Celebratory Summary of Scholarly and Research Impact

Dr. Petrosino’s career represents a rare and powerful combination of intellectual contribution, sustained federal investment, and tangible impact on educational systems at scale. Over more than two decades, he has built a body of work that not only advances scholarship in STEM education and the learning sciences but also meaningfully reshapes how teaching, learning, and opportunity are structured in schools and universities across the United States.

His record of over $20 million in external funding, including major support from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education, reflects a level of sustained national competitiveness that few scholars achieve. These investments have supported a wide portfolio of initiatives spanning teacher preparation, technology-enhanced learning, and college access for underrepresented students. His work demonstrates an exceptional ability to translate research into scalable programs that address pressing national priorities in STEM education and equity.

Dr. Petrosino’s scholarly trajectory is grounded in training at leading research institutions. He earned his master’s degree from Columbia University and his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University, followed by postdoctoral training at University of Wisconsin–Madison. This foundation is reflected in the rigor, interdisciplinarity, and applied focus that characterize his work. He also holds the distinction of being Professor Emeritus at University of Texas at Austin, further underscoring his long-standing contributions to the field.

A defining feature of Dr. Petrosino’s career is his five-year tenure as Associate Dean for Research and Outreach at Southern Methodist University, where he provided strategic leadership for research development, external partnerships, and community engagement. In this role, he helped expand the school’s research portfolio, supported faculty in securing external funding, and strengthened connections between university-based research and local and national educational initiatives. This experience highlights his ability not only to conduct impactful research, but also to build institutional capacity and research ecosystems.

Among his most significant accomplishments is his role as a co-founder of the UTeach program, a nationally transformative model for STEM teacher preparation that has been replicated at more than 50 universities. This contribution places him among a select group of scholars whose work has had enduring, system-level influence. UTeach has shaped the preparation of thousands of STEM teachers and stands as a lasting institutional innovation grounded in research and practice.

Dr. Petrosino’s impact is equally evident in his deep engagement with educational leadership and community-based initiatives. As a founding board member of the award-winning and regionally recognized HOLA Dual Language School in Hoboken, New Jersey, where he served for a decade, he contributed to the development of an innovative bilingual education model that reflects his commitment to access, inclusion, and high-quality instruction.

His mentorship record is exceptional in both scale and quality. Having guided more than 60 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, Dr. Petrosino has helped cultivate a generation of scholars and practitioners who now hold influential roles across academia and K–12 education. His mentees have secured faculty positions, research appointments, and leadership roles nationwide, with postdoctoral placements at leading institutions such as Harvard University, Ohio State University, University of Wisconsin–Madison, and University of California, Berkeley. Many others serve as district leaders, extending his influence directly into educational systems and policy contexts.

Dr. Petrosino’s professional trajectory is further distinguished by his experience as an Assistant Superintendent of Schools, which grounds his scholarship in the realities of educational leadership and system-level decision making. This experience enriches both his research and his teaching, particularly in preparing aspiring educators and district leaders to navigate complex educational environments.

His scholarly contributions, published in leading journals across education and the learning sciences, reflect a sustained commitment to both rigor and relevance. His work addresses foundational issues such as project-based learning, teacher knowledge, and the design of technology-enhanced learning environments, while also advancing research–practice partnerships that connect theory to implementation.

Taken together, Dr. Petrosino’s career is distinguished by breadth, depth, and enduring impact. He is a scholar who not only contributes to academic knowledge but also builds institutions, develops people, and improves educational opportunities at scale. His work exemplifies the highest ideals of the learning sciences and STEM education—bringing together research, practice, and leadership in ways that produce lasting and meaningful change.

Petrosino DOE Professional Vita by Tony Petrosino

Important City Council and Hoboken Board of Education Meetings This Week

Hoboken 1932

1) Council caucus meeting is Monday, May 4, 5pm (zoom).

Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86862589390?pwd=eKP51EYaF3DVWeI76iaRKNhQuGR52U.1

Passcode: 473134

Phone one-tap:

+13092053325,,86862589390#,,,,*473134# US

+13126266799,,86862589390#,,,,*473134# US (Chicago)

Join via audio:

+1 309 205 3325 US

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

+1 646 931 3860 US

+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)

+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)

Webinar ID: 868 6258 9390

Passcode: 473134

International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbDeA5rnWs

2) Council meeting is Wednesday, May 6, 7pm

3) BOE meeting is Tuesday, May 5, 7pm at Demarest - listed as Budget Hearing.

Petrosino Receives 2026 Award for UTeach- 10,000+ Highly Qualified STEM Teachers Nationwide

 

Humbled to receive this award from my colleagues as an early co-founder, course designer, instructor, and researcher with the nationally recognized UTeach Program. It has been deeply meaningful to remain involved as the program has grown to more than 50 universities and helped prepare over 10,000 highly qualified STEM teachers across the country. The program has been well-received, cited by the National Academy of Sciences as a model program addressing the need for more highly qualified STEM teachers.

Below is the 15-minute acceptance speech I gave in Austin last week for the UTeach Award.... 

Acceptance Speech Delivered April 29, 2026 

Thank you.

It is a real honor to receive the Mary Long Award for Dedication to UTeach. I am deeply grateful to be considered for an award that carries her name, and I accept it with a strong sense of humility and appreciation.

Awards like this are always complicated things. They are given to individuals, but they are built on the work of many people, over many years, often under conditions that are not always visible to others. That is certainly true of UTeach, and it is certainly true of anything I have been fortunate enough to be a part of within it.

So I want to begin by saying thank you—not only for the recognition, but for the opportunity to reflect on what this program has meant to me, and to so many others.

When I think back to the early days of UTeach, there is one image that stays with me.

There was a time when the entire UTeach team could sit around a single conference table for our weekly meetings.

That was it. No overflow rooms, no remote connections, no large administrative structures. Just a small group of people, sitting together, trying to figure out how to build something that we believed mattered.

It is almost difficult to reconcile that image with what UTeach has become. Today, the program has expanded far beyond those early meetings, influencing teacher preparation across dozens of universities and reaching classrooms across the country. But in those early days, none of that was guaranteed.

What we had was a shared belief that we could do something different. That we could address not only the shortage of qualified mathematics and science teachers, but also the quality of preparation those teachers received. That we could bring together deep disciplinary knowledge and serious attention to how students learn.

And we had a group of people who were willing to take that idea seriously.

There was uncertainty. There were institutional challenges. There were questions about whether this kind of work could be sustained in a research-intensive university environment. But there was also a sense of purpose that was hard to ignore.

And in many ways, that sense of purpose is what has carried UTeach forward.

At the center of that early work—and at the center of this award—is Mary Long.

Mary Long understood something that, at the time, not everyone fully appreciated.

She understood the expectations, the pressures, and the responsibilities that came with building a program like UTeach, particularly for those of us who were early in our academic careers.

At the College of Education, as a non-tenured faculty member, the demands were significant. We were expected to help grow UTeach, to teach undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral courses, and to conduct and publish research at a Tier 1 research university. Those are not small expectations individually, and they are certainly not small when taken together.

And there was an added layer of uncertainty.

In my department, no one in science education had received tenure in the previous twenty years. So these concerns were not abstract. They were real. They were part of the daily reality of trying to do meaningful work while also navigating the structures of the university.

Mary Long saw that.

She understood that there was a kind of invisible work happening—work that required commitment, risk, and persistence. And she made it a point to support the people doing that work.

For me personally, that support mattered a great deal.

She advised me. She spoke with me. She created space for honest conversation. And I always felt that I could confide in her. That is not something you take for granted in an academic environment.

Her guidance was critical during my time as an Assistant Professor, and it remained important as I transitioned into a tenured Associate Professor.

But what stands out most is not just the advice she gave. It is the way she gave it.

There was a steadiness to her. A clarity. She did not overstate things, and she did not minimize them either. She had a way of helping you see the situation as it was, while also helping you move forward.

That combination is rare.

And it is part of why her impact on UTeach—and on the people within it—has been so lasting.

When I think about my own contributions to UTeach, one area that I am particularly proud of is the development of the Project-Based Instruction course.

This course became one of the core experiences in the program, and for me, it represents something essential about what UTeach was trying to do.

There are many courses in teacher education that focus on theory. There are others that focus on curriculum design. And there are others still that focus on classroom practice.

What is less common is a course that intentionally brings all of those elements together in a coherent way.

Project-Based Instruction was designed to do that.

It integrates learning theory, curriculum design, and real-world application—not as separate components, but as interconnected parts of the same process. Students are not only learning about how people learn. They are designing instructional experiences. They are implementing those experiences. And they are reflecting on them in a structured way.

Importantly, this work extends beyond the classroom through the apprenticeship component. So the ideas are not left at the level of abstraction. They are tested, refined, and understood in the context of actual teaching.

To me, that is what makes the course meaningful.

It reflects a commitment to preparing teachers who can think deeply about their practice, who understand the relationship between theory and application, and who are equipped to navigate the complexities of real classrooms.

And in that sense, it reflects the broader goals of UTeach.

Of course, none of this work happens in isolation.

There are many people who have contributed to UTeach in ways that are both visible and invisible, and I would like to acknowledge a few of them.

First, Jill Marshall.

Jill embodies what I think of as the full ideal of UTeach. She brings impeccable content knowledge as a physicist, extraordinary skill in undergraduate teaching, and a level of leadership that has been essential to the program. At the same time, she is a genuinely caring and thoughtful person, and that combination has had a profound impact on students and colleagues alike.

Second, Larry Abraham.

Larry served as Co-Director for over a decade and played a critical role in supporting ideas and initiatives within UTeach. What I appreciated most about Larry was his ability to balance competing demands. As Department Chair and in other administrative roles, he had many responsibilities, but he always found ways to support the program and the people working within it.

Third, Gail Dickinson.

Gail was an early colleague and collaborator, particularly in the development of the Project-Based Instruction course. Her expertise and perspective helped shape the course in important ways, and her contributions to both the course and the broader program have been significant.

And finally, Michael Marder.

Michael has been, in many ways, “Mr. UTeach.” He has been deeply committed to the goal of improving teacher education, not only in Texas but across the country. His efforts to expand the program, to advocate for its principles, and to sustain its growth have been extraordinary.

But for me, what I value most is his friendship and his objectivity. In an environment that can sometimes be competitive and politically complex—at the university, state, and national levels—he has consistently been a supportive and thoughtful colleague.

There are many others who could be mentioned, and I regret that I cannot name everyone. But I hope it is clear that this work has always been collective.

As I look ahead, I think about the next generation of UTeach educators and leaders.

The challenges facing education are not getting simpler. If anything, they are becoming more complex. And in that context, the core idea that shaped UTeach remains as important as ever.

We need to continue to bring together deep content knowledge and a serious engagement with how people learn.

That means staying connected to developments in learning theory. It means being willing to adapt and refine our approaches. And it means maintaining a focus on the kinds of experiences that prepare teachers to think, to design, and to respond effectively in real classrooms.

But it also means holding onto something that has been present since those early meetings around the conference table.

A sense of purpose.

A belief that this work matters.

And a willingness to invest in it, even when the outcomes are not immediate or guaranteed.

If that can be sustained, then I think the future of UTeach will remain strong.

Let me close by returning to where I began.

This award carries the name of Mary Long, and that matters.

It matters because of what she represented. It matters because of how she supported people. And it matters because of the role she played in helping UTeach grow from a small group around a conference table into a program with national impact.

I am grateful for her example. I am grateful for the colleagues and students who have made this work meaningful. And I am grateful for the opportunity to be part of something that has had, and continues to have, a lasting impact.

Thank you.

Hoboken Board of Education President Says the Decision Aligns with the District’s Policy

 

I have been reflecting on the Hoboken Board of Education decision to move forward with the “Celebrate Israel: Independence Day Festival” scheduled for May 10, 2026, at Taglieri Stadium.

This decision sits at the intersection of public education, community access, and civic tension. The event, sponsored by the Israeli American Council, was approved as a facility-use request—something school districts routinely handle. The Board has been clear: permitting use of school grounds does not constitute endorsement. From a governance perspective, that position is consistent with how public institutions typically manage shared spaces.

"Board President Ailene McGuirk said the decision aligns with the district’s policy governing the use of school facilities and its commitment to nondiscrimination."

At the same time, the reaction from parts of the community—particularly those calling for cancellation and organizing protests—signals something important. Schools are not just physical spaces; they are symbolic ones. When events tied to broader geopolitical conflicts take place on school property, they can feel personal, especially to students, families, and educators navigating those same issues in their daily lives.

From an educational standpoint, this raises a deeper question: What is the role of public schools in a pluralistic democracy? If schools are to serve as community hubs, then they must also be prepared to host disagreement. That includes not only events but also the responses they generate. The fact that a similar event in 2025 drew both supporters and protesters underscores that this is not a one-time issue, but part of an ongoing civic dialogue.

For educators, there is also an instructional opportunity here. These moments—while difficult—can model democratic engagement. Students observe how institutions make decisions, how communities respond, and how individuals express dissent. The challenge is ensuring that this learning happens in ways that are thoughtful, respectful, and grounded in evidence rather than rhetoric.

None of this minimizes the very real concerns being raised. Community members who feel that the event is inappropriate for school grounds deserve to be heard. Likewise, those who support the event as an expression of cultural identity and community engagement also deserve space. The Board’s role, then, is not to resolve geopolitical conflict, but to manage local policy in a way that is fair, transparent, and consistent.

These are not easy decisions, and there are no simple answers. But if public education is to mean anything, it must include the capacity to navigate complexity—both inside and outside the classroom.

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.