not one of them.

Residents and stakeholders deserve clear, accurate information. When making decisions about school budgets and taxes, it is essential to rely on facts. In this case, the facts are straightforward: state aid to Hoboken schools is going up, not down.

Hoboken Board of Education Proposes a 27.4% Increase in Next Year's Budget (≈ $38,861 per student*)

The Hoboken Board of Education’s proposed $104,848,035 budget represents a striking and historically large increase over the most recent $88 million budget—a jump of roughly $16.8 million in a single year. Importantly, this increase does not stand alone. It builds on consecutive prior budget expansions, compounding the overall growth in district spending in recent years.

The tax impact is even more pronounced. The proposed tax levy rises from $73.8 million to $93.9 million, an increase of about $20 million. That scale of change signals a significant shift in the financial expectations placed on Hoboken taxpayers.

Using the reported enrollment of 2,698 K–12 students (see Chart 1), a simple per-pupil estimate is:

$104,848,035 ÷ 2,698 ≈ $38,861 per student*

Chart 1: 2025-26 ASSA Report (NJDOE)
CLICK TO ENLARGE

This figure places Hoboken among the highest per-pupil spending districts, though exact comparisons require audited enrollment and expenditure categories.

Bottom line: This proposal represents one of the most substantial year-over-year increases in Hoboken’s history, both in total spending and taxpayer burden.

* Per-pupil estimate is a simple calculation and does not account for funding categories, grants, or audited enrollment adjustments.

It is expected that these reasons may be emphasized: 

* Health insurance increase

* State Aid

* Charter Schools 

* Federal Funding

* Increase in Fuel/Energy costs 

* Facilities

* Inflation 

It is expected these reasons will not be referenced in detail: 

* recent teacher, administrator, custodian, and staff contracts

* PPP money has run out and was partially spent on recurring items

* Recent rental agreements signed for preK space at multiple sites in Hoboken.  

* Failure to right-size the district 

2026-2027 ASSA Report (NJDOE)
CLICK TO ENLARGE

A Quick Reality Check on the “20% tax increase” Headline in Hoboken (It Amounts to a 6%-7% Increase in City Taxes)

 

A quick reality check on the “20% tax increase” headline. Yes, there is discussion of the municipal tax going up by 20%, but that is only one part of the total property tax bill. 

The tax bill is made up of three parts: county, school, and municipal taxes. The municipal portion is only about one-third of the total. So when that one piece goes up by 20%, the entire tax bill does not go up by 20%. Instead, the overall increase is closer to about 6–7% (20% of one-third is about 6.7%). This does not mean the increase is small or unimportant, but saying “taxes are going up 20%” without explaining the full picture can be misleading. 

It is important to look at the total breakdown before reacting. This is also a critical moment for both the county and the school district to keep their budgets as close to zero growth as possible, so they can help ease the burden on residents while the City of Hoboken works through its current financial challenges.

Hoboken’s Budget Survey Invites Public Input, but Unfortunately It Isn't Designed to Accurately Measure Public Opinion

Hudson County View reports that the City of Hoboken has launched a public budget survey for residents to help address a $17 million deficit that currently has an over 20 percent tax increase attached to it.

The Hoboken survey is a useful civic engagement exercise, but it falls short of meeting the psychometric standards required for a valid measure of public opinion. With improved sampling methods, clearer question design, and stronger methodological transparency, the city could produce a much more reliable and informative assessment of community budget priorities. 

Below is an evaluation of the survey based on standard psychometric and survey-research principles.

1. Sampling Validity (Representativeness)

The most serious methodological limitation of the Hoboken survey is self-selection bias. The survey is distributed online and participation is voluntary, meaning respondents are individuals who choose to participate rather than a randomly selected sample of residents. In survey research, this approach is known as a convenience sample, which does not allow results to be generalized to the broader population.

Several groups are likely to be systematically underrepresented, including:

• Residents without strong opinions about the budget

• Individuals with limited internet access or digital literacy

• Non-English speakers

• Renters who are less politically engaged

Although the city provided assistance for seniors at a municipal center, this does not correct the fundamental lack of probability sampling. Without random selection and demographic weighting, the results should be interpreted as public feedback rather than statistically valid public opinion data.

Implication: The survey cannot reliably estimate what the “average Hoboken resident” thinks about budget priorities.

---

2. Question Design and Measurement Validity

The survey asks residents to rate funding priorities (e.g., low, medium, high) for various city services and identify areas for cost reductions or revenue generation. While this format is common in participatory budgeting exercises, several issues weaken measurement validity:

a. Lack of Budget Context

Respondents are often asked to rate priorities without being given clear fiscal tradeoffs. For example, citizens may rate many services as “high priority,” which does not reflect the real constraint that the city must reduce spending or increase revenue to close a deficit.

In psychometric terms, the survey lacks constraint framing, meaning responses do not capture true preference under realistic conditions.

b. Leading Framing

When surveys emphasize a large deficit or tax increase scenario before asking questions, responses can become anchored by the framing of fiscal crisis. This can subtly influence participants toward supporting cuts or revenue increases.

c. Ambiguous Categories

Terms such as “high priority,” “medium priority,” and “low priority” are subjective and lack operational definition. Different respondents may interpret these categories very differently.

This undermines measurement reliability because the same question may be interpreted inconsistently across participants.

---

3. Reliability and Consistency

Reliable surveys produce consistent responses if administered repeatedly under similar conditions. The Hoboken survey does not appear to include design elements that enhance reliability, such as:

• Multiple items measuring the same underlying construct

• Balanced positive and negative framing

• Attention checks or response consistency checks

Because most questions appear to be single-item measures, random interpretation differences can produce large measurement error.

---

4. Construct and Content Validity

Construct validity asks whether the survey truly measures what it claims to measure—in this case, community priorities regarding municipal budgeting.

Several limitations weaken construct validity:

• Residents are not given sufficient information about program costs, so they cannot realistically weigh tradeoffs.

• The survey mixes policy preferences with fiscal decisions, which are conceptually different.

• Questions submitted by political actors (e.g., council members) may reflect policy agendas rather than neutral measurement constructs.

As a result, the survey measures expressed opinions about services, but not necessarily informed budget preferences.

---

Overall Assessment

The Hoboken survey functions well as a community engagement tool, but it does not meet the standards of a psychometrically valid public opinion survey. Specifically:

• It lacks representative sampling.

• It uses subjective response categories.

• It does not require respondents to confront realistic budget tradeoffs.

• It lacks methodological evidence for reliability or validity.

Therefore, its results should be interpreted as informal community input rather than statistically valid evidence of public opinion.

---

Recommendations for Improving the Survey

To improve methodological quality, the City of Hoboken could adopt several evidence-based practices:

1. Use Random Sampling

Select a random sample of residents using voter rolls, utility records, or address-based sampling and invite them to participate. This would significantly improve representativeness.

2. Provide Budget Tradeoff Scenarios

Use participatory budgeting simulations, where respondents must allocate a limited budget across services. This produces more realistic preference data.

3. Define Response Scales Clearly

Replace vague categories (“high priority”) with clearer scales such as:

• Increase funding

• Maintain current funding

• Reduce funding

4. Collect Demographic Data

Gather information on:

• Homeowner vs renter

• Age

• Length of residency

• Neighborhood

This allows responses to be weighted to match the city’s population profile.

5. Pilot Test the Survey

Conduct cognitive interviews and pilot testing with a small sample of residents to identify ambiguous wording and improve reliability.

6. Publish Methodological Notes

To improve transparency, the city should publish:

• Sampling method

• Number of respondents

• Response rate

• Limitations of interpretation

  
  

  SUMMARY: A valid public opinion survey must satisfy several core criteria: (1) representative sampling, (2) clear and unbiased question design, (3) reliability and consistency in measurement, and (4) evidence of construct and content validity. The City of Hoboken’s online budget survey—launched to gather feedback about a $17 million municipal budget shortfall—demonstrates an effort to engage residents, but it falls short of a number of standards required for a valid measure of public opinion. 

Remembering Retired Hoboken Public School Teacher, Public Servant, Parishoner, and Former Mayor Patrick Pasculli Age 78

I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Mayor Patrick Pasculli, a lifelong Hobokenite, dedicated educator, and public servant who devoted his life to the city he loved.

Patty grew up in Hoboken along the historic waterfront where his father worked as a longshoreman. Like many families in our city, his upbringing reflected the values that have long defined Hoboken: hard work, loyalty to community, and perseverance. He attended Hoboken’s public schools and later pursued his calling as an educator at Fairleigh Dickinson University. That decision shaped not only his own life, but the lives of generations of students who would pass through his classroom.

For more than forty years, Patty taught in the Hoboken Public School system, primarily teaching Language Arts to junior high students at Demarest School and later Wallace School. Anyone who has spent time in teaching understands the quiet but powerful impact educators can have on young people. Patty believed deeply in the power of education and took great pride in helping his students grow, develop confidence, and find their voices.

His commitment to Hoboken extended well beyond the classroom. In the 1960s and 1970s, he became involved in local politics as a Young Democrat working with longtime Hoboken City Clerk James Farina. His service continued when he ran to represent Hoboken’s Sixth Ward in 1981, and later in 1984 when he was elected Councilman-at-Large alongside Mayor Tom Vezzetti.

When Mayor Vezzetti passed away in 1988, Patty was serving as Council President and was called upon to step forward and lead the city during a difficult moment. On March 16, 1988, he became mayor and later that year won the special mayoral election. From 1988 to 1993, he served as Hoboken’s 34th mayor during a period when the city was beginning to transition from its industrial past toward redevelopment and new investment along the waterfront.

One of the things Patty cared deeply about was Hoboken’s history. During his time as mayor, he strongly supported recognition of Hoboken’s Elysian Fields as the site of the first organized game of baseball, played on June 19, 1846. That recognition helped secure Hoboken’s rightful place in the story of America’s pastime and remains an important part of the city’s identity.

I remember Patty personally from my own time teaching at Hoboken High School. In 1990, when I organized the first citywide Quiz Bowl competition, Mayor Pasculli graciously agreed to offer some encouraging words to the students. It may have seemed like a small moment, but it reflected something important about him. He cared deeply about young people and about celebrating their achievements.

Years later, when I returned to Hoboken to serve as Assistant Superintendent of Schools from 2007 to 2010, Patty was once again a steady and supportive presence. We often spoke outside of St. Ann’s Church, and he would always offer words of encouragement and support. Like many educators who move into public life, he had a practical wisdom about schools, about the city, and about people. Our conversations were always thoughtful, and he consistently shared sage advice and perspective that I appreciated greatly.

Outside of public life, Patty was deeply connected to the institutions that hold communities together. He was a devoted parishioner of St. Ann’s Church for more than thirty years, active in the Holy Name Society and involved in the life of the parish, including helping with renovations to the church. He was also a longtime member of the Hoboken Elks and a familiar presence at the beloved St. Ann’s Feast.

In retirement, Patty enjoyed spending time with his family, especially at his shore home in Ortley Beach. He loved sports, following the New York Yankees, USC football, UCLA basketball, and the excitement of March Madness. Most of all, he loved being with his family.

He is survived by his beloved wife of 52 years, Dolores, his daughters Jamie and Alyssa, his son-in-law Ali, and his cherished grandchildren Cameron and James, who knew him lovingly as “Pop Pop.” He is also survived by his brother Anthony and many nieces, nephews, and extended family members.

Patty will be remembered as a teacher, a mayor, and above all a man who cared deeply about Hoboken and its people. His life reminds us that public service often begins in the classroom and that a commitment to community can take many forms.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family, his former students, and all who had the privilege to know him.

Visitation will be Monday, March 9, 2026, 3:00 PM to 8:00 PM at St. Ann’s R.C. Church, 704 Jefferson Street, Hoboken.  The Funeral Mass will be held at the Church on Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 10:00 AM.  Entombment Holy Cross Mausoleum, 340 Ridge Road, North Arlington.

AERA 2026- The Effects of Creating Versus Experiencing Math Walks Stops in Informal Learning Settings

At this year’s American Educational Research Association* annual meeting, our team shares new findings on the power of student-created math walks. While prior research has explored students participating in math walks, few studies have compared that experience with students designing their own. In a randomized study of 107 students across Grades 1–10 and four informal learning sites, we found that students who created math walks demonstrated higher interest in mathematics, posed both shallow and deep questions, and reported greater enjoyment using a mobile app to engage with math in the world around them. The implications for informal STEM learning are significant.

Walkington, C. A., Petrosino, A. J., Sayed, J. D., Milton, S. L., Khan, S., Desjardins, E., Beauchamp, T., Cabanas, M., & Stringer, E. (2026, April 8). The Effects of Creating Versus Experiencing Math Walks Stops in Informal Learning Settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

*The American Educational Research Association (AERA), founded in 1916, is the premier international professional organization dedicated to advancing educational research, improving the educational process, and promoting the use of research to serve the public good. It boasts over 25,000 members, including educators, researchers, and graduate students

 Wed, April 8, 9:45 to 11:15am PDT (11:45am to 1:15pm CDT), JW Marriott Los Angeles L.A. LIVE, Floor: Gold Level, Gold 3

Abstract

Informal learning experiences can be a powerful way to allow students to see math in the world around them. Math walks are an informal learning activity that has been explored in the literature, with research shifting from examining students going on math walks to students creating their own math walks. However, no existing studies have directly compared these two approaches, as we do in the present investigation of 107 students in grades 1-10 randomly assigned to two conditions across 4 informal learning sites. We find that students creating math walks have higher math interest, ask a variety of both shallow and deep mathematical questions, and show enjoyment of the experience of using a mobile app to engage in math walks.

Candace A. Walkington, Southern Methodist University

 Anthony J. Petrosino, Southern Methodist University

Jennifer D. Sayed, Southern Methodist University

Saki L. Milton, Southern Methodist University

Safia Khan, Southern Methodist University

Eric Desjardins, Southern Methodist University

Theodora Beauchamp, Southern Methodist University

Mary Cabanas, Southern Methodist University

Elizabeth Stringer, Southern Methodist University

AERA 2026- Sager, Sherard, and Petrosino (2026) Data and Farming: Uncovering Tensions in Food Justice

At this year’s American Educational Research Association* annual meeting, I am excited to share new work situated at the intersection of data science, learning, and social justice. In our paper, Data and Farming: Uncovering Tensions in Food Justice, my colleagues Marc Sager and Maximilian Sherard and I examine what happens when undergraduate students partner with an urban farm to use data science in pursuit of food justice. Grounded in situated and consequential learning, the study surfaces important tensions—between simplicity and complexity, analysis and action—while highlighting how students can leverage data practices to support community-informed change and more equitable futures.

Sager, M., Sherard, M. & Petrosino, A. J.,  (2026, April 11). Data and farming: Uncovering tensions in food justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

*The American Educational Research Association (AERA), founded in 1916, is the premier international professional organization dedicated to advancing educational research, improving the educational process, and promoting the use of research to serve the public good. It boasts over 25,000 members, including educators, researchers, and graduate students

Critical Narratives From Carceral, Educational, and Community Contexts

Sat, April 11, 11:45am to 1:15pm PDT (1:45 to 3:15pm CDT), Westin Bonaventure, Floor: Lobby Level, La Brea

Session Type: Paper Session

Abstract

This session brings together research at the intersections of critical pedagogy, community building, identity, and social justice within diverse educational and societal contexts. Presenters reconsider what constitutes knowledge, agency, and equity through the lenses of prisoner-authored newsletters, a democratic school community, language and memory, and using data science for food justice. These papers will help attendees to consider how these diverse acts of meaning-making challenge dominant structures, nurture agency, and foreground community-led change for more equitable futures.

Papers

Data and Farming: Uncovering Tensions in Food Justice

Sat, April 11, 11:45am to 1:15pm PDT (1:45 to 3:15pm CDT), Westin Bonaventure, Floor: Lobby Level, La Brea

Abstract

Our study investigates tensions inherent in employing data science for social justice. Grounded in situated and consequential learning, our study employs a case-study methodology and analysis techniques from interaction and conversation analysis. Collaborating with three undergraduate students and an urban farm, the students used data science practices to highlight inequities surrounding food justice and access to food. Our findings reveal two key tensions: (1) the undergraduates' discourse on simplicity versus complexity in utilizing data science for social justice; and (2) the successful application of data science by the students in their food justice project, culminating in a presentation to the farm's director. We conclude by discussing implications for research and the use of data science in social justice projects.

Anthony J. Petrosino, Southern Methodist University

Marc Sager, Southern Methodist University

Maximilian Sherard, University of North Texas