DOCSLIB.ORG

To See All Maryland Schools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To See All Maryland Schools % Students Econ Original Star New Star LEA Name School School Type % Points Earned Disadvantaged Rating Rating Allegany Flintstone Elementary E 65.0% 40.0% 4 4 Allegany South Penn Elementary E 65.0% 61.2% 4 5 Allegany John Humbird Elementary E 69.7% 77.0% 4 5 Allegany Northeast Elementary E 79.4% 44.8% 5 5 Allegany West Side Elementary E 78.1% 44.9% 5 5 Allegany Cresaptown Elementary E 79.0% 35.2% 5 5 Allegany Bel Air Elementary E 65.7% 37.4% 4 4 Allegany Westernport Elementary E 72.5% 56.1% 4 5 Allegany George's Creek Elementary E 70.2% 56.4% 4 5 Allegany Frost Elementary E 88.8% 19.1% 5 5 Allegany Mt. Savage Elementary E 68.5% 39.7% 4 5 Allegany Beall Elementary E 79.4% 39.5% 5 5 Allegany Cash Valley Elementary E 84.9% 49.3% 5 5 Allegany Parkside Elementary E 79.5% 43.8% 5 5 Anne Arundel Belle Grove Elementary E 39.6% 29.5% 2 2 Anne Arundel Brooklyn Park Elementary E 38.0% 23.9% 2 1 Anne Arundel George T. Cromwell Elementary E 38.8% 19.9% 2 1 Anne Arundel Freetown Elementary E 34.9% 32.4% 2 1 Anne Arundel Glendale Elementary E 45.0% 27.3% 2 2 Anne Arundel Hilltop Elementary E 39.3% 33.3% 2 2 Anne Arundel Linthicum Elementary E 56.7% 10.5% 3 2 Anne Arundel Marley Elementary E 45.6% 25.2% 3 2 Anne Arundel North Glen Elementary E 46.8% 23.6% 3 2 Anne Arundel Oakwood Elementary E 49.1% 17.1% 3 2 Anne Arundel Overlook Elementary E 48.7% 22.1% 3 2 Anne Arundel Park Elementary E 38.5% 35.3% 2 2 Anne Arundel Point Pleasant Elementary E 43.1% 24.0% 2 2 Anne Arundel Quarterfield Elementary E 46.4% 18.2% 3 2 Anne Arundel Richard Henry Lee Elementary E 46.7% 24.4% 3 2 Anne Arundel Woodside Elementary E 43.5% 32.5% 2 2 Anne Arundel Arnold Elementary E 53.7% 4.2% 3 2 Anne Arundel Belvedere Elementary E 53.9% 6.9% 3 2 Anne Arundel Benfield Elementary E 66.3% 1.6% 4 3 Anne Arundel Bodkin Elementary E 54.4% 5.7% 3 2 Anne Arundel Cape St. Claire Elementary E 52.5% 4.7% 3 2 Anne Arundel Folger Mckinsey Elementary E 62.6% 1.6% 4 2 Anne Arundel Fort Smallwood Elementary E 51.6% 7.3% 3 2 Anne Arundel High Point Elementary E 43.7% 20.0% 2 2 Anne Arundel Jacobsville Elementary E 44.1% 12.1% 2 1 Anne Arundel Jones Elementary E 66.9% 2.7% 4 3 Anne Arundel Lake Shore Elementary E 45.8% 7.3% 3 1 Anne Arundel Oak Hill Elementary E 51.5% 4.8% 3 2 Anne Arundel Pasadena Elementary E 63.7% 7.6% 4 3 Anne Arundel Riviera Beach Elementary E 53.9% 23.7% 3 3 Anne Arundel Severna Park Elementary E 58.1% 3.4% 3 2 Anne Arundel Solley Elementary E 46.1% 14.0% 3 2 Anne Arundel Sunset Elementary E 47.7% 15.4% 3 2 Anne Arundel Broadneck Elementary E 55.7% 8.6% 3 2 Anne Arundel Windsor Farm Elementary E 60.5% 8.0% 4 2 Anne Arundel Shipley's Choice Elementary E 65.9% 0.5% 4 3 Anne Arundel Brock Bridge Elementary E 45.4% 14.8% 3 2 Anne Arundel Crofton Elementary E 62.3% 3.5% 4 2 Anne Arundel Crofton Woods Elementary E 61.0% 2.3% 4 2 Anne Arundel Seven Oaks Elementary E 53.5% 12.7% 3 2 Anne Arundel Hebron - Harman Elementary E 45.6% 23.7% 3 2 Anne Arundel Jessup Elementary E 48.0% 12.3% 3 2 Anne Arundel Manor View Elementary E 51.3% 2.2% 3 2 Anne Arundel Maryland City Elementary E 40.2% 13.5% 2 1 Anne Arundel Meade Heights Elementary E 42.4% 26.9% 2 2 Anne Arundel Van Bokkelen Elementary E 37.2% 42.8% 2 2 Anne Arundel Millersville Elementary E 45.3% 6.6% 3 1 Anne Arundel Odenton Elementary E 39.9% 16.5% 2 1 Anne Arundel Pershing Hill Elementary E 54.7% 1.2% 3 2 Anne Arundel Ridgeway Elementary E 54.0% 11.7% 3 2 Anne Arundel Severn Elementary E 46.4% 12.1% 3 2 Anne Arundel South Shore Elementary E 51.0% 7.5% 3 2 Anne Arundel Waugh Chapel Elementary E 58.2% 11.7% 3 2 Anne Arundel Piney Orchard Elementary E 55.6% 5.3% 3 2 Anne Arundel Four Seasons Elementary E 53.9% 5.5% 3 2 Anne Arundel Nantucket Elementary E 48.9% 6.4% 3 1 Anne Arundel Crofton Meadows Elementary E 51.3% 7.0% 3 2 Anne Arundel Glen Burnie Park Elementary E 42.7% 28.2% 2 2 Anne Arundel Southgate Elementary E 44.9% 27.0% 2 2 Anne Arundel Rippling Woods Elementary E 38.9% 29.7% 2 2 Anne Arundel Phoenix Academy E 19.0% 49.7% 1 1 Anne Arundel Annapolis Elementary E 38.5% 45.2% 2 2 Anne Arundel Central Elementary E 52.9% 7.1% 3 2 Anne Arundel Davidsonville Elementary E 55.1% 3.2% 3 2 Anne Arundel Deale Elementary E 51.8% 13.2% 3 2 Anne Arundel Eastport Elementary E 36.8% 49.0% 2 2 Anne Arundel Edgewater Elementary E 56.0% 10.6% 3 2 Anne Arundel Georgetown East Elementary E 42.5% 48.3% 2 3 Anne Arundel Germantown Elementary E 44.6% 24.8% 2 2 Anne Arundel Hillsmere Elementary E 50.8% 23.3% 3 2 Anne Arundel Lothian Elementary E 49.8% 20.1% 3 2 Anne Arundel Mayo Elementary E 52.2% 7.1% 3 2 Anne Arundel Walter S. Mills - Parole Elementary E 40.2% 46.0% 2 2 Anne Arundel Rolling Knolls Elementary E 60.1% 16.6% 4 3 Anne Arundel Shady Side Elementary E 41.0% 9.0% 2 1 Anne Arundel Traceys Elementary E 45.6% 16.8% 3 2 Anne Arundel Tyler Heights Elementary E 40.8% 26.9% 2 2 Anne Arundel West Annapolis Elementary E 65.1% 5.8% 4 3 Anne Arundel Monarch Global Academy PCS Laurel Campus E 46.7% 8.8% 3 1 Anne Arundel Monarch Academy Annapolis ES E 32.0% 33.3% 2 1 Anne Arundel Monarch Academy E 42.8% 9.9% 2 1 Baltimore County Catonsville Elementary E 69.6% 19.6% 4 4 Baltimore County Westchester Elementary E 80.6% 10.5% 5 5 Baltimore County Westowne Elementary E 62.1% 24.5% 4 4 Baltimore County Edmondson Heights Elementary E 63.3% 32.1% 4 4 Baltimore County Johnnycake Elementary E 56.7% 33.6% 3 3 Baltimore County Dogwood Elementary E 59.4% 28.1% 3 3 Baltimore County Chadwick Elementary E 70.2% 25.4% 4 4 Baltimore County Hillcrest Elementary E 74.9% 11.7% 4 4 Baltimore County Woodbridge Elementary E 67.8% 26.5% 4 4 Baltimore County Randallstown Elementary E 65.5% 33.7% 4 4 Baltimore County Featherbed Lane Elementary E 57.3% 30.1% 3 3 Baltimore County Woodmoor Elementary E 58.1% 32.0% 3 4 Baltimore County Scotts Branch Elementary E 59.5% 34.4% 3 4 Baltimore County Church Lane Elementary Technology E 62.1% 26.4% 4 4 Baltimore County Hebbville Elementary E 63.1% 30.9% 4 4 Baltimore County Powhatan Elementary E 60.5% 26.0% 4 3 Baltimore County Winfield Elementary E 57.0% 30.7% 3 3 Baltimore County Winand Elementary E 60.5% 27.2% 4 4 Baltimore County Hernwood Elementary E 50.8% 32.8% 3 3 Baltimore County Deer Park Elementary E 63.9% 28.4% 4 4 Baltimore County New Town Elementary E 69.2% 16.9% 4 4 Baltimore County Bedford Elementary E 70.5% 30.5% 4 5 Baltimore County Wellwood International Elementary E 66.3% 17.7% 4 4 Baltimore County Milbrook Elementary E 58.8% 23.1% 3 3 Baltimore County Fort Garrison Elementary E 81.1% 5.6% 5 5 Baltimore County Summit Park Elementary E 76.7% 8.2% 5 4 Baltimore County Woodholme Elementary E 62.7% 29.1% 4 4 Baltimore County Owings Mills Elementary E 62.6% 30.0% 4 4 Baltimore County Franklin Elementary E 85.7% 9.3% 5 5 Baltimore County Chatsworth School E 68.3% 17.1% 4 4 Baltimore County Timber Grove Elementary E 57.8% 33.8% 3 4 Baltimore County Reisterstown Elementary E 54.8% 30.9% 3 3 Baltimore County Glyndon Elementary E 54.0% 36.5% 3 3 Baltimore County Cedarmere Elementary E 62.7% 25.6% 4 4 Baltimore County Lyons Mill Elementary E 71.7% 18.7% 4 4 Baltimore County Fifth District Elementary E 82.9% 7.5% 5 5 Baltimore County Prettyboy Elementary E 77.6% 3.3% 5 4 Baltimore County Seventh District Elementary E 85.1% 5.3% 5 5 Baltimore County Sparks Elementary E 90.1% 2.5% 5 5 Baltimore County Lutherville Laboratory E 83.7% 8.4% 5 5 Baltimore County Timonium Elementary E 82.1% 6.2% 5 5 Baltimore County Pot Spring Elementary E 67.3% 21.4% 4 4 Baltimore County Riderwood Elementary E 83.1% 3.1% 5 5 Baltimore County Padonia International Elementary E 69.6% 23.2% 4 4 Baltimore County Pinewood Elementary E 88.9% 2.7% 5 5 Baltimore County Warren Elementary E 67.0% 23.2% 4 4 Baltimore County Mays Chapel Elementary E 77.2% 11.2% 5 4 Baltimore County Stoneleigh Elementary E 79.4% 5.7% 5 4 Baltimore County Rodgers Forge Elementary E 86.3% 1.4% 5 5 Baltimore County Villa Cresta Elementary E 66.6% 18.6% 4 4 Baltimore County Pleasant Plains Elementary E 56.7% 30.7% 3 3 Baltimore County Oakleigh Elementary E 58.5% 32.4% 3 4 Baltimore County Hampton Elementary E 78.3% 9.7% 5 4 Baltimore County Halstead Academy E 51.0% 40.9% 3 3 Baltimore County Harford Hills Elementary E 67.0% 22.3% 4 4 Baltimore County Cromwell Valley Elementary Technology E 68.2% 11.1% 4 3 Baltimore County Pine Grove Elementary E 75.6% 13.5% 5 4 Baltimore County White Oak School E 47.9% 37.8% 3 3 Baltimore County West Towson Elementary E 83.6% 3.2% 5 5 Baltimore County Carroll Manor Elementary E 83.7% 3.8% 5 5 Baltimore County Jacksonville Elementary E 90.9% 2.2% 5 5 Baltimore County Kingsville Elementary E 83.4% 4.4% 5 5 Baltimore County Perry Hall Elementary E 74.2% 14.5% 4 4 Baltimore County Carney Elementary E 64.2% 23.9% 4 4 Baltimore County Chapel Hill Elementary E 83.2% 5.7% 5 5 Baltimore County Joppa View Elementary E 74.6% 14.4% 4 4 Baltimore County Seven Oaks Elementary E 64.3% 14.3% 4 3 Baltimore County Gunpowder Elementary E 72.9% 6.4% 4 4 Baltimore County Dundalk Elementary E 49.5% 53.3% 3 4 Baltimore County Berkshire Elementary E 58.2% 46.8% 3 4 Baltimore County Bear Creek Elementary E 60.8% 44.1% 4 4 Baltimore County Norwood Elementary E 53.0% 36.9% 3 3 Baltimore County Grange Elementary E 69.7% 38.7% 4 5 Baltimore County Charlesmont Elementary E 58.4% 40.9% 3 4 Baltimore County Sandy Plains Elementary E 49.0% 48.0% 3 3 Baltimore County Logan Elementary E 62.3% 46.4% 4 4 Baltimore County Holabird Middle E 42.8% 35.0% 2 2 Baltimore County Arbutus Elementary E 68.3% 37.1% 4 5 Baltimore County Baltimore Highlands Elementary E 61.6% 38.4%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • To View the 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan for 2020-2029
    “Prince George’s County 2020 – 2029 Solid Waste Management Plan” CR-50-2020 (DR-2) 2020 – 2029 COMPREHENSIVE TEN-YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Prince George’s County, Maryland Acknowledgements Marilyn E. Rybak-Naumann, Resource Recovery Division, Associate Director Denice E. Curry, Resource Recovery Division, Recycling Section, Section Manager Darryl L. Flick, Resource Recovery Division, Special Assistant Kevin Roy B. Serrona, Resource Recovery Division, Recycling Section, Planner IV Antoinette Peterson, Resource Recovery Division, Administrative Aide Michael A. Bashore, Stormwater Management Division, Planner III/GIS Analyst With Thanks To all of the agencies and individuals who contributed data “Prince George’s County 2020 – 2029 Solid Waste Management Plan” CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. State Requirements for Preparation of the Plan.…………………………………..1 II. Plan Summary…………………………………………………………………….. 1 A. Solid Waste Generation………………………………………………………. 2 B. Solid Waste Collection……………………………………………………….. 2 C. Solid Waste Disposal…………………………………………………………. 2 D. Recycling……………………………………………………………………... 2 E. Public Information and Cleanup Programs………………………………….... 3 III. Place Holder – Insertion of MDE’s Approval Letter for Adopted Plan……………4 CHAPTER I POLICIES AND ORGANIZATION I. Planning Background……………………………………………………………... I-1 II. Solid Waste Management Terms…………………………………………………. I-1 III. County Goals Statement………………………………………………………….. I-2 IV. County Objectives and Policies Concerning Solid Waste Management………..... I-3 A. General Objectives of the Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan………... I-4 B. Guidelines and Policies regarding Solid Waste Facilities……………………. I-4 V. Governmental Responsibilities…………………………………………………… I-5 A. Prince George’s County Government………………………………………… I-5 B. Maryland Department of the Environment…………………………………… I-9 C. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission…………………. I-9 D. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)………………………. I-9 VI. State, Local, and Federal Laws…………………………………………………… I-9 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Access Points Within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill
    Public Access Points within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill Public Access Point Boat Ramp Fishing Swimming Restrooms Hiking/Trekking Location 2900 Virginia Ave NW, Thompson's Boat Center X X X X Washington, DC 20037 3244 K St NW, Washington, DC Georgetown Waterfront Park X X 20007 George Washington Memorial Theodore Roosevelt Island X X X Pkwy N, Arlington, VA 22209 West Basin Dr SW, Washington, West Potomac Park X X DC 20024 Capital Crescent Trail, Washington Canoe Club X Washington, DC 20007 600 Water St SW, Washington, DC Ganglplank Marina X X X X 20024 George Washington Memorial Columbia Island Marina X X X Parkway, Arlington, VA 22202 99 Potomac Ave. SE. Washington, Diamond Teague Park X X DC 20003 335 Water Street Washington, DC The Yards Park X 20003 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, Anacostia Boat House X Washington, DC 20003 700-1000 Water St SW, Washington Marina X X X X Washington, DC 20024 Anacostia Park, Section E Anacostia Marina X X X Washington, DC 20003 2001-2099 1st St SW, Washington, Buzzard's Point Marina X X X DC 20003 2038-2068 2nd St SW, James Creek Marina X X X Washington, DC 20593 Anacostia Dr, Washington, DC Anacostia Park X X X 20019 Heritage Island Trail, Washington, Heritage Island X DC 20002 Kingman Island Trail, Washington, Kingman Island X DC 20002 Mt Vernon Trail, Arlington, VA Gravelly Point X X 22202 George Washington Memorial Roaches Run X X X X Pkwy, Arlington, VA 22202 1550 Anacostia Ave NE, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens/Park X X X Washington, DC 20019 Capital Crescent Trail, Jack's Boat House X X Washington, DC 20007 Daingerfield Island X X X X 1 Marina Dr, Alexandria, VA 22314 67-101 Dale St, Alexandria, VA Four Mile Run Park/Trail X X X 22305 4601 Annapolis Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Enforcement & Compliance Report
    Maryland Department of the Environment ANNUAL ENFORCEMENT & COMPLIANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2017 Larry Hogan Boyd K. Rutherford Ben Grumbles Horacio Tablada Governor Lieutenant Governor Secretary Deputy Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS Section One – REPORT BASIS AND SUMMARY INFORMATION 3 Statutory Authority and Scope 4 Organization of the Report 4 MDE Executive Summary 5 MDE Performance Measures – Executive Summary 6 Enforcement Workforce 6 Section 1-301(d) Penalty Summary 7 MDE Performance Measures Historical Annual Summary FY 1998 – 2004 8 MDE Performance Measures Historical Annual Summary FY 2005 – 2010 9 MDE Performance Measures Historical Annual Summary FY 2011 – 2017 10 MDE Enforcement Actions Historical Annual Summary FY 1998 – 2017 11 MDE Penalties Historical Annual Summary Chart FY 1998 - 2017 11 MDE’s Enforcement and Compliance Process and Services to Permittees 12 and Businesses The Enforcement and Compliance Process 12 Enforcement Process Flow Chart 13 Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) 14 Contacts or Consultations with Businesses 15 Compliance Assistance 15 Consultations with Businesses 15 Section Two - ADMINISTRATION DETAILS 17 Measuring Enforcement and Compliance 18 Performance Measures Table Overview and Definitions 19 Enforcement and Compliance Performance Measures Table Format 23 Air and Radiation Administration (ARA) 25 ARA Executive Summary 26 ARA Performance Measures 27 Ambient Air Quality Control 28 Air Quality Complaints 34 Asbestos 38 Radiation Machines 42 Radioactive Materials Licensing and Compliance 46 Land
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report FY2012.Pdf
    Goals Mission, Vision & Core Values Accreditation Budget Current Facilities New Facilities Programs/Services/Events Parks Volunteers Administration GOALS Completed in Fy12 | For Fy13 •Increase the number of Howard County residents participating in Department of Recreation and Parks programs, events, and offerings. •Open and provide program development for the Robinson Nature Center so as to create a center for environmental education in the County. •In partnership with MORE (Maryland Off Road Enthusiasts), continue the construction of a bicycle skills park at Rockburn Park that began in the Fall of 2011. •Improve staff competency level with therapeutic programs by providing in-house continuing education units (CEUs) for the areas of behavior management and inclusion supports. •Complete an inventory of Park Operations and Facilities’ equipment zone by zone. This inventory will help the Department plan more successfully for future changes in operational needs and provide accountability. •Complete construction of Blandair Regional Park, Phase I. •Complete a plan for final submittal of the CAPRA self-assessment document. Goals Mission, Vision & Core Values Accreditation Budget Current Facilities New Facilities Programs/Services/Events Parks Volunteers Administration Completed in Fy12 | For Fy13 • To complete the Timbers Clubhouse Deck Renovation – including the measuring and ordering of new docksider cedar color decking and fasteners. • To increase the use of marketing tools through research, evaluations and implementation through Activenet, social media tools and marketing tasks within the divisional units. • To renovate the landscaping at the North Laurel Community Center building area. • Continue to provide high-quality programs and excellent customer service to all participants. • To design and implement a socially based, age-appropriate program for adults 55 years and older with developmental/ cognitive disabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside the Civil War Defenses of Washington: an Interview with Steve T
    The Gettysburg Compiler: On the Front Lines of History Civil War Institute 12-18-2017 Inside The Civil War Defenses of Washington: An Interview with Steve T. Phan Ashley Whitehead Luskey Gettysburg College Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/compiler Part of the Military History Commons, Public History Commons, and the United States History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Recommended Citation Luskey, Ashley Whitehead, "Inside The Civil War Defenses of Washington: An Interview with Steve T. Phan" (2017). The Gettysburg Compiler: On the Front Lines of History. 315. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/compiler/315 This is the author's version of the work. This publication appears in Gettysburg College's institutional repository by permission of the copyright owner for personal use, not for redistribution. Cupola permanent link: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/compiler/315 This open access blog post is brought to you by The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The Cupola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Inside The Civil War Defenses of Washington: An Interview with Steve T. Phan Abstract Over the course of this year, we’ll be interviewing some of the speakers from the upcoming 2018 CWI conference about their talks. Today we are speaking with Steve T. Phan, a Park Ranger and historian at the Civil War Defenses of Washington. Prior to his arrival at CWDW, Steve worked as an intern and park guide at Richmond National Battlefield ark,P Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, and Rock Creek Park.
    [Show full text]
  • News and Notes 1980-1989
    NEWS AND NOTES FROM The Prince George's County Historical Society Vol. VIII, no. 1 January 1980 The New Year's Program There will be no meetings of the Prince George's County Historical Society in January or February. The 1980 meeting program will begin with the March meeting on the second Saturday of that month. Public Forum on Historic Preservation The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission will sponsor a public forum on the future of historic preservation in Prince George's County on Thursday, January 10, at the Parks and Recreation Building, 6600 Kenilworth Avenue, in Riverdale. This forum, is the first step in the process of drafting a county Historic Sites and Districts Plan by the commission. (See next article). The purpose of the forum is to receive public testimony on historic preservation in Prince George's county. Among the questions to be addressed are these: How important should historic preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and revitalization be to Prince George's County? What should the objectives and priorities of a historic sites and districts plan be? What should be the relative roles of County government and private enterprise be in historic preservation and restoration? To what extent should the destruction of historic landmarks be regulated and their restoration or preservation subsidized? How should historic preservation relate to tourism, economic development, and revitalization? Where should the responsibility rest for making determinations about the relative merits of preserving and restoring individual sites? Members of the Historical Society, as well as others interested in historic preservation and its impact on county life, are invited to attend and, if they like, to testify.
    [Show full text]
  • Preservation and Partners: a History of Piscataway Park
    Preservation and Partners: A History of Piscataway Park Janet A. McDonnell, PhD December 2020 Resource Stewardship and Science, National Capital Area, National Park Service and Organization of American Historians EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the early republic period of American history, President George Washington was the most renowned resident of the Potomac River valley. His sprawling Mount Vernon estate sat on a hill directly across the Potomac River from the 17th century Marshall Hall estate in Maryland. There is ample evidence that Washington and his guests enjoyed and very much appreciated the stunning view. Many years later preserving this view would become the major impetus for establishing what we know today as Piscataway Park (PISC), a few miles south of Washington, DC. These lands along the Maryland shore of Potomac River were actively cultivated during George Washington’s time, and the existing park setting, which includes agricultural lands and open spaces interspersed with forests and wetlands, closely approximates that historic scene. The National Park Service’s (NPS) primary goal and responsibility in managing the park has been, and continues to be, preserving this historic scene of open fields and wooded areas and ensuring that it does not authorize any landscape alterations except those that would restore previously undisturbed sites, reduce visual intrusions, or maintain open fields. The NPS continues to take into account the slope and orientation of the terrain and the tree cover when considering the location of any new facilities. Piscataway Park and its associated lands are for the most part held under scenic easements and constitute a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) historic district made up of nearly 5,000 acres of meadow, woodland, and wetland, along six miles of the Potomac River shoreline from the head of Piscataway Creek to the historic Marshall Hall in Maryland’s Prince George’s and Charles counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War to Civil Rights Commemoration
    National Park Service U.S Department of the Interior Washington Support Office: Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Science Interpretation, Education and Volunteers Civil War to Civil Rights Commemoration Summary Report DEDICATION This report honors all those who suffered and died in this nation’s struggles for freedom and equality. It is also dedicated to our colleague, Tim Sinclair, who was taken from us too soon. Timothy D. Sinclair, Sr. (1974-2016) Chief of Interpretation Selma to Montgomery NHT Tuskegee Airmen NHS and Tuskegee Institute NHS You took us on a walk from Selma to Montgomery. To keep your vision and memory alive, “We’re still marching!” Silent sentinels stood watch for 22 hours to commemorate the 22 hours of combat that took place at Spotsylvania’s Bloody Angle. FREDERICKSBURG AND SPOTSYLVANIA NMP Cover Graphic: Courtesy of Chris Barr FOREWORD The Civil War to Civil Rights Commemoration has been quite a journey. Thanks to all of you who helped make it a meaningful and memorable one for our country. We hope our efforts have helped Americans understand the connection between these two epic periods of time as a continuous march toward freedom and equality for all–a march that continues still today. Along the way, perhaps the National Park Service learned something about itself, as well. When we first began planning for this commemorative journey, there were several Civil War parks that had difficultly acknowledging slavery as the cause of the war. Both Civil War sites and civil rights sites questioned whether a combined “Civil War to Civil Rights” Commemoration would water down and weaken each.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War Defenses of Washington
    A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC Contract No. 144CX300096053 Modification# 1 Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defens es of Washington Part I Appendices Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Appendix B: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on Their Land Appendix C: Naming of Forts Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology Bibliography Appendix A. Alphabetical Listing of Forts,. Batteries, and Blockhouses Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Fortification Known Landowner or their Representative Fort Albany James Roach and heirs, J.R. Johnson Battery Bailey Shoemaker family Fort Baker · Sarah E. Anderson, Ann A.C. Naylor & Susan M. Naylor Fort Barnard Philip J. Buckey, Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Bennett Wm. B. Ross, Attorney John H. Bogue, B.B. Lloyd Fort Berry Sewall B. Corbettt Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Elizabeth Studds' heirs, George Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery Henry Studds Fort Bunker Hill Henry Quinn Fort C.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Forts, Present-Day Parks
    Maryland National Park Service Virginia U.S. Department of the Interior Civil War Defenses of Washington Washington, D.C. A 15-inch Rodman Cannon overlooking the Potomac River at Fort Foote NPS / RON HILTON Civil War Forts, Present-Day Parks Forested heights and inviting parklands—a rare backdrop to most out in 1861, Union forces quickly built a ring of earthen fortifications By latest accounts urban settings—wrap a mantle of contrast around Washington, D.C. around the nation’s capital and moved massive cannons into place. Even more uncommon are the exceptional natural elements and rem- Hospitals and settlements sprang up nearby, providing shelter and the enemy is nants of history located among the hills encircling the city. work for many, including African American “contrabands” of war. moving on High ground around Washington played a vital role in protecting the Most of the fortifications were dismantled or abandoned by 1866. Washington. nation’s capital during the Civil War. In 1860 slave states sympathetic Decades later, a plan to connect the historic sites with a scenic auto- to the Confederacy surrounded the District of Columbia, which was mobile route paved the way for their preservation. Although some Let us be protected only by the brittle brick bastions of Fort Washington, 16 elements of the Civil War Defenses of Washington eventually sur- vigilant, but keep miles south on the Potomac. As the prospect for war grew, tensions rendered to time and urbanization, many fortifications and associated escalated, and Washington, D.C., lay vulnerable to attack. The Lincoln lands remain protected within the National Park System.
    [Show full text]
  • View the Vertical File List
    Maryland Historical Trust Library Vertical Files The vertical file collection at the Maryland Historical Trust library contain a wealth of information related to historic buildings and properties from across the state. These files include material which complements reports completed for the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties and National Register of Historic Places, including architectural drawings, newspaper clippings from national, state, and local newspapers, photographs, notes, and ephemera. The vertical files can be viewed in the library, Tuesday through Thursday, by appointment. To schedule an appointment, researchers should contact Lara Westwood, librarian, at [email protected] or 410-697-9546. Please note that this list is incomplete and will be updated. For more information, please contact the librarian or visit the website. Annapolis – Anne Arundel County AA- Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Development Impacts Annapolis, Md. AA- Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Maps Annapolis, Md. AA-2046 Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Annapolis Historic District Annapolis, Md. AA-2046 Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Annapolis Historic District – Research Notes Annapolis, Md. AA- Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association Annapolis, Md. AA-360 Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Acton 1 Acton Place, Annapolis, Md. AA- Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Acton Notes Annapolis, Md. AA- Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Acton Place Spring House 11 Acton Place, Annapolis, Md. AA-393 Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Adams-Kilty House 131 Charles Street, Annapolis, Md. AA- Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Alleys Annapolis, Md. AA- Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Annapolis Dock & Market Space Annapolis, Md. AA-1288 Annapolis (Anne Arundel County) Annapolis Elementary School 180 Green Street, Annapolis, Md.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices
    A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC Contract No. 144CX300096053 Modification# 1 Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defens es of Washington Part I Appendices Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Appendix B: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on Their Land Appendix C: Naming of Forts Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology Bibliography Appendix A. Alphabetical Listing of Forts,. Batteries, and Blockhouses Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Fortification Known Landowner or their Representative Fort Albany James Roach and heirs, J.R. Johnson Battery Bailey Shoemaker family Fort Baker · Sarah E. Anderson, Ann A.C. Naylor & Susan M. Naylor Fort Barnard Philip J. Buckey, Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Bennett Wm. B. Ross, Attorney John H. Bogue, B.B. Lloyd Fort Berry Sewall B. Corbettt Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Elizabeth Studds' heirs, George Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery Henry Studds Fort Bunker Hill Henry Quinn Fort C.F.
    [Show full text]