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 224 students in 2024-25 and 225 students in 2025-26 — 1 more students.
See enrollment evidence →The chronic-absence rate was 9.4% in 2015-16 and 11.3% in 2018-19 — 1.9 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 225 students in pre-K only. That is 82 fewer than in 1998-99 (307) — the school has shrunk. 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.
The largest group in both 1998-99 and 2025-26 was White students — 98% then, 84% 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 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, 30.7% 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 lines show the district overall and Warren H. Wolf Early Childhood Development Center, 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 2018-19, 11.3% of students were chronically absent — missing at least 10% of school days — up from 9.4% in 2015-16.
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 line shows the district overall, for comparison. 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.
2016-17 – 2018-19 · the ESSA record
New Jersey has published a summative rating for Herbertsville Early Childhood Development Center in three school years under ESSA. The rating is a percentile inside a group of schools NJDOE considers comparable — where the school placed among them, not a score and not a grade.
NJDOE weighted the indicators the same way for elementary and middle schools in every one of these editions, 2016-17 to 2018-19, so these three ratings may be read as one line.
Higher is further up: the line is the share of similar New Jersey schools this school placed above, in each year NJDOE ranked it. The axis runs the full 0 to 100 because a percentile’s whole range is real. This is a position, not a level. Every number NJDOE puts into the rating is itself a ranking against that year’s other schools — each indicator score is a percentile before it is weighted — so a year in which every school in the state improved would look exactly like a year in which none did. What the line can show is where this school sat among its contemporaries; what it cannot show is whether the contemporaries moved. The summative score behind each point is in the table below. Where the line stops and starts again, the state changed the calculation and the two stretches are not comparable; where the panel is shaded, nothing was calculated at all.
The long numbers are NJDOE’s own. It rounded the summative score in the 2016-17 preliminary edition, stopped rounding for the 2016-17 final through 2018-19, and rounded again from 2021-22 on. This page prints what each edition printed and shortens nothing.
| School year | Percentile in group | Summative score | NJDOE’s group | Identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-19 | 44.6162998215348 | 46.808881467268975 | ES/MS | Not an identification year |
| 2017-18 final | 50.23696682464455 | 50.54898614895194 | ES/MS | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
| 2016-17 final | 58.82352941176471 | 55.907750463267625 | ES/MS | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
| NJDOE published 2016-17 twice. The preliminary edition below measures the same school year as the final one above it, with seven indicators instead of eight — Progress toward ELP was, in the state’s January 2018 words, “not yet available”. Every one of the 2,105 summative scores moved between the two. It is one year, not two, and the preliminary edition is comparable with nothing. | ||||
| 2016-17 preliminary | 59.06 | 55.88 | Elementary | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
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 | 53.4%88 scored | Met YES | 59.1%88 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%2 scored | Too few students - | 50%2 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| Black | Too few students - | 50%2 scored | Too few students - | 100%2 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 58.8%17 scored | Too few students - | 47.1%17 scored |
| English Language Learnersrenamed from “Limited English Proficiency” this edition | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 50%4 scored | Too few students - | 50%4 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 21.1%19 scored | Too few students - | 31.6%19 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| White | Met YES | 55.1%80 scored | Met YES | 58.8%80 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 | 55.3%114 scored | Met YES | 46%113 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 100%2 scored | Too few students - | 100%2 scored |
| Black | Too few students - | 33.3%3 scored | Too few students - | 33.3%3 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 54.2%24 scored | Too few students - | 26%23 scored |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 100%2 scored | Too few students - | 100%2 scored |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 5.9%17 scored | Too few students - | 17.6%17 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| White | Met YES | 53.3%105 scored | Met YES | 45.1%104 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 | 59.5%126 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 82 | Met YES | 87.4%126 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 90 |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 100%2 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%2 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 - | 66.7%3 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 66.7%3 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 36.4%11 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 63.7%11 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 100%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%1 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 - | 36%25 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 68%25 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Met YES | 58.3%115 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 83.5 | Met YES | 87.8%115 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 90 |
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 | 66.6%138 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 80 | Met YES | 87.7%138 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 90 |
| 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 - | 100%3 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%3 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 25%4 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 50%4 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 54.2%24 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 70.8%24 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 60%5 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%5 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 - | 39.1%23 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 73.9%23 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| White | Met YES | 67.7%124 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 81.6 | Met YES | 88.7%124 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 90 |
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 | 70.3%128 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 78 | Met YES | 87.5%128 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 90 |
| 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 - | 100%2 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%2 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 25%4 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 25%4 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 52.7%19 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 78.9%19 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 80%5 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%5 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 - | 50%20 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 75%20 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 | Met YES | 70.6%116 scored | Missed its target NOtarget 79.7 | Met YES | 88.8%116 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 90 |
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 →
