Just when you thought it was safe... he's ba-a-a-a-ack...
The Texas Truth Twister from the University of Texas at Austin, "Dr." Anthony Petrosino, is back for his annual Hoboken haunting. It's that time again; time to sow his crapademic blog with alternative facts that if believed demoralize our children and teachers, and discourage Hoboken parents from enrolling their kids in district schools.
This year, expect Petro to help elect his old pal, Peter Biancamano and savage Hoboken Proud.
Yep. "Dr." Petrosino has been doing the same old, same old, every School Board election cycle since the Kids First majority of the Hoboken BoE canned him 8 years ago.
In response, GA has no choice but to debunk his blog-excretions lest they stink up the atmosphere. (Search this blog with keywords: "Petro" or "Petrosino" or "QSACs" or "Crapademic")
But, here we go again.
Every year at election time, Petrosino OPRAs the district's QSAC scores, then, before he posts the letter, he redacts 4 out of 5 scores leaving the low score (Instruction & Program) which he flogs as a "FAIL."
A source familiar with the Hoboken school district explained what QSAC scores mean.
"NJ QSAC is a once-every-three-year review of district performance. People from the county superintendent’s office visit each district and go over a ton of documentation and data. They don’t evaluate anything subjectively; instead, they look at objective data. It’s mostly about compliance — things that the state requires districts to do and maintain. (“Did you do this thing that you’re required to do?” Do you do that other thing?”) If a district can answer “yes,” then it gets a certain amount of points, depending on the weight given to that particular question; a “No” is worth zero points.
A district that scores 80% or above in all DPRs (District Performance Reports in Instruct and Programming, Governance, Fiscal Management, Operations and Personnel) is considered a high-performing district and is good for another three years — no QSAC. However, if a district scores below an 80%, it is subject to interim reviews in those areas until the next QSAC review three years later.
In his Kellyanne Conway-speak — Petrosino calls a 76% a FAIL. Someone without a giant chip on his shoulder would call that 4 points shy of being a high-performing district, Hoboken having scored a 90, a 95 and two 100s in the other areas."
Got that? So, here is what the Texas Twit posted recently:
What didn't Kellyanne Petrosino tell you?
This 76% score for Instruction & Program is 3 years old.
As noted, the QSAC is given once every three years. The Texas Truth Twister is flogging an interim score based upon the last FULL QSAC in 2014. That 76% score will not change until the next full (not interim) QSAC review.
Get it? In order to make the district look bad, he calls a 3 year-old score that's 4 points away from high performing" a "FAIL". Continuing to point to this score in 2017 as a "FAIL" is like basing one’s opinion of a dishonest crapademic college professor on a 3-year-old review.
As my source noted, "The district is stuck with that 76% — and Petrosino’s relentless hammering on that single score — hereinafter. Kind of like how he’s stuck with that 34% from 2008, forevermore."
Oh yes... that "34%" score...
Take a look at the district's QSAC score when Petrosino was Assistant Superintendent in 2008 (and the most current below for comparison):
Are you starting to get the picture?
GA is not going to waste too much time debunking Kellyanne Petrosino's alternative facts this election cycle.
If you read or hear them, just keep in mind that the candidates he's trying hardest to defeat are the ones Hoboken schools need most to continue the climb to excellence. We are almost there.
Repudiate the voices (like Kellyanne's) trying to tear down our schools. Support the candidates who want to take us higher with your vote. Hoboken needs to elect Hoboken Proud- Melanie, Sharyn and Chetali.
On November 7, please vote 5-6-7
As EVERYONE knows, all you EVER need to say about the schools is that Unelectable didn't endorse someone. Actually covering education policy, issues, scoring, what have you is ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY.
ReplyDeleteIn brief, the sole purpose of education coverage is to flog our enemies. You'll notice it is never covered in any other way on the Team GiaFusco Reform Resistance Corporate Website. Not now, not before not ever.
Get with the program.
That nutty Trump site is irrelevant; you won't read anything substantive about the Hoboken district schools over there. The topic is one malevolent former BoE employee who has picked up his annual jihad against Hoboken district schools, and will bash our candidates with alternative facts hoping to change the election outcome. From a blogging perspective it's tedious. But after talking to an activist mom relatively new to the local political scene, it was clear that Petrosino's propagandist election-time shenanigans were unfamiliar to the new generation of education activists. So there you go.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhen we view the entire 2016 QSAC Instruction and Program DPR detailed report we read the following:
ReplyDelete1) 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 ).
Petro,
Delete1) How do "we" view the "entire" QSAC Instruction and Program DPR, when all you will show is one totally- REDACTED page of QSAC scores?
2)Why did you redact the entire page- except for the alleged "FAIL"- which in fact is only 4 points below "high performing" (and 42 points above the QSAC Instruction and Program DPR when YOU ran the district)?
3) How is there a "2016" "detailed QSAC report" when the scores QSAC is reporting are based upon the 2014 "Full QSAC"data?
4) You received no points for meeting the criteria of academic honesty.
Sorry, this blog isn't Hoboken Patch were you can spend all day spamming cooked data, and dishonest drivel under the moniker "Passkey". Open up commenting on your "education blog" so people can rebut your vitriol over there, where it belongs.
Here is the detailed 2016 QSAC DPR evaluation for Instruction and Program:
Deletehttps://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/327974999/Hoboken-Interim-Review-2015-16-Copy#from_embed
There isn't a single date (academic year) on your alleged "2016" DPR detailed report.
DeleteIf in fact is is what you say (hard to believe anything you say), it is not "2016" data, but "interim review" data from the FULL 2014 review.
If you look at item 7.d) you will notice reference to the 2015 HS graduation rate which places this comprehensive review has taking place during the 2015-2016 school year. Final results are generally reported to the district during the summer by the NJDOE-July 2016- in this case.
DeleteMy quick read of that document shows a lot of areas where the BOE has "no score" suggesting it is not reflective of how the BOE will perform when ultimately scored. There is a massive difference b/w not receiving a score and getting scored and failing.
DeleteThe school district is responsible and is scored on every item- its fundamental to the comprehensive nature of the QSAC review process.
Deletewell if it is an interim document then clearly it isn't finalized and a final score will be done later. this too complicated for you professor? if so, might I suggest you take a few remedial classes in basic reading comprehension?
DeleteFace it, you were a bust here in Hoboken, everyone knows it and you just can't stomach the fact that you were a bust. So you have been making a stink since you got tossed out on your ass and just won't go away. Hoboken's school system is far better off without you than it ever was with you. Get used to that factoid b/c it is not changing ever.
When you fail a DPR (below 80) the district must cooperate with yearly interim evaluations by the NJDOE. Scores in Instruction and Program have been below 80 (passing) since 2011.
DeleteHey Petro, stop digging. The District has gone from a 34% QSAC score in 2008 when YOU were Assist Superintendent to 76% (4 points away from 'High Performing") as of the last full QSAC scoring. You can call 80% "passing"- that's your nomenclature. Oh yes, the QSACs were completely revamped in 2015- including scoring methodology. What a surprise you "forgot" to mention that.
DeleteIt is true the initial score on the QSAC DPR for Instruction and Program was a 34 (4/08). It then rose to 54 (8/09), 77 (12/09), and reached 87 (4/10) upon acceptance by the Board of the then new curriculum and incorporation of test scores and graduation percentages under my leadership. By 7/11 the score fell to 69, in 2/13 to 68 and reached a low of 45 on 6/14. Since then scores have risen to 75 (5/15) and 76 (7/16) but haven’t yet matched the 87 under my leadership and the hard work of the district teachers.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr Petrosino, the items you posted include things like that the high school doesn't have a graduation rate of over 90% or over 95% and that it doesn't have 95% or more of its students scoring proficient in math or language arts.
ReplyDeleteThose seem like a pretty high bars. Since you're obviously an expert, can you tell us what percentage of NJ public schools meet that standard? Please include the demographic profile of those schools as compared to Hoboken so we can do an honest and fair comparison.
Without that information, its hard not to agree with GA that you're grasping at some pretty pathetic and misleading straws to unfairly criticize the hoboken district.
Given your position on the HoLa Board, even valid criticisms of a neighbor district by you would be pretty inappropriate. Unfair and misleading criticisms are beyond inappropriate. They are malicious and damaging to the Hoboken community, a community that includes the school on whose Board you serve.
The QSAC criteria is set by the NJDOE. I believe the data to answer your thoughtful questions are public and fairly accessible at the NJDOE website.
DeleteSince the info is readily available, and presumably you know the answers, why don't you just answer the questions since the answers will provide necessary context to understand the information you posted?
DeleteSaying "if you want the info go look it up" makes it seem as if you don't really want to have an honest, thoughtful discussion about what the data really means. That just feeds the perception, whether or not its correct, that you are acting maliciously.
I posted recently how the district compares to other districts in the same DFG (district factor group- "FG"). DFG is a way the NJDOE compares similar districts.
DeleteEvery challenger in the upcoming BOE election needs to be on special alert for those HOLA parents who have moved out of Hoboken, but continue to vote in our school board elections.
ReplyDeleteIt's no secret that Petrosino's bottomless spite toward the BoE is driven by his self-interest, having been terminated from his position there.
ReplyDeleteSuch appears to be the theme of this election on a broader scope. If you look at the Giattino campaign, you'd have to go pretty far out of your way to not recognize it as a posse of bitter, self-serving, disgruntled gadflies - a Spite Brigade, if you will. From Gardiner's indignation over not having been afforded the proper deference in his NHSA application, to Lenz's long-gestating effort to secure an administration in which he has better standing than the current one, to Fallick's lie-infested rationalization for supporting the most anti-rent-control candidate in recent memory just to stick it to those Zimmer Zombies who didn't recognize her for the political juggernaut that she is and instead took her exactly as seriously as she deserves to be taken, to Brice's self-righteous narrative that he suffered slings and arrows for Reform and no one went to bat for him except Tiffanie Fisher and her constituent solicitations on his behalf (Mayor Zimmer testified for him, but her husband rebuffed his financial overtures on ethical grounds, which now makes him a "Shadow" and her a "Puppet" with implications of corruption), to Fisher herself in her pursuit of proper recognition for her self-aggrandized arithematical acumen, to Occhipinti clamoring for a new home, relevance and self-reinvention after burning his bridges literally everywhere else, to Giattino herself in her stated ambition -- to multiple parties -- to become a player in state-level Republican circles (the accusation of Bhalla both injecting partisan politics into the election and using Hoboken as a stepping stone to fuel further ambitions is projection at its most cynical), the Giattino campaign is a veritable grab-bag of personal agendas that have nothing to do with Hoboken. A wholly DisinJenuous campaign with an ugly undercurrent of less-than-subtle bigotry.
Over to the DeFusco camp, you've got the usual Plunder Fest of developers seeking a vessel to reopen Hoboken to the old way of doing business, Capiello-style. You've got the surviving remnants of the Cammarano crew like Belfiore, Raia, Ramos, Gonzalez, Garcia and Dellaquilla, you've got Soares and his bottomless pit of anger, first and foremost out of not being able to profit from his onetime connections to Zimmer as he had hoped (most notoriously through his deeply underhanded antics in connection with the rejected bowling-alley proposal) -- another Who's Who of the Public-Service-for-Self-Service rogues who haven't been getting what they signed up for and want a bigger piece of the action. A campaign fueld by anger, spite, resentment and greed, consisting of the most villainous and treacherous characters in the entire community.
Romano's crew is at least a little more forthright - they like money and power and want to get back into both. Then there's Mello, who learned the hard way that you can't repeatedly refer to female officials as the "c" word and other unacceptable nomenclatures and expect to be in high demand as a running mate. So he took what he could get, which is a shot at retaining prestige and importance if not necessarily the corresponding work load. Once again, a litany of agendas, none of which are Hoboken-public-interest-related.
Taking all of that into account, I invite you to ask yourself, for all the rhetoric of Ravi and his team having some nefarious agenda - what exactly is it that any of them need out of this? Ravi is a partner in a top-notch law firm with a great career ahead of him regardless of whether he wins this election. Jim Doyle is a respected activist with a tremendously admirable career far more exciting and consequential than local-yokel politics. We are lucky to have both of their service, and if they do not win this election, they will, quite frankly, be lucky to free their headspace of our city government and its schoolyard pissing matches. Emily and John, similarly, have plenty going for them and may well dodge a bullet if they don't prevail. And consider this - if the Bhalla team does, in fact, come up short this election, do you think any of them will be lurking here blogging their bitterness and indignation day in day out, the way Petrosino, Soares, Brice and Kurt do? I tend to doubt it. They don't have the same degree of personal upside riding on these elections as the above-mentioned operatives, who fully expect various forms of compensation -- or retribution for unfulfilled compensation expectations -- for their efforts.
ReplyDeletePolitics-for-profit is the name of the game for the Giattino, DeFusco and Romano teams, all of whom are pointing at Bhalla trying to project and deflect their own craven ambitions.
AWESOME POST.
DeleteI think ReformBaseball hit the nail on the head with each of the main Jen characters. She's in 4th place, has no chance of winning, and yet insists on giving this election to Romano or DeFusco. Why? It's all so high school. More about process, inclusion, belonging, and communication, not substance. It's been how many months now and Jen still hasn't been able to show any deep policy differences with Ravi. So then why run, especially when you're in 4th place, consistently? I'd also concur with ReformBaseball's comment on the not so subtle racism piece of the Giattino campaign. I know for a fact, confirmed by two independent sources, that someone in town who has been canvassing has been telling people "Hoboken is not ready for a turbanned Mayor so I am supporting Jen because she has a better chance of winning." Another way the Giattino campaign has been phrasing it at the doors is "well, you know, people are used to voting for people who look like them." Their true colors are showing. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with ReformBaseball on one item, this split isn't going away. Tiffanie, Peter, and Jen will have challengers in 2019 unless they step away. This will carry on for a while until it doesn't. We're looking at a few years of war, especially if we give up the Mayorship and City Council as a result of 4th place Jen's futile, "I don't like Dawn" spite run. And don't get me started on Tiffanie making a mockery of the local Democratic party and thinking she can have it both ways. Not happening, on principle.
That said, quoting ReformBaseball here because I find this so on point:
"Such appears to be the theme of this election on a broader scope. If you look at the Giattino campaign, you'd have to go pretty far out of your way to not recognize it as a posse of bitter, self-serving, disgruntled gadflies - a Spite Brigade, if you will. From Gardiner's indignation over not having been afforded the proper deference in his NHSA application, to Lenz's long-gestating effort to secure an administration in which he has better standing than the current one, to Fallick's lie-infested rationalization for supporting the most anti-rent-control candidate in recent memory just to stick it to those Zimmer Zombies who didn't recognize her for the political juggernaut that she is and instead took her exactly as seriously as she deserves to be taken, to Brice's self-righteous narrative that he suffered slings and arrows for Reform and no one went to bat for him except Tiffanie Fisher and her constituent solicitations on his behalf (Mayor Zimmer testified for him, but her husband rebuffed his financial overtures on ethical grounds, which now makes him a "Shadow" and her a "Puppet" with implications of corruption), to Fisher herself in her pursuit of proper recognition for her self-aggrandized arithematical acumen, to Occhipinti clamoring for a new home, relevance and self-reinvention after burning his bridges literally everywhere else, to Giattino herself in her stated ambition -- to multiple parties -- to become a player in state-level Republican circles (the accusation of Bhalla both injecting partisan politics into the election and using Hoboken as a stepping stone to fuel further ambitions is projection at its most cynical), the Giattino campaign is a veritable grab-bag of personal agendas that have nothing to do with Hoboken. A wholly DisinJenuous campaign with an ugly undercurrent of less-than-subtle bigotry."
Thanks, All Hoboken, much appreciated. Just to clarify, I did not mean to suggest I think the split is going away. Quite the contrary. The "Reform" moniker gets tossed around so freely, and often disingenuously, that I don't think any fully agreed-upon definition has ever emerged. It probably means different things to different people.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Reform is less about a specific set of policy goals or a legislative agenda or mission of ideals. Let's face it, we are something of a motley crew of progressives, libertarians and national-party-agnostic, with widely divergent views on everything from land use to affordable housing to taxation systems to infrastructure and traffic management, from LepreCons to Arts & Music Festivals to bar hours to Pier A Park concerts.
To me, Reform is about one very simple ideal -- our community's right to self-determination through the routing of corruption from our government and political process to the fullest extent possible. Whatever happens from their, I have a general, perhaps naive, trusting sense that it will all work out for the best in the end.
Using the anti-corruption standard as the definition of Reform, I judge that the entire Giattino camp has opted out, and no one from the DeFusco or Romano camps ever really opted in. Some may have worn Reform colors for political expediency at some point or another, but by now they've fully revealed themselves for who they are.
So no, the split isn't going away - in fact, I don't even think of it as a split. I think of it as attrition.