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 760 students in 2024-25 and 760 students in 2025-26 — the same count in both years.
See enrollment evidence →The four-year graduation rate was 95.0% in 2012-13 and 97.9% in 2024-25 — 2.9 percentage points higher. This profile does not include the cohort count; percentage-point movement can be volatile for smaller graduating cohorts.
See graduation evidence →The chronic-absence rate was 0.5% in 2015-16 and 11.9% in 2024-25 — 11.4 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 760 students across grades 9–12. That is 224 more than in 1998-99 (536) — the school has grown. It peaked at 876 in 2018-19. Its biggest cohort is grade 12.
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 — 85% then, 69% 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, 13.9% 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 district overall, 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 the NJSLA — New Jersey’s state test — here is how students have scored over recent years and by grade. (New Jersey reports student-growth scores only through grade 8, so they are not available for high schools.)
English language arts: 76.7% met or exceeded expectations in 2024-25 (state 53%), up from 73% in 2021-22.
| School year | Met or exceeded | Valid scores | Test participation | NJ statewide |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | 73.0% | 185 | 99.5% | 49.0% |
| 2022-23 | 64.6% | 178 | 90.9% | 51.3% |
| 2023-24 | 74.3% | 183 | 96.3% | 52.2% |
| 2024-25 | 76.7% | 163 | 87.3% | 53.0% |
Source: NJDOE 2024-25 school-detail workbook (330 MB). How this data works →
By grade, year to year
Each panel is one grade — watch its mix of levels shift across 2021–2024.
Math: 55.2% met or exceeded expectations in 2024-25 (state 42%), down from 61.8% in 2021-22.
| School year | Met or exceeded | Valid scores | Test participation | NJ statewide |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | 61.8% | 186 | 95.0% | 36.0% |
| 2022-23 | 58.0% | 174 | 85.6% | 38.2% |
| 2023-24 | 42.8% | 180 | 94.8% | 40.2% |
| 2024-25 | 55.2% | 163 | 85.4% | 42.0% |
Source: NJDOE 2024-25 school-detail workbook (330 MB). How this data works →
By grade, year to year
Each panel is one grade — watch its mix of levels shift across 2021–2024.
In each panel the flat line is the proficiency boundary: levels 4–5 (met or exceeded) fill the area above it, levels 1–3 below — so a smaller reported share in levels 4–5 makes the area above the line shrink (it isn’t a misleading upward slope). Light = level 1 (did not yet meet expectations), dark = level 5 (exceeded); the % marks the proficient share at the first and last points. The first set of panels follows each grade across the years; the second lines up aggregate grade results one grade higher each year. It approximates a class cohort, not linked individual students. Growth is the median Student Growth Percentile (50 = a typical year), reported only through grade 8. The NJSLA was not given in spring 2020 and was disrupted the next year. Source: NJ School Performance Reports.
In 2024-25, 97.9% of students graduated within four years — up from 95% in 2012-13.
† 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.
Graduation assessment requirements were waived for any 12th grade student who had not yet met the graduation assessment requirements, but had met all credit, curriculum, and attendance requirements for graduation. Additionally, the requirement to report on status in meeting annual ESSA targets was waived for 2020-2021. As a result, annual targets and status in meeting those targets are not reported for Cohort 2020 4-year and Cohort 2019 5-year graduation rates.NJDOE 2020-21 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. New Jersey also reports a federal four-year rate (96.3% for 2024-25); the two use slightly different cohort rules. The record runs from 2012-13 to 2024-25, assembled from ten annual workbooks: the current one publishes five graduating classes, and the nine before it publish the rest. The figures for 2012-13 and 2013-14 are printed to the whole percent: that is how the 2015-16 workbook published them, and it is the only edition that does. The statewide line starts in 2018-19, because that is the first edition in which NJDOE printed a statewide rate beside each school’s own. Points from 2017-18 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.
In 2024-25, 11.9% of students were chronically absent — missing at least 10% of school days — up from 0.5% 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.
2016-17 – 2024-25 · the ESSA record
New Jersey has published a summative rating for Madison High School in seven 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.
This school’s record does not read as one series. New Jersey changed how the rating is built partway through, so it divides into two stretches — 2016-17 to 2023-24 and 2024-25. Years inside one stretch may be compared with each other; across a break there is no fair comparison, and this page draws none. What changed at each break is printed at the break.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | 77.9 | 71.07 | High | Not an identification year |
| The calculation changes here. NJDOE reweighted the high-school composite for 2024-25: proficiency fell from 17.5% to 15% in each subject, the five-year graduation rate from 25% to 10%, a six-year rate entered at 10%, and chronic absenteeism fell from 15% to 10%. Nothing above this line can be compared with anything below it. | ||||
| 2023-24 | 64.82 | 61.34 | High | Not an identification year |
| 2022-23 | 79.17 | 71.13 | High | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
| 2021-22 | 80.56 | 74.05 | High | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
| 2020-21 | No summative rating was calculated for any school in New Jersey. | |||
| 2019-20 | No summative rating was calculated for any school in New Jersey. | |||
| 2018-19 | 81.97183098591549 | 76.41037726172982 | High | Not an identification year |
| 2017-18 final | 90.54441260744986 | 84.05040674505156 | High | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
| 2016-17 final | 84.78873239436619 | 77.44162924120482 | High | 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 | 85.92 | 77.44 | High | No comprehensive or targeted status published for this school |
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
Inside 2024-25 · what produced the most recent rating
For 2024-25 New Jersey weighted six indicators to add to 100 and gave this school 71.07 of those 100 points. It then ranked that total against the 363 New Jersey schools it grouped as High for the year, which puts this school above 77.9% of them. That ranking is a place in a line-up of similar schools, not a grade and not a status.
Each bar’s light track is the points that indicator was worth at this school; the filled part is the points it earned. NJDOE converts each result into a 0–100 indicator score — built from the standardised results of each student group large enough to report, not from the school-wide number alone — then multiplies that score by the weight. The tracks add to 100 and the filled bars add to the summative score, within the publisher’s own rounding.
| Indicator | Result | Indicator score | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELA proficiencystudents who met or exceeded expectations on the state ELA test | 70.3% | 85.16 | 17.5% | 14.90 |
| Math proficiencystudents who met or exceeded expectations on the state math test | 49.6% | 78.96 | 17.5% | 13.82 |
| Four-year graduation ratestudents graduating within four years of entering ninth grade | 97.8% | 86.32 | 25% | 21.58 |
| Five-year graduation ratestudents graduating within five years | 96.7% | 68.19 | 12.5% | 8.52 |
| Six-year graduation ratestudents graduating within six years | 92.6% | 61.89 | 12.5% | 7.74 |
| High school persistenceNJDOE’s published high school persistence rate | 98.1% | 60.19 | 0% | 0.00 |
| 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 | 88.1% | 30.03 | 15% | 4.50 |
High school persistence is calculated for this school and given a weight of zero, so it adds nothing to the score. NJDOE published no result for Progress toward English proficiency. Below the state’s minimum group size nothing is reported at all, and an indicator with no result carries no weight — the remaining indicators were rescaled to add to 100 without it. ELA growth, Math growth are not part of the calculation for a school NJDOE groups as High.
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!1503: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 | Missed NO | 61.9%286 scored | Missed NO | 51.6%248 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 71.4%28 scored | Too few students - | 64%25 scored |
| Black | Too few students - | 37.5%8 scored | Too few students - | 33.3%6 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 31.8%22 scored | Too few students - | 31.3%16 scored |
| English Language Learnersrenamed from “Limited English Proficiency” this edition | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students - | 100%1 scored |
| Hispanic | Missed NO | 30%30 scored | Too few students - | 36.4%22 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Missed NO | 18.4%49 scored | Missed NO | 14.8%27 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| White | Missed NO | 66.2%219 scored | Missed NO | 52.3%195 scored |
| Student group | 2015 four-year cohort, ≥81% | 2014 five-year cohort, ≥85% | Graduation-rate indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | — | — |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | — | — |
| White | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Student group | English Language Arts | Mathematics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % meeting standards | Participation | % meeting standards | |
| Schoolwide | Missed NO | 53.8%264 scored | Missed NO | 44.6%242 scored |
| American Indian | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| Asian | Too few students - | 83.4%24 scored | Too few students - | 78.3%23 scored |
| Black | Too few students - | 0%3 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 0%10 scored | Too few students - | 0%8 scored |
| Hispanic | Missed NO | 25%24 scored | Missed NO | 9.6%21 scored |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students - | 0%1 scored |
| Students with Disabilities | Missed NO | 17.5%40 scored | Missed NO | 16%25 scored |
| Two or More Races | Too few students - | 0%0 scored | Too few students - | 0%0 scored |
| White | Missed NO | 54.5%213 scored | Missed NO | 44.7%197 scored |
| Student group | 2014 four-year cohort, ≥78% | 2013 five-year cohort, ≥85% | Graduation-rate indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | — | — |
| White | Met YES | — | Met YES |
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 | 98.6%215 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 | Met YES | 95.3%215 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 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%21 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 95.2%21 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 100%5 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%5 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 100%11 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 100%11 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 100%9 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 88.9%9 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 - | 91.9%37 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 83.4 | Too few students - | 78.4%37 scored | Met its target YEStarget 54.4 |
| 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 | Met YES | 98.3%178 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 | Met YES | 95.5%178 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 |
| Student group | 2013 four-year cohort, ≥78% | 2012 five-year cohort, ≥85% | Graduation-rate indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | — | — |
| White | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Student group | English Language Arts | Mathematics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % proficient | Performance | Participation | % proficient | Performance | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 98.9%169 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 | Met YES | 95.3%169 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 |
| 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 | Too few students - | 100%15 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 93.3%15 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 100%8 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 87.5%8 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 100%12 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 91.6%12 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 87.5%8 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 87.5%8 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Limited English Proficiency | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 0%1 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Students with Disabilities | Too few students - | 91.7%24 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 70.9%24 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 | 99.3%138 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 | Met YES | 96.4%138 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 |
| Student group | 2012 four-year cohort, ≥75% | 2011 five-year cohort, ≥85% | Graduation-rate indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| White | Met YES | — | Met YES |
| Student group | Language Arts Literacy | Mathematics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | % proficient | Performance | Participation | % proficient | Performance | |
| Schoolwide | Met YES | 97%198 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 | Met YES | 89.4%199 scored | Missed its target, credited within a 95% confidence interval YES*target 90 |
| 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 | Too few students - | 100%11 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 91.7%12 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Black | Too few students - | 100%7 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 85.7%7 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Economically Disadvantaged | Too few students - | 92.3%26 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 65.3%26 scored | Too few students to determine - |
| Hispanic | Too few students - | 95.6%23 scored | Too few students to determine - | Too few students - | 69.6%23 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 - | 80%30 scored | Large enough to score, but no target was ever set -- | Too few students - | 45.2%31 scored | Large enough to score, but no target was ever set -- |
| 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 | 96.8%157 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 | Met YES | 92.4%157 scored | At or above the statewide 90% goal MET GOALtarget 90 |
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 →
