 |
| Figure 1: Erroneous Chart from a Social Media blog Concerning a NJ District's QSAC Scores Click to Enlarge |
During a recent Board of Education election in Hoboken, NJ social media became fairly active. As most people know, there is little peer-review or journalistic standards on social media so people can often post whatever they wish. This is not necessarily all bad nor is it all good but it does make an argument for informed, critical thinking skills when presented with information on the internet.
The following is a case study of a chart that was posted online (Figure 1). I provide explanation and documentation indicating aspects of the chart that were either not accurate, deliberately or ignorantly deceptive, of simply misleading. The post was made by a Hoboken blogger with no official affiliation with the Hoboken School District but someone who has provided online support for a political group successful in its attempt to secure majority rule of the Hoboken Board of Education since May 2009.
The following is a case study of a chart that was posted online (Figure 1). I provide explanation and documentation indicating aspects of the chart that were either not accurate, deliberately or ignorantly deceptive, of simply misleading. The post was made by a Hoboken blogger with no official affiliation with the Hoboken School District but someone who has provided online support for a political group successful in its attempt to secure majority rule of the Hoboken Board of Education since May 2009.
BACKGROUND: It appears many supporters of the existing Board leadership do not want voters and taxpayers to know that the school district has failed NJDOE monitoring in INSTRUCTION and PROGRAM for 5 straight years. This seems true especially after the district passed with an 87% by an opposing administration and under my leadership as Assistant Superintendent (QSAC is scored between 0 and 100 and based on a number of criteria and benchmarks). One way misinformation has been propagated is by attempting to create a "new narrative" of QSAC scores on INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM and QSAC in general by combining all 5 QSAC measures into a "total score" thereby washing out the impact of the failed score in INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM. This is incorrect since 1) you cannot add averages and 2) each of the QSAC categories have different criteria and benchmarks. Simply put, QSAC is already an attempt by the State of NJ to evaluate a district in 5 key autonomous areas with a percent score for each. Combining of QSAC DPR's is not done anywhere on any New Jersey Department of Education analysis of district accountability.
I have pointed out 7 areas that require further explanation on a recently published chart from one of these blogs and provide a detailed explanation below concerning the misinformation. In addition, I provide the NJ QSAC scores over the years for the Hoboken School District. If the Hoboken Board of Education decided to post their QSAC scores publicly like neighboring Bayonne does, perhaps there would be more productive and informed discussions about the school district and its accomplishments and challenges.
For the following, please Refer to Figure 1 above:
For the following, please Refer to Figure 1 above:
1) There is no such thing as a QSAC TOTAL SCORE. This is a made up score. QSAC is known as the Quality Single Accountability Continuum and it has 5 seperate scores since they each have very different criteria. The five areas or DPR’s are: instruction and program; personnel; fiscal management; operations management; and governance.
2) The district passed 2 DPR’s - Operations (83%) and Personnel (80%). Hoboken Curriculum Project begins.
3) The “reformers” take control of the district in May 2009, they had little to do with the 2009 QSAC scores. The “rise” from 2008 to 2009 is attributed mostly to previous board and district leadership. Interim score Instruction and Program QSAC December 2009- 77%
4) Hoboken Curriculum Project approved by Board of Education on Tuesday December 15, 2009. First QSAC assessment AFTER completion. Instruction and Program QSAC score 87% (passed).
5) Beginning of 5 consecutive years of failed QSAC DPR’s in Instruction and Program with scores of July 2011- 69%; February 2013- 68%; June 2014- 45%; May 2015- 75%; July 2016- 76% during "reform" leadership of "Kids First", "Parents for Progress", "Reach Higher", and "Forward Together"
6) A low of 45% in QSAC DPR for INSTRUCTION AND PROGRAM during the "reform" era.
7) The New Jersey Department of Education does not report QSAC scores as Totals at all. It is deceiving to source this data as being attributed to the New Jersey Department of Education.
In the case of the Hoboken School District, the narrative has been "this is an improved school district"- the objective, third party evidence paints a decidedly different picture whether it is violence and vandalism, graduation rates, state testing scores (also link, link, link) , SAT scores, designation by the New Jersey Department of Education as a "District in Need of Improvement", or in this case...QSAC scores on the DPR for Instruction and Program failing for five years in a row after scoring as exemplary and highly effective during practices and policies developed and enacted during the previous board of education majority and my district leadership in Instruction and Program as Assistant Superintendent of Schools.
"Its easy to say things are improving in Hoboken, its much harder to prove it" - anonymous
