At a glance
These measures follow the same rule on every school page, not a ranking of this school’s biggest changes. Each row names its evidence dates; trend rows do not describe every year in between.
Fall enrollment was 413 students in 2024-25 and 395 students in 2025-26 — 18 fewer students.
See enrollment evidence →The chronic-absence rate was 10.0% in 2015-16 and 21.2% in 2024-25 — 11.2 percentage points higher.
See attendance evidence →These are descriptive measures from statewide NJDOE datasets, not a quality rating or an explanation of cause. Proficiency, attendance, and graduation figures use All Students; subgroup patterns may differ.
In 2025-26 it enrolled 395 students across grades PK–2. That is 33 fewer than in 1998-99 (428) — the school has shrunk. It peaked at 484 in 2004-05. Its biggest cohort is pre-K.
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.
In 1998-99, 57% of students were White. By 2025-26 the largest group was Hispanic, at 42%.
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 2021-22 and 2025-26 the makeup of this school 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 2025-26, 60% 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 lines show the district overall and Elizabeth F. Moore School, 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.
In 2024-25, 21.2% of students were chronically absent — missing at least 10% of school days — up from 10% in 2015-16.
† New Jersey says these years are not comparable with the ones beside them
The requirement to report status in meeting annual ESSA targets for 2020-2021 was waived. As a result, NJDOE will not report state averages and whether state averages were met for 2020-2021. Additionally, because the number of days students spent in in-person and remote learning environments during the school year differed, the NJDOE recommends caution in comparing 2020-2021 attendance data between schools and districts and to prior or future school years.NJDOE 2020-21 workbook notes sheet.
2019-20 is blank because New Jersey collected no attendance data that year, not because nobody was absent. The requirement to report on chronic absenteeism and related accountability measures for the 2019-2020 school year was waived. As a result, NJDOE will not report on chronic absenteeism and other attendance data for 2019-2020. Tables showing attendance data will be hidden in the 2019-2020 reports.
NJDOE 2019-20 workbook notes sheet.
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). The lighter lines show the district overall and New Jersey, for comparison. The current workbook publishes four years of this measure; the years before them come from each earlier year’s own workbook, which publish the same figures wherever the two overlap. The statewide line starts in 2021-22, because that is the first edition in which NJDOE printed a statewide rate beside each school’s own. Points from 2018-19 and earlier are matched to this school 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.
2021-22 – 2024-25 · the ESSA record
New Jersey’s ESSA calculation workbooks carry a row for Charles F. Seabrook School, but no summative rating in any of them. What the workbooks did publish about it is below.
The workbook rows here, 2021-22 to 2024-25, carry no rating at all.
| School year | Percentile in group | Summative score | NJDOE’s group | Identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Not ranked this year | — | Elementary | Not an identification year |
| 2023-24 | Not ranked this year | — | Elementary | Not an identification year |
| 2022-23 | Not ranked this year | — | Elementary | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
| 2021-22 | Not ranked this year | — | Elementary | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
Inside 2024-25 · what produced the most recent rating
New Jersey did not publish a summative score for this school for 2024-25. Its row in the calculation workbook is marked N/A - Not an Identification Year, and the score, the percentile and every indicator weight are blank. The indicator results the workbook did publish are below; none of them was scored or ranked.
| Indicator | Result | Indicator score | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELA proficiencystudents who met or exceeded expectations on the state ELA test | Not published | — | — | — |
| Math proficiencystudents who met or exceeded expectations on the state math test | Not published | — | — | — |
| ELA growththe school’s median student growth percentile in ELA | Not published | — | — | — |
| Math growththe school’s median student growth percentile in math | Not published | — | — | — |
| Progress toward English proficiencyNJDOE’s published Progress Toward ELP rate, for English learners | Not published | — | — | — |
| Students not chronically absentstudents who were not chronically absent — 100 minus the chronic-absenteeism rate, so a higher number is better | 78.8% | 12.02 | — | — |
Four-year graduation rate, Five-year graduation rate, Six-year graduation rate, High school persistence are not part of the calculation for a school NJDOE groups as Elementary.
NJDOE’s Targeted Summary published no student-group flag for this school for 2026-27.
These are policy-defined values: which indicators count, and how much each counts, is set by New Jersey’s ESSA plan, not by any measure of school quality. The weights are specific to this school — an indicator that drops out shifts weight onto the rest, so the same indicator is worth different points at different schools. The workbooks measure 2024-25 and were published on April 2, 2026; 2024-25 was not a year New Jersey identified schools for comprehensive or targeted support, so these files carry no CSI or ATSI status. These weights are 2024-25’s: the indicator set and the weighting have both moved across the eight editions above, and for some school types they moved in this one. Row 2024_25_Accountability_Workbook_File_Comprehensive_Support_and_Improvement.xlsx#Summative!2262:AU of the workbook, and the method in NJDOE’s accountability technical guide.
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 school, 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 | 22.5%71 scored | Met YES | 25.3%71 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students - | 100%1 scored |
| Black | Too few students - | 13.3%15 scored | Too few students - | 6.7%15 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 16.7%36 scored | Met YES | 16.7%36 scored |
| English Language Learnersrenamed from “Limited English Proficiency” this edition | Too few students - | 0%5 scored | Too few students - | 0%5 scored |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 17.6%17 scored | Too few students - | 17.7%17 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 5.3%19 scored | Too few students - | 15.8%19 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%2 scored | Too few students - | 50%2 scored |
| White | Too few students - | 30.6%36 scored | Too few students - | 33.4%36 scored |
Attendance, grades 3 through 8. New Jersey asked whether this school’s 2015 attendance rate reached 90%, once for the whole school 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 | 19.3%88 scored | Met YES | 18.1%88 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 0%2 scored | Too few students - | 0%2 scored |
| Black | Too few students - | 11.1%18 scored | Too few students - | 16.7%18 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 12.2%49 scored | Met YES | 6.1%49 scored |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 17.6%17 scored | Too few students - | 5.9%17 scored |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 8.3%12 scored | Too few students - | 0%12 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 17.6%17 scored | Too few students - | 23.5%17 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 25%4 scored | Too few students - | 25%4 scored |
| White | Met YES | 23.9%46 scored | Met YES | 23.9%46 scored |
Attendance, grades 3 through 8. New Jersey asked whether this school’s 2014 attendance rate reached 90%, once for the whole school 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 | 28.6%70 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 54.4 | Met YES | 47.2%70 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 64.1 |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Asian | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 12.5%16 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 25%16 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 14.6%41 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 46.6 | Met YES | 24.4%41 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 46.6 |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 17.6%17 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 29.4%17 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%2 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 50%2 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 9.5%21 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 38.1%21 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Too few students - | 40%35 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 71.6 | Too few students - | 62.9%35 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 69.4 |
Attendance, grades 3 through 8. New Jersey asked whether this school’s 2013 attendance rate reached 90%, once for the whole school 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 | 43.5%92 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 49.3 | Met YES | 57.6%92 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 60.1 |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Asian | Too few students - | 50%2 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%2 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 12.5%8 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%8 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 24.4%41 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 40.7 | Met YES | 26.8%41 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 40.7 |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 33.3%18 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 33.4%18 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 14.3%7 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 28.6%7 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 52.2%23 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 60.9%23 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 28.6%7 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 42.9%7 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Met YES | 53.6%56 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 68.7 | Met YES | 78.6%56 scored | Met its target YEStarget 66.3 |
Attendance, grades 3 through 8. New Jersey asked whether this school’s 2012 attendance rate reached 90%, once for the whole school and not by student group. It met it — the page prints YES, Met.
| Student group | Language Arts Literacy | Mathematics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % proficient | Performance | Participation | % proficient | Performance | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 46.2%78 scored | Met its target YEStarget 44.2 | Met YES | 52.6%78 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 56.1 |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Asian | Too few students - | 75%4 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%4 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 17.6%17 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 29.4%17 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Met YES | 26.7%45 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 34.8 | Met YES | 37.8%45 scored | Met its target YEStarget 34.8 |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 25%12 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 16.6%12 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 16.7%6 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 16.7%6 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 13.3%15 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 20%15 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 33.3%6 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 83.4%6 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Too few students - | 65.8%38 scored | Large enough to score, but no target was ever set -- | Too few students - | 63.2%38 scored | Large enough to score, but no target was ever set -- |
On this page NJDOE printed a determination token that appears in no legend it published in two places. Those cells are shown exactly as published and are corrected from nothing.
The waiver determinations are what New Jersey printed on this school’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 school 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 →
Profile built from New Jersey Department of Education Fall Enrollment data, 1998-99 through 2025-26. How this data works →
