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 

2010-11 DPR INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM- PASSED* (87%)

2011-12 DPR INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM** - FAILED

2012-13 DPR INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM** - FAILED 

2013-14 DPR INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM** - FAILED 

2014-15 DPR INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM** - FAILED 

2015-16 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

  QSAC Letter July 2016 c Copy by Anthony Petrosino 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: 

  Hoboken Interim Review 2015-16 Copy by Anthony Petrosino on Scribd

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. 

Full list for 2016 PARCC mean scale scores for FG districts:

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

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

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.

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

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.

   Petrosino and Mann (2017) Fluid by Anthony Petrosino on Scribd

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.