HOBOKEN BOARD OF EDUCATION August 16, 2016 Meeting

Tuesday, August 16, 2016
AGENDA

HOBOKEN BOARD OF EDUCATION

158 FOURTH STREET, HOBOKEN, NJ 07030

MEETING HELD IN DEMAREST AUDITORIUM

158 FOURTH STREET, HOBOKEN, NJ 07030

7:00 P.M.

Notable: Board member steps down, Asst. Superintendent named, new Connors principal named.

  Board Agenda August 2016 Detailed

Chapter 78. Just how bad is it?

The following post was originally posted on Facebook by a thoughtful and reflective member of the NJEA. Name withheld for fear of any reprisal. - Dr. Petrosino 

Chapter 78. Just how bad is it? Here is a breakdown to share with family, friends and the NJEA Leadership. I will breakdown down Chapter 78 and other money coming out of your paycheck. 

1. Our pension payment went from 5.5% to 7.5%
So if you earn $75,000 dollars a year your pension is now costing $1500 more a year or $150 dollars a month.
2. Health Insurance went from 1.5% of salary to a percentage of the premium with an unjust sliding scale.
So if you made $75,000 you are now paying 23% of the premium at tier 4. So you went from paying $1,125 dollars for health insurance to $8,970. I am basing this number on my district.That is a difference of $7,845 dollars or $784.50 a month. 

That is $9,340.50 or $934.50 a month. That's a disgrace. 

Add in the fees members paid before Chapter 78 and it is disastrous. 

A member pays disability insurance: Let's use the number $1200 a year, that is what I pay. 

Union dues another $1400 a year. That is $11,940 dollars a year or $1,190.40 a month in deductions from our paychecks. 

Additionally, raises went from 4.5% to 2.61%.

My friends, this is a bloodbath. And the NJEA Leadership, well, they do not seem to get it. It is business as usual. Keep the dues flowing! Who pays dues to lose money yearly? I talk to my friends in NY and PA, our neighboring states, and it isn't happening there. 

NJEA has failed the membership. And no one has been held accountable.

Reconceptualizing STEM Education- A Review

I was fortunate to be asked to contribute a chapter to this new volume by Richard Duschl and Amber Bismark on Reconceptualizing STEM Education. My chapter was about data modelling and pre-service teacher preparation. What follows is a review that was recently published on the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) website.

Petrosino, A. J. (2016). Teachers Use of Data, Measurement, and Data Modeling in Quantitative Reasoning. In R. Duschl & A. Bismarck (Eds), Reconceptualizing STEM Education: The Central Role of Practices (pp.167-180). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

 

Reconceptualizing STEM Education explores and maps out research and development ideas and issues around five central practice themes: Systems Thinking; Model-Based Reasoning; Quantitative Reasoning; Equity, Epistemic, and Ethical Outcomes; and STEM Communication and Outreach. These themes are aligned with the comprehensive agenda for the reform of science and engineering education set out by the 2015 PISA Framework, the US Next Generation Science Standards and the US National Research Council’s A Framework for K-12 Science Education. The new practice-focused agenda has implications for the redesign of preK-12 education for alignment of curriculum-instruction-assessment; STEM teacher education and professional development; postsecondary, further, and graduate studies; and out-of-school informal education. In each section, experts set out powerful ideas followed by two eminent discussant responses that both respond to and provoke additional ideas from the lead papers. In the associated website < http://waterbury.psu.edu/summit/> highly distinguished, nationally recognized STEM education scholars and policymakers engage in deep conversations and considerations addressing core practices that guide STEM education. 

Reconceptualizing STEM Education

by Richard A. Duschl and Amber S. Bismack

Price at time of review: $56.95
350 pp.
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
New York, NY
2016
ISBN: 9781138901049

Grade Level: K-16

Reviewed by Jean Worsley Retired Biology Teacher This book in the Teaching and Learning in Science series is a compendium of the Waterbury Summit held at Pennsylvania State University in 2013. The participants explored present practices associated with the teaching and learning of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines and proposed profound changes. The reformed practices proposed are based on current research and will be aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Research Council’s A Framework for K–12 Science Education. The agenda of the Framework and NGSS is coordinated around Science and Engineering Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Disciplinary Core Ideas. This suggested reformed agenda will have far–reaching implications for redesigning the curriculum, instruction, assessment, technology integration, teacher education, postsecondary education, graduate education, and other facets of our society. The participants focused on five themes to reconceptualize STEM education. Nationally renowned scholars presented papers on these themes: Systems Thinking, Model–Based Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Equity, Epistemic Outcomes, and Stem Communication and Outreach. For each theme, readers will find detailed narratives with charts and graphs vividly elucidating practices and how they could be implemented. Also, Poster Presentations are found in the first four themes. Following each presentation, a thorough analysis was given by two respondents and panelists answered questions posed by the audience. With current research data, the participants explored numerous facets/theories of the educational system in the teaching/learning process and references are listed for each theme. Further, the role of ethics in scientific decisions was brought to the forefront. It is noted that emphasis was placed on the importance of helping educators learn how to engage all students in STEM disciplines. In addition, readers will find an interesting narrative on integrating the ARTS in STEM changing it to STEAM. As a result of this Summit, a clarion call resonates across the educational system to reform teaching pedagogies in STEM disciplines. Current data indicate that this is due to the fact that STEM based industries will be growing in the United States and that the number of students pursuing careers in STEM areas is decreasing. In order to close this gap, the participants proposed a paradigm shift by focusing on practices outlined in this book, Reconceptualizing STEM Education. This is indeed paramount because scientific literacy is needed in order to make wise decisions—educationally, economically, ethically, socially, politically, and environmentally. Consequently, this holistic approach to STEM education will foster an understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. It is noteworthy to understand that the participants emphasized that many challenges remain and that more critical research is vital. Some of these unanswered questions are listed in the summary. Readers will find a brief biography about the authors and participants. An index, numerous references, and a website are also included. This is an excellent resource for educators who are interested in preparing students to make decisions to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Reform in STEM education is needed in order to maintain a workforce in this global economy. Petrosino, A. J. (2016). Teachers Use of Data, Measurement, and Data Modeling in Quantitative Reasoning. In R. Duschl & A. Bismarck (Eds), Reconceptualizing STEM Education: The Central Role of Practices (pp.167-180). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

2016’s States with the Best & Worst School Systems

Hoboken, NJ Summer 2016

With school resuming session, many parents might be wondering whether they’ve selected the best school districts to secure their children’s academic success. For many, quality is a question of available public funding. And while that may be true in certain cases, more resources do not always correlate with better academic performance, as our findings demonstrate.

That isn’t to say that money doesn’t help. According to an Economic Policy Institute report, income is higher in states where the workforce is well educated and thus more productive. In turn, workers with better earnings contribute greater taxes to beef up state budgets over the long run.

In light of back-to-school season, WalletHub’s analysts compared the quality of education in the 50 states and the District of Columbia to shine the spotlight on top-performing school systems. In making such a comparison, we examined each state and the District across 17 key metrics, ranging from “student-teacher ratio” to “average SAT and ACT scores” to “dropout rate.” Continue reading below for our findings, additional expert commentary and the full description of our methodology.

Source: WalletHub

Source: WalletHub

Overall Rank State Total Score‘School-System Quality’ Rank ‘School-System Safety’ Rank
1 Massachusetts 73.65 1 1
2 New Jersey 69.13 3 3
3 Connecticut 65.47 2 20
4 Vermont 64.75 5 9
5 Wisconsin 64.24 7 2
6 New Hampshire 63.12 4 25
7 Virginia 62.95 6 13
8 Maine 60.45 8 16
9 Delaware 59.76 16 5
10 Minnesota 59.60 10 19
11 Iowa 57.50 12 38
12 Indiana 57.38 9 41
13 Illinois 57.31 14 22
14 Florida 56.00 21 8
15 Nebraska 55.88 11 40
16 Maryland 55.68 13 36
17 Kentucky 55.50 15 30
18 Utah 55.01 27 4
19 North Carolina 54.57 24 11
20 Kansas 54.13 20 14
21 Texas 53.83 26 10
22 North Dakota 53.34 17 42
23 Colorado 53.06 18 49
24 Montana 52.99 19 32
25 New York 51.61 32 15
26 Washington 51.11 30 12
27 Oklahoma 51.09 36 7
28 Rhode Island 51.08 31 21
29 Wyoming 51.00 22 34
30 Pennsylvania 50.74 28 28
31 Ohio 50.65 25 44
32 Missouri 49.38 29 39
33 Idaho 47.16 34 31
34 Michigan 46.67 35 29
35 Georgia 46.17 39 23
36 Tennessee 45.84 33 43
37 South Carolina 45.72 40 18
38 Arkansas 45.65 23 50
39 Hawaii 45.44 42 6
40 California 45.34 38 35
41 South Dakota 43.55 37 48
42 Alabama 39.85 41 47
43 Oregon 39.65 43 46
44 Nevada 38.02 48 17
45 West Virginia 37.73 44 37
46 Mississippi 36.63 46 26
47 District of Columbia 35.10 50 24
48 Arizona 35.03 47 33
49 Alaska 34.36 45 45
50 New Mexico 33.30 51 27
51 Louisiana 30.33 49 51