In its last year on record, 2019-20, it enrolled 713 students across grades 6–12. That is 393 more than in 2011-12 (320) — the district had grown. Its biggest cohort is grade 9.
Students enrolled in each grade each fall, stacked to the total — so the top edge is total enrollment. Bands run from the lowest grade (light) to the highest (dark); a band that appears or disappears is a grade the school added or dropped. “Other” is students with no grade level (mostly special education), so the bands always sum to total. Source: NJDOE Fall Enrollment.
The largest group in both 2011-12 and 2019-20 was Black students — 40% then, 48% now.
Each group’s share of enrollment over time, or its head count — toggle above. New Jersey expanded race and ethnicity reporting from five to seven categories in 2006-07 (dashed line), so “two or more races” appears only after; Asian here includes Pacific Islander. Source: NJDOE Fall Enrollment.
Between 2015-16 and 2019-20 the makeup of this district shifted noticeably.
The index is half the sum of every group’s change in share, on a 0–100 scale (how it works). It is computed from the same counts as the makeup chart above — source: NJDOE Fall Enrollment. Compare any two years in the explorer →
In 2019-20, 70.7% of students were certified for free or reduced-price lunch.
Share of students certified for free or reduced-price meals, through a household application or an automatic match. The lighter line shows the statewide, for comparison. Some districts serve free meals to every student under the Community Eligibility Provision. Those districts often stop collecting household income forms, so their reported share can run below the number of low-income students they enroll. Source: NJDOE Fall Enrollment.
On October 15, 2019 NJDOE recorded 712 students in this district and 74 of them — 10.39% — had an individualized education program (IEP). That count is public school students only. Across New Jersey, adding up every district in the same file gives 16.66% on the same count.
Public school students only — 2019-20 onwardPublic and non-public together — a wider count of a wider group of children, on its own basis
What this number is not. A classification rate counts the students who had an IEP on one October day. It is not a count of how many students here need special education, and it is not a measure of the services they get. A rate above New Jersey’s can mean a district finds and identifies students that other districts miss, or that it classifies students another district would not; a rate below it can mean either of the opposite two things. This file cannot tell you which, and neither can this page.
Nothing here is evidence about staffing, spending, placement, out-of-district tuition, whether a program is appropriate, or whether the district is in compliance with anything. It is also not the special-education share in a district budget: that is a different count, of a different population, on a different date, and the two must not be subtracted from one another.
Some reporting units in this file are not ordinary districts. State-operated programs, county juvenile detention centers and specialized placements enroll students who were sent to them, which puts their rates far from the statewide figure for structural reasons rather than anything about how a district serves the children who live in it.
| October count | Students counted | With an IEP | Rate | New Jersey |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-20 †public school students only | 712 | 74 | 10.39% | 16.66% |
| 2018-19 †public and non-public students together | Withheld * | Withheld * | Withheld * | 17.30% |
| 2017-18 †public and non-public students together | 752 | 77 | 10.24% | 16.98% |
| 2016-17 †public and non-public students together | 514 | 56 | 10.89% | 16.77% |
| 2015-16 †public and non-public students together | 475 | 61 | 12.84% | 16.50% |
| 2014-15 †public and non-public students together | 534 | 57 | 10.67% | 16.59% |
About the oldest years. Rows marked † were matched to this district by NJDOE's district code, but our record of which districts existed does not reach back before August 2020. A match on those years confirms the code is in use today; it is not evidence that the entity behind it is the same district, and New Jersey has merged, split and regionalised districts across this span.
About the denominator. In most of these editions NJDOE headed the enrollment column General Ed. Enrollment or a variant of it, but the query the department published alongside the file counts every student aged 3 to 21 — students with IEPs included. The published rates only reconcile against that wider reading, so that is the denominator used here. Adding the IEP count back on would deflate every rate in the affected years.
What NJDOE publishes that is not in this workbook. The classification file answers one question — how many students had an IEP — and nothing else. It is not the only special-education file New Jersey publishes, and the others are not statewide-only:
This site does not yet carry those figures. That is a gap in what we have loaded, not a gap in what the state publishes, and the difference matters if you came here looking for them.
Row Lea_classification_Pub.xlsx#Sheet1!329 of NJDOE’s classification-rate workbook. How this data works →
In 2019-20, 77.6% of students graduated within four years — down from 94.9% in 2014-15.
† New Jersey says these years are not comparable with the ones beside them
Graduation assessment requirements were waived for any 12th grade student who was expected to graduate in the class of 2020 but, as of March 18, 2020, had not yet met the graduation assessment requirement. Additionally, the requirement to report on status in meeting annual ESSA targets was waived for 2019-2020. As a result, annual targets and status in meeting those targets are not reported for Cohort 2019 4-year and Cohort 2018 5-year graduation rates (NJDOE uses prior year graduation rates for accountability purposes).NJDOE 2019-20 workbook notes sheet.
Four-year graduation rate — the share of a class that finishes within four years of entering ninth grade (New Jersey’s state calculation). The lighter line shows New Jersey, for comparison. The statewide line starts in 2018-19, because that is the first edition in which NJDOE printed a statewide rate beside each district’s own. Points from 2019-20 and earlier are matched to this district by its state code; New Jersey’s organization record only reaches back to 2020-08-11, so for those years the code is verified and the identity behind it is not. Source: NJ School Performance Reports, 2015-16 through 2024-25.
In 2018-19, 21.9% of students were chronically absent — missing at least 10% of school days — up from 10.3% in 2016-17.
Chronic absenteeism — the share of students who missed 10% or more of the days they were enrolled (roughly 18 days across a full school year). Points from 2018-19 and earlier are matched to this district by its state code; New Jersey’s organization record only reaches back to 2020-08-11, so for those years the code is verified and the identity behind it is not. Source: NJ School Performance Reports, 2015-16 through 2024-25.
New Jersey has published a district suspension figure in eight school years, 2017-18 through 2024-25. It published none before that: the 2015-16 edition has no district workbook at all and the 2016-17 one has no removals sheet in it. This district carries a figure in three of them, and two of those sit inside the part of the record New Jersey says can be compared. The two editions New Jersey excludes from that comparable record are shown here anyway, outside the line, in its own words. This district has no row at all in the 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 files — it is absent from the publication, which is not the same as a year it recorded nothing.
Each point is the share of this district’s own students suspended at least once that school year — one student counted once however many times they were suspended. The dashed line is New Jersey. The line stops at 2018-19 and starts again at 2021-22. The two years in between are drawn as hollow marks inside the shaded band because NJDOE printed, inside both of those workbooks, that their discipline data may not be comparable with the years either side — its words are below. Schools statewide were shut for part of spring 2020 and much of 2020-21, and the fall in those two years is very largely a fall in the number of children in a building, not in what they did. A year with no mark is a year New Jersey did not give this district a number; the table has which kind of not-giving it was.
2019-20, in New Jersey’s own words. Due to school closures in spring 2020, discipline data for the 2019-2020 school year may not be comparable to prior or future school years and NJDOE recommends caution in making comparisons.
NJDOE, sheet “Important 2019-2020 Notes” inside the 2019-20 district and State data file. The sheet is not linked from the download page and nothing in the numbers hints that it exists.
| School year | Share suspended | Students | Where the figure sits in the file |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-18 | 2.7 | 18 | the district’s own row |
| 2018-19 | 12.3 | 90 | the district’s own row |
| 2019-20 | 7.6 | 49 | the district’s own row |
| 2020-21 | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | no row for this district |
| 2021-22 | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | no row for this district |
| 2022-23 | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | no row for this district |
| 2023-24 | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | no row for this district |
| 2024-25 | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | No rowthis district is not in that edition’s file | no row for this district |
Where the figure sits in the file changed in 2023-24. Through 2022-23 the sheet had one row per district and this was that row; from 2023-24 the sheet is one row per student group and this is the group called Districtwide, then All Students. The quantity did not change and no break is drawn there — NJDOE prints it under the same column name, AnySusp_Count, in 2017-18 and again in 2024-25, with one edition in between spelling it #StudentsAnySuspension and then changing back.
| Measure | Editions | Span |
|---|---|---|
| Suspended at least once | three | 2017-18 to 2019-20 |
| In-school suspension | three | 2017-18 to 2019-20 |
| Out-of-school suspension | three | 2017-18 to 2019-20 |
| Removed to another program | three | 2017-18 to 2019-20 |
| Expelled | three | 2017-18 to 2019-20 |
| Involved in an incident leading to arrest | three | 2017-18 to 2019-20 |
| School days missed to out-of-school suspension | three | 2017-18 to 2019-20 |
There is no trend by student group, and this page does not draw one. New Jersey has published suspension broken out by race, sex, income and disability exactly twice — 2023-24 and 2024-25 — and it changed the categories between them. Asian and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander were separate groups in the first year and one merged group in the second; Hispanic became Hispanic/Latino; the district total was called Districtwide and is now All Students. Seven labels came through unchanged. Two points would not be a trend even if all fifteen had, and the two race categories cannot be added back together for the earlier year because either of them may be withheld. The section below shows the current year in full. When New Jersey publishes a third edition on the categories it uses now, this becomes a series and gets a chart; until then it is two years, and they are shown as two years.
The same boundary is why only suspension has a line above it. Students referred to police and students involved in an incident leading to arrest are published by student and by grade only from 2023-24, on sheets that did not exist before — and the arrest sheet names its own columns ArrestedCount in one edition and PoliceCount in the next. An arrest figure does appear on the removals sheet from 2017-18 to 2022-23, but joining it to the later sheet would be this site deciding that two differently-named columns on two different sheets are one measure, which is exactly the decision the publisher declined to make.
On reading one district back to 2017-18. The evidence that a district code names this district begins 2020-08-11. For the editions before that, a code that resolves is a verified code rather than a verified district: it says the number is a current NJDOE organization and says nothing about what that code named in that school year. New Jersey merges and regionalizes districts, so read the early end of this line as the record filed under this code, not as a promise that the same schools were inside it.
These are reported removals — a record of decisions adults made, one row per school year in eight separate publications. A district that suspends less may be behaving differently, recording differently, or reporting differently, and this file cannot tell a reader which. Nothing here is a safety measure or a measure of school quality, and no figure on this page is compared with a figure from any other dataset on it. Assembled from the eight district workbooks, most recently the School Performance Report data files. How this data works →
2016-17 – 2024-25 · the ESSA record
Under ESSA, New Jersey rates schools, not districts. The calculation workbooks publish no district row at all, so there is no ESSA rating for this district to show. What there is: a published rating for individual schools here in every year the state calculated one, from 2016-17 to 2024-25. Each school’s own page carries its record.
| School year | Schools with a published rating |
|---|---|
| 2024-25 | None |
| 2023-24 | None |
| 2022-23 | None |
| 2021-22 | None |
| 2018-19 | 1 |
| 2017-18 | 1 |
| 2016-17 | 1 |
2019-20 and 2020-21 · nothing was calculated
These are not years missing from this record. The federal government waived New Jersey’s ESSA accountability requirements for both of them, and no summative rating exists for any school in the state. In NJDOE’s own words:
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, New Jersey was approved for both a March 2020 waiver and a March 2021 waiver that removed accountability-related requirements under ESSA for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years, respectively. The waived requirements included the: Calculation of indicator scores and summative scores; Measurement of progress toward long-term goals and measures of interim progress for accountability indicators; and Identification of schools for comprehensive and targeted support and improvement based on data from these two school years.
2021-2022 Technical Guide to ESSA Summative Ratings and the Identification of Schools in Need of Support and Improvement, NJDOE April 2023, page 3
Everything below this line is a different instrument. Above, one weighted number and a rank inside a group of similar schools, under ESSA. Below, a pass-or-fail determination the state made about each student group, on tests that no longer exist, under a federal waiver that has since ended. The two regimes meet without a gap — 2015-16 is the last waiver year and 2016-17 the first ESSA one — and there is still no fair comparison between them, so this page does not draw one.
The waiver record. Annual editions between 2012 and 2016, most recent first. Read each band against itself and not against the others — the state changed what it measured, and how, twice inside those five years.
New Jersey’s ESEA Flexibility waiver ended after the 2016 edition, and the archive bundles for 2017 and 2018 return 404 on every build of the source release. That bounds the waiver record; it says nothing about the ESSA record above, which runs from 2016-17 without a break the state did not itself declare.
2015 – 2016 · participation only, on PARCC
New Jersey set no performance target and published no performance determination in these two editions — not for this district, and not for any school in the state. The tests changed to PARCC and the profiles print five columns where the earlier ones print seven, so what the state judged here is test participation and, below it, graduation and attendance. These two years are comparable with each other. Nothing here is a performance verdict, and the missing column is the state’s decision, not a gap in this record. YES* means something else here than it did through 2014. With no performance column to sit in, it appears in the participation column and marks a group whose participation rate was met with participation averaging applied.
| Student group | English Language Arts/Literacy | Mathematics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % meeting standards | Participation | % meeting standards | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 17.3%301 scored | Met YES | 10%309 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 30.7%26 scored | Too few students - | 26.9%26 scored |
| Black | Met YES | 13.7%102 scored | Met YES | 7.7%105 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 17.3%225 scored | Met YES | 10.1%227 scored |
| English Language Learnersrenamed from “Limited English Proficiency” this edition | Too few students - | 0%5 scored | Too few students - | 0%5 scored |
| Hispanic | Met YES | 16.7%150 scored | Met YES | 8.4%155 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 0%35 scored | Too few students - | 0%38 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| White | Too few students - | 19%21 scored | Too few students - | 14.3%21 scored |
| Student group | 2015 four-year cohort, ≥81% | 2014 five-year cohort, ≥85% | Graduation-rate indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Black | Too few students - | — | Too few students - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | — | — |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | — | — |
Attendance, grades 3 through 8. New Jersey asked whether this district’s 2015 attendance rate reached 90%, once for the whole district and not by student group. It met it — the page prints YES, Met.
| Student group | English Language Arts | Mathematics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % meeting standards | Participation | % meeting standards | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 25.4%304 scored | Met YES | 19.3%295 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 61.1%36 scored | Too few students - | 58.1%31 scored |
| Black | Met YES | 17.8%118 scored | Met YES | 12%117 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 21.3%211 scored | Met YES | 15.5%200 scored |
| Hispanic | Met YES | 21.8%110 scored | Met YES | 19.6%107 scored |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%2 scored | Too few students - | 0%2 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Met YES | 3.1%32 scored | Met YES | 0%33 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| White | Met YES | 25.6%39 scored | Met YES | 10.3%39 scored |
| Student group | 2014 four-year cohort, ≥78% | 2013 five-year cohort, ≥85% | Graduation-rate indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Too few students - | — | — |
| Asian | Too few students - | — | Too few students - |
| Black | Too few students - | — | Too few students - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | — | — |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | — | — |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | — | — |
| White | Too few students - | — | — |
Attendance, grades 3 through 8. New Jersey asked whether this district’s 2014 attendance rate reached 90%, once for the whole district and not by student group. It met it — the page prints YES, Met.
The regime changes here. Above this line the state judged participation alone; below it, participation and performance against an individually set target, on a different test. A determination on one side of this line cannot be compared with one on the other, so nothing on this page draws a line through it.
2012 – 2014 · progress targets, on NJASK and HSPA
Each group large enough to score was measured against a progress target set for it individually, on NJASK and HSPA. These three years are comparable with each other. Most cells are empty by design — a group below the state’s minimum size got no determination at all. YES* never means the target was met. In these editions it marks a group that missed the printed target and was credited inside a 95% confidence interval, and it appears in the performance column.
| Student group | English Language Arts | Mathematics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % proficient | Performance | Participation | % proficient | Performance | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 50.8%122 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 55.6 | Met YES | 51.6%122 scored | Met its target YEStarget 47.5 |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Asian | Too few students - | 79.3%29 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 93.1%29 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Met YES | 42.3%45 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 47.6 | Met YES | 26.7%45 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 33.6 |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 51.3%119 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 53 | Met YES | 53%119 scored | Met its target YEStarget 38.6 |
| Hispanic | Met YES | 46.6%30 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 55.7 | Met YES | 50%30 scored | Met its target YEStarget 44.5 |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 28.6%14 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 7.1%14 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Too few students - | 29.4%17 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 47.1%17 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Student group | 2013 four-year cohort, ≥78% | 2012 five-year cohort, ≥85% | Graduation-rate indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Too few students - | — | — |
| Black | Too few students - | — | Too few students - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | — | — |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | — | — |
Attendance, grades 3 through 8. New Jersey asked whether this district’s 2013 attendance rate reached 90%, once for the whole district and not by student group. It met it — the page prints YES, Met.
| Student group | English Language Arts | Mathematics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % proficient | Performance | Participation | % proficient | Performance | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 46.8%141 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 51.2 | Met YES | 36.9%141 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 42.2 |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Asian | Met YES | 67.8%28 scored | Too few students to determine - | Met YES | 75%28 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Met YES | 37%54 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 42.3 | Met YES | 20.4%54 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 27 |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 43.6%87 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 48.3 | Met YES | 26.4%87 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 32.5 |
| Hispanic | Met YES | 46.7%45 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 51.2 | Met YES | 33.3%45 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 38.9 |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 23.1%13 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%13 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Too few students - | 38.5%13 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 38.5%13 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Student group | 2012 four-year graduation rate |
|---|---|
| Schoolwide | — |
| American Indian | — |
| Asian | — |
| Black | — |
| Economically Disadvantaged | — |
| Hispanic | — |
| Limited English Proficiency | — |
| Students with Disabilities | — |
| Two or More Races | — |
| White | — |
These are the rates the state printed, not determinations: this edition’s district profiles carry no YES or NO on graduation. Printed beside the block: “5yr Cohort Grad rate and Attendance rate will be included in Final District Profiles.” No final 2013 district profile was ever published.
| Student group | Language Arts Literacy | Mathematics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % proficient | Performance | Participation | % proficient | Performance | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Asian | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Hispanic | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Met YES | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
The waiver determinations are what New Jersey printed on this district’s annual ESEA accountability profile, kept exactly as printed and corrected from nothing. Each edition’s glyphs are read against that edition’s own legend, because the same asterisk means different things in different years. Editions this district does not appear in are simply absent here; no year is inferred from its neighbours. Source: NJDOE’s Title I accountability archive, 2012–2016.
How the ESSA record works → · How the 2012–2016 waiver record works →
The district’s 1 schools on record. Open any for its full profile.
Every school the district has reported, with its grade span and its most recent fall head count; a school with no current-year count is shown as closed after its last one. Source: NJDOE Fall Enrollment.
Profile built from New Jersey Department of Education Fall Enrollment data, 1998-99 through 2025-26. How this data works →