Dear Editor:
I’m a parent of a child at Hola Hoboken, and I’m writing regarding the Hoboken City School District’s lawsuits and maneuvers designed to limit Hola’s ability to expand, and more generally to limit the choices Hoboken parents have for their children’s education.
I’m naturally analytical, so when I heard about this I searched for data with which to draw my own conclusions. I found a rich source of data from the State of New Jersey Department of Education, which keeps detailed records of school performance and demographics for public schools across the state. Detailed reports for Hoboken City School District’s three elementary schools can be found at http://education.state.nj.us/pr/nav.php?c=17;d=2210
According to my calculations pooling data from each school’s report, the 966 students at the Hoboken City School District’s three elementary schools (Calabro, Wallace, and Connors) during the 2012-2013 school year were 71 percent economically disadvantaged, and 25 percent white. (Economically disadvantaged means eligible for free or reduced price meals based on family income.)
The reports also show, and it’s no secret, that the Hoboken City School District’s three elementary schools have fairly poor academic performance compared with the rest of the state, ranging from the 3rd percentile to the 28th percentile, with a weighted average 14th percentile, during the 2012-2013 school year.
This poor performance is tragic for Hoboken’s children, and I hope the board will be held accountable. Assertions some board members make that Hoboken’s charter schools are causing the district’s performance issues by attracting Hoboken’s higher performing students ring hollow. Board members have attempted to associate Hoboken’s charters with “white flight”, and the negative connotations that go along with that term (see http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/24734493/article-BREAKING–Hoboken-school-board-prez-says–City-s-schools-have–white-flight–problem-caused-by-charter-schools–policies-of-Zimmer–Christie).
These comments come despite widespread knowledge of the state-mandated random lottery process used to select students at charters. I suspect some board members’ focus on charters and attempts to associate them with negative stereotypes are intended to shift public attention away from the poor performance at the schools the board is responsible for.
This line of attack reveals a desire to divert public attention, and it also shows an attitude that the non-white and/or economically disadvantaged students are somehow less desirable. That’s not a perspective I would expect would lead to success in schools or districts with significant proportions of non-white and/or economically disadvantaged students.
This is especially evident when considering that neighboring Union City School District has achieved far better academic performance at its elementary schools, all of which have higher proportions of economically disadvantaged students than any of Hoboken’s elementary schools.
Using data from the same source (http://education.state.nj.us/pr/nav.php?c=17;d=5240) about the Union City School District’s eight elementary schools and 6,163 students during the 2012-2013 school year, I found that district’s academic performance ranged from the 13th percentile all the way up to the 94th percentile, with a weighted average 33rd percentile. This with a student body that was 92 percent economically disadvantaged and 2 percent white.
Now that the election is over I hope the board will move away from limiting educational choice and evading accountability, and start allocating its resources towards improving the situation at the schools it is responsible for.
Jonathan Maguire