Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Nice Words, Troubling Record: A Reality Check on Hoboken BOE Leadership

In a recent letter to the editor submitted to Hudson County View by a number of current and former Hoboken Board of Education trustees, they support 2 candidates. I take no position in supporting anyone in the Board of Education election but feel compelled to point out a number of issues with taking ANYTHING this group says at their word. 

Sharyn Angley, Malani Cademartori, Sheillah Dallara, Chetali Khanna, and Ailene McGuirk claim to be “committed to integrity, equity, and respectful collaboration.” These are easy words to say in theory. However, in practice:

1) none of them held Superintendent Johnson accountable for lying for over a decade about having a doctorate. 

2) Equity? District test results continue to show Black and Hispanic students performing far below their White peers across the entire K–12 grade span. 

3) Integrity? Ailene McGuirk and the Board spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars misleading the community by branding all district schools as “blue ribbon schools.” 

4) Collaboration with the Community: all of them tried to push through a $241 million ($330 with interest) bond referendum with minimal public input. 

These Board members have chosen public relations over real governance- and fall short of the ideals behind the words integrity, equity, and respectful collaboration with the community. 


The Following at Independent Posts on Hudson County View

Damn, that’s bottom of the barrel bad. 

From the same, bad people who tried to shove a secret $241 Million new building down Hoboken’s throat with a hockey rink. How many black students from Jersey City want to play hockey? 

Hoboken doesn’t want to be the next episode of The Sopranos. These people stink.

When someone feels the need to write in their political campaign post that they don’t have a political agenda they do.

Remember these so called Trustees hid, lied about and tried to slip past the voters of Hoboken billon dollar construction protect that would have raised ready high taxes to the point of forcing out many.

  1. Yes, this one doesn’t feel right – -more background maneuvering. Would love to ask these new candidates how they voted on the $241m referendum a few years back. We don’t get to ask those questions — we are just told to look the other way….. Today we march for Democracy — but a working democracy requires transparency at all levels of govenment…..long gone…..

  2. Lyin’, cheatin’, self-serving. This private club yields power so they can pick the “right” teachers for their kids. It’s been happening for years, and this crew has perfected it.

Saturday, December 20, 2025

The Red Dot No One Wants to Talk About: Why Hoboken’s School Spending Is an Outlier in New Jersey

 


I want to walk through the chart you’re looking at, because charts like this can be powerful—or misleading—depending on how they’re read.

Each dot on the chart represents a New Jersey school district.

  • The horizontal axis (x-axis) shows total student enrollment—how big the district is.

  • The vertical axis (y-axis) shows how much money is spent per student during the 2024–2025 school year.

Most of the dots are black. One dot—Hoboken—is highlighted in bright red.

The dashed line running through the middle is a trend line. It shows the typical relationship between district size and per-pupil spending. In general, as districts get larger, spending per student tends to level off or even decrease slightly because large systems can spread costs across more students.

The shaded area around that line is a confidence band. Think of it as the “normal range.” Districts inside that band are spending roughly what we’d expect given their size. Districts far above or below it are doing something unusual.

This is where the story gets interesting.

Hoboken is a small-to-mid-sized district—about 3,600 students. Districts that size usually cluster near the middle of the chart. But Hoboken sits well above the confidence band, spending about $26,300 per student. That puts it higher than many districts that are two, three, or even ten times larger.

This isn’t a judgment. It’s a fact about position.

For comparison, look at places like Newark, Jersey City, or Elizabeth. These are massive districts with tens of thousands of students and very real, complex needs. Yet their per-pupil spending is lower than Hoboken’s, even though they serve far more students and face far greater challenges.

You’ll also notice another major outlier: Lakewood, which spends very high amounts per pupil as well—but for very different structural reasons. That’s why context matters.

What this chart does not do is explain why a district spends more or less. It doesn’t account for special education, poverty rates, language services, or local tax structures. That kind of analysis comes later.

What this chart does do is isolate scale. It asks a simple question first:

Given how big this district is, does its spending look typical—or unusual?

In Hoboken’s case, the answer is clear. Its spending is unusually high for a district of its size, even after accounting for normal variation.

That doesn’t mean the spending is right or wrong. But it does mean it deserves serious, transparent discussion—especially when resources are limited and every dollar represents choices about priorities.

Hoboken Is an Outlier No Matter Which Enrollment Band You Put It In

One of the most common ways people try to explain away uncomfortable data is by arguing about categories. In New Jersey, school districts are often discussed within NJDOE enrollment bands—for good reason. Size matters. Scale affects costs.

But here’s the key point that keeps getting lost:

Hoboken is a statistical outlier in per-pupil spending regardless of which enrollment band you place it in.

Let’s be precise.

Hoboken’s total enrollment (about 3,600 students) puts it right on the boundary between two NJDOE groupings:

  • the upper end of the K–12 / 1,801–3,500 band, or

  • the very bottom of the K–12 / 3,500+ band.

Reasonable people can debate which label fits better.

What is not debatable is what happens next.

When we plot total enrollment against 2024–25 per-pupil spending for New Jersey districts, we see a clear, predictable pattern: districts of similar size cluster within a relatively tight spending range. That’s what the trend line and confidence band show. This isn’t ideology—it’s descriptive statistics.

Hoboken sits well outside that range.

  • Compared to districts just below it in size (the top of the 1,801–3,500 band), Hoboken spends dramatically more per student.

  • Compared to districts just above it in size (the bottom of the 3,500+ band), Hoboken still spends far more per student.

  • Even many districts two to ten times larger, serving far higher-need populations, spend less per pupil.

So the “band” argument collapses under scrutiny.

If Hoboken were merely high within its peer group, it would sit near the top of a cluster.
Instead, it sits above the cluster entirely.

That’s what statisticians mean by an outlier: a case that does not behave like others in its neighborhood, even after accounting for the most obvious structural factor—size.

None of this answers why Hoboken spends what it does.
It does not claim waste, mismanagement, or bad faith.
It does not deny that needs exist.

But it does establish something essential:

Hoboken’s per-pupil spending cannot be explained away by enrollment size or band placement.

Once that point is accepted, the conversation has to move forward—away from technical deflection and toward transparent discussion of priorities, tradeoffs, and opportunity costs.


Methods note (interpretation of trend line and confidence bands).
The figure plots New Jersey school districts’ total student enrollment against 2024–2025 per-pupil spending and includes a fitted linear trend line summarizing the average relationship between district size and spending. The shaded band around the trend line represents ±1 standard deviation of the residuals from this fitted model and is intended as a descriptive reference range rather than a causal or inferential confidence interval. In practical terms, the band shows the degree of variation in per-pupil spending that is typical among districts of similar enrollment size. Districts falling substantially above or below this band are spending markedly more or less than would be expected given their enrollment alone. This approach does not control for other determinants of spending (e.g., student need, special education prevalence, or local revenue capacity) and is therefore not used to make normative claims about “appropriate” funding levels. Instead, it provides a transparent, first-pass benchmark that isolates scale effects and highlights districts whose spending patterns differ meaningfully from peer districts of comparable size.

A Single Red Dot: What NJ School Spending Data Reveal About Hoboken

 

The chart* plots two straightforward variables for a group of New Jersey public school districts: total student enrollment on the horizontal axis and per-pupil spending for the 2024–2025 school year on the vertical axis. All data come directly from the New Jersey Department of Education. Each dot represents a district within the same NJDOE enrollment cohort, meaning these districts serve roughly similar numbers of students and are therefore appropriate peers for comparison.

Most of the dots cluster along a fairly predictable pattern. As enrollment increases, per-pupil spending tends to rise modestly. This makes intuitive sense. Larger districts often face higher costs related to staffing, specialized services, transportation, and facilities, but those increases are usually incremental rather than dramatic. The trend line drawn through the data captures this general relationship and reflects what we would expect spending to look like for districts of different sizes.

One dot, however, clearly stands apart: Hoboken.

Hoboken’s enrollment places it squarely in the middle of this peer group, yet its per-pupil spending sits far above both the trend line and most comparable districts. In other words, given its size, Hoboken spends substantially more per student than what is typical for districts in the same enrollment cohort. This is not a subtle difference—it is visually and statistically notable.

Click to Enlarge 

It’s important to be clear about what this chart does not claim. It does not say that higher spending is inherently bad, nor does it tell us how effectively dollars are being used. Spending more per pupil can reflect deliberate policy choices, higher local costs, contractual obligations, or specific programmatic investments. Those questions require deeper analysis.

But what the chart does do—very clearly—is establish context. It shows that Hoboken is not simply “a little higher” than average. It is a fiscal outlier among districts serving a similar number of students. Any serious conversation about budgets, equity, efficiency, or educational outcomes needs to start from that empirical reality.

Too often, debates about school funding get stuck in abstractions or anecdotes. This figure grounds the discussion in publicly available data and a reasonable comparison group. When a district falls this far outside the typical spending pattern of its peers, it is fair—and necessary—to ask why, what tradeoffs are involved, and what outcomes taxpayers and families are receiving in return.

Good policy begins with clear-eyed description. This chart is a first step in that direction.

SUMMARY: Based on New Jersey Department of Education FY 2024–2025 data, per-pupil spending generally aligns with enrollment size across NJDOE cohort districts, but Hoboken’s spending substantially exceeds that of comparable districts, highlighting a potential resource-allocation imbalance.


* Methodological and Analytic Notes for Readers Who Want More Detail

Several predictable critiques tend to arise when presenting comparative fiscal data, so it is worth being explicit about what this analysis does—and does not—claim.

First, this figure is intentionally a descriptive, not causal, analysis. It does not attempt to explain why Hoboken spends more per pupil, nor does it claim that higher spending necessarily leads to better or worse educational outcomes. The purpose is narrower and more foundational: to establish comparability and deviation. By restricting the comparison to districts within the same NJDOE enrollment cohort, the analysis controls—by design—for one of the strongest structural predictors of district spending: scale.

Second, the use of a simple bivariate scatterplot with an OLS trend line is not a limitation but a choice aligned with the question at hand. Multivariate regression models can and often should be used for explanatory work, but they also obscure magnitude and intuition. Here, the goal is to make visible whether a district’s spending is broadly consistent with what is observed among similarly sized peers. Hoboken’s position well above the fitted line indicates a large positive residual, meaning its per-pupil spending exceeds what enrollment size alone would predict.

Third, concerns about omitted variables—such as student need, special education prevalence, transportation costs, or local wage structures—are valid but incomplete as rebuttals. Those factors may explain some variation, but they do not negate the empirical fact that Hoboken is an outlier within its cohort. Any explanation invoking these factors must therefore demonstrate not merely that they matter, but that they matter enough to account for the size of the observed deviation.

Fourth, this is not a ranking exercise. Rankings compress information and encourage superficial comparisons. Residual-based interpretation, by contrast, asks a more policy-relevant question: Given what we know about peer districts, is this spending level typical, elevated, or exceptional? On that question, the answer for Hoboken is unambiguous.

Finally, descriptive analyses like this are a necessary precursor to normative debate. One cannot meaningfully discuss equity, efficiency, or outcomes without first agreeing on the empirical landscape. This figure establishes that landscape using publicly available NJDOE data and a defensible comparison group. Disagreement should therefore focus not on whether Hoboken is an outlier—it is—but on whether that outlier status is justified, intentional, and delivering commensurate public value.

Finally, This chart below shows NJ school districts by size (enrollment >3500) and spending per student. Most districts fall within a predictable range. Hoboken stands out — spending far more per pupil than similarly sized districts, even after accounting for enrollment. The red dot isn’t a partisan claim; it’s a statistical outlier. So, whether you compare Hoboken to K-12 districts with enrollments between 1801-3500 students or K-12 district with more than 3500 students, Hoboken is a spending outlier.

Click to Enlarge


Thursday, December 18, 2025

Equity or Excuse? Hoboken’s High Tech High Numbers Don’t Add Up


Analysis of High Tech High School enrollment by residence city reveals a persistent and consequential equity patternHoboken is substantially overrepresented in White student enrollment and substantially underrepresented in economically disadvantaged students relative to every other Hudson County community sending students to the school. This pattern has remained stable across multiple years and is not attributable to a one-time cohort effect.

Hoboken students enrolled at High Tech High School are approximately 61% White, a proportion far exceeding that of any other municipality in Hudson County. In contrast, most other sending communities—including Union City, West New York, North Bergen, Guttenberg, and Jersey City—serve student populations that are predominantly Hispanic and/or racially diverse, with White enrollment typically below 30% and often well below that threshold. No other community approaches Hoboken’s level of White representation.

At the same time, Hoboken has a markedly lower Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) participation rate (under 10%), while nearly all other municipalities show substantially higher levels of economic disadvantage, commonly ranging from 35% to over 50%. Several communities have FRL rates four to six times higher than Hoboken’s. This combination—high White enrollment and low economic need—is unique to Hoboken in the dataset.

Importantly, these disparities exist despite an admissions process that is explicitly designed to consider multiple factors beyond test scores, including middle school grades, PSATs, attendance, essays, teacher recommendations, interviews, and portfolios or auditions for specific academies. The district has also articulated a goal of achieving broad county representation and demographic diversity, rather than simply selecting the highest academic performers.

Further, there is no evidence that transportation or logistical barriers disproportionately disadvantage students from other municipalities relative to Hoboken. Nor is the pattern explained by a lack of school options in Hoboken; Hoboken students may come from a wide range of feeder schools, including traditional public, charter, dual-language, and Catholic schools.

Taken together, these findings suggest that structural and pipeline effects—rather than admissions intent—may be shaping outcomes. While the absence of applicant-pool data prevents definitive conclusions about where disparities originate, the consistency and magnitude of the enrollment differences raise legitimate equity concerns. The data suggest that students from more affluent communities with higher concentrations of White families may be better positioned to navigate selective admissions processes, access preparatory opportunities, or receive targeted guidance and encouragement to apply.

From an equity perspective, this pattern warrants careful scrutiny because county-wide selective public schools are often justified as vehicles for opportunity expansion. When enrollment outcomes systematically favor students from already advantaged communities, there is a risk that such schools may inadvertently reproduce existing racial and socioeconomic stratification, even when diversity is an explicit goal.

This does not imply discriminatory intent or flawed admissions criteria. Rather, it signals the need for intentional equity-focused interventions, such as deeper outreach in higher-poverty municipalities, stronger middle-school pipeline supports, transparent monitoring of applicant and admit pools by residence city, and periodic equity audits of admissions outcomes relative to county demographics.


2024-25 Data: NJDOE
Click to Enlarge


High Tech High School (Hudson County)

Percent Enrollment by Residence City

BAYONNE (Total = 90)

  • White: 35 → 38.9%

  • Black: S (<5) → <5.6%

  • Hispanic: 30 → 33.3%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 29 → 32.2%


EAST NEWARK (Total <5)

  • White: S → Not reportable

  • Black: 0 → 0.0%

  • Hispanic: 0 → 0.0%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 0 → 0.0%

Enrollment too small for meaningful percentage interpretation.


GUTTENBERG (Total = 22)

  • White: S → <22.7%

  • Black: 0 → 0.0%

  • Hispanic: 18 → 81.8%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 13 → 59.1%


HARRISON (Total = 18)

  • White: S → <27.8%

  • Black: 0 → 0.0%

  • Hispanic: S → <27.8%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: S → <27.8%


HOBOKEN (Total = 51)

  • White: 31 → 60.8%

  • Black: 0 → 0.0%

  • Hispanic: 12 → 23.5%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: S → <9.8%


JERSEY CITY (Total = 279)

  • White: 64 → 22.9%

  • Black: 31 → 11.1%

  • Hispanic: 80 → 28.7%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 100 → 35.8%


KEARNY (Total = 38)

  • White: 10 → 26.3%

  • Black: S → <13.2%

  • Hispanic: 18 → 47.4%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 15 → 39.5%


NORTH BERGEN (Total = 125)

  • White: 24 → 19.2%

  • Black: S → <4.0%

  • Hispanic: 87 → 69.6%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 66 → 52.8%


SECAUCUS (Total = 59)

  • White: 19 → 32.2%

  • Black: S → <8.5%

  • Hispanic: 16 → 27.1%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: S → <8.5%


UNION CITY (Total = 51)

  • White: S → <9.8%

  • Black: 0 → 0.0%

  • Hispanic: 41 → 80.4%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 25 → 49.0%


WEEHAWKEN (Total = 17)

  • White: S → <29.4%

  • Black: S → <29.4%

  • Hispanic: S → <29.4%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: S → <29.4%


WEST NEW YORK (Total = 39)

  • White: S → <12.8%

  • Black: 0 → 0.0%

  • Hispanic: 30 → 76.9%

  • Free/Reduced Lunch: 19 → 48.7%


Notes for Reporting or Board Use

  • All “< X%” values reflect NJ DOE suppression rules (cells <5).

  • Percentages do not sum to 100% because only selected categories are shown.

  • This format is appropriate for public presentation, equity analyses, and policy briefs.

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

Hoboken School Districts' Cost Per Pupil FY 2025

New Jersey released its 2025 Taxpayers’ Guide to Education Spending to give taxpayers information on their district’s spending and how that spending compares to other districts in the state. The average budgetary cost per pupil for a New Jersey school district in 2024-25 was $21,199, according to the state Department of Education, an increase of $1,913 or 9.9 percent over the 2023-24 school year.

On March 17, 2025, the Board of Education voted to adopt a tentative plan with a local tax levy of $73,888,730 to support a general fund budget for the 2025-2026 school year of $88,411,902.


Hoboken District Enrollment- 2024-2025
NJDOE


Additional Information:

I appreciate your argument on where Hoboken is at the tail of the distribution. It motivated me to look into the date more closely. Here are some additional relevant data.... Teaneck (3656)- $22,409; Lawrence (3670)- $20,299; Chatham (3548)- $18,506; Montville (3484)- $22, 563. ALL are comparable in enrollment size to Hoboken (3531) -$26,335. Some are at the end of the 3500 tale, some are at the beginning of the next enrollment range tail. ALL spend less per student than Hoboken.







Monday, December 1, 2025

Last Minute Voting Information- Hoboken Runoff Election

 Runoff Election Tomorrow 


Registered voters are encouraged to plan ahead for tomorrow’s runoff election in which voters can vote again for Mayor and three at-Large City Council representatives. 

Residents can cast their ballot in person at their polling place between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. or via a Vote-By-Mail ballot if they have received one.  

Polling locations can be found at https://voter.svrs.nj.gov/polling-place-search

Please note, if your polling location is the AJ Demarest school, voting will take place in trailers located on Garden Street between Fourth and Fifth Street.

The free Hop shuttle service will continue to operate typical routes, as road conditions allow, for voters who need assistance to get to their polling place. Track the Hop online by clicking here: Passio GO

For questions about your polling place, contact the Hudson County Board of Elections at boardofelections@hcnj.us or call (201) 369-3435

If a voter received a VBM ballot, there are three ways to submit a completed VBM ballot:

  • MAIL: Voters can return their VBM ballot by placing it in the nearest mailbox using the U.S. Postal Service. The ballot must be postmarked on or before Dec. 2 and received by the Hudson County Board of Elections. 
  • SECURE DROP BOX: There are also three secure ballot drop box locations in Hoboken where voters can drop off their VBM ballot; one at Hoboken City Hall at 94 Washington St. on Newark Street, one at the Stevens Gateway Building at Hudson Street and Sixth Street, and a drop box at Monroe Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets. Voters must submit their VBM ballot in a secure drop box on or before 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 2. 
  • AT THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Voters can also return their mail-in ballot in person to the Hudson County Board of Elections Office by 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 2. The Hudson County Board of Elections Office is located at Hudson County Plaza, 257 Cornelison Avenue, 4th Floor, Jersey City, NJ 07302NOTE: VBM ballots CANNOT be returned to ANY polling place.  


Voters can track the progress of their ballot by signing into their personal New Jersey Voter Registration System account at https://voter.svrs.nj.gov/auth/sign-up.  

For those having difficulty creating a profile, or for questions regarding VBM ballots, contact the Hudson County Clerk's Election Division at countyclerk@hcnj.gov or call (201) 369-3470 option 6.