I served on Camden’s school board for 27 years. The politics involved made a state takeover inevitable.

In many circles, conversations about the takeover of the Camden City School District still occur with a frequency and passion that feels as fresh as it was when state control began 11 years ago.

Were the various forms of state intervention really about low test scores and graduation rates? Was the disenfranchisement of city voters the only way to fix the “problem”? Or was this a politically driven attempt to access tens of millions of state dollars and control the education of other people’s children?

Let me provide a national context to what happened and continues in New Jersey. In his book, Takeover: Race, Education, and American Democracy, the political scientist Domingo Morel noted that from 1980 to 2000, 18 states enacted takeover legislation, and 14 of them did so a few years after their respective Supreme Courts mandated state funding for local school districts. From 2000 to 2015, an additional 17 states followed suit.

In total, 80% of takeover laws were passed under Republican governors. Morel also found that the likelihood of a takeover was directly tied to the number of city council seats and mayorships occupied by Black politicians. Based on these and other factors, Morel concluded that “race, economics, and politics are equally important factors that contribute to ... a state takeover, not just educational outcomes or concerns.”

Let’s look at how this played out in New Jersey, where the charge was led by Saul Cooperman, the state’s commissioner of education in the 1980s. Cooperman believed urban districts were full of political patronage, fiscal mismanagement, and were “academically bankrupt.” In 1985, inspired by a Forbes magazine article about business receiverships, he endorsed a call for takeover legislation.

The first victim was the Jersey City School District (1989), followed by Paterson (1991), Newark (1995), and Camden (2002–2013). Each of these districts shared many of the racial, economic, and political characteristics pointed out by Morel. (Camden’s 2002 intervention resulted in an appointed board. In 2013, the state took over the district completely.)

But what happened in Camden was rather distinctive. Unlike other urban districts, most of Camden’s elected and appointed officials were “managed” by a political boss. Republican Gov. Chris Christie found a collaborator in South Jersey power broker George Norcross for his right-wing urban school agenda.

State Sen. Donald Norcross — George’s brother — Assemblyman Whip Wilson, and Camden City Councilman Angel Fuentes introduced the Urban Hope Act. A short time later, the commissioner announced the takeover of the district, disbanded the school board, and hired a superintendent. The political and very public mugging of the people of Camden was just beginning.

Could an elected and legally empowered school board have prevented a takeover? Perhaps. Why didn’t the school board at least try? Because the members had been appointed by Mayor Dana Redd and effectively represented the interests of local political bosses, not the children or community.

When I served on the school board, it was clear to us all that our role was as advocates for students, parents, and teachers. The justification for the district’s takeover was based on the myth that the school board, parents, and teachers were responsible for fiscal/operational mismanagement and low test scores.

Politicians pushed this “blame the victim narrative.” Almost no one had the temerity to ask the simple question: What would the New Jersey Department of Education and charter schools do differently to improve public education?

Politicians, who loved to quote, “It takes a village to educate a child,” had no problem cutting out the villagers.

What has resulted from this social disruption, selfishness, and political posturing? One measurement is the results of the Department of Education’s 2022-23 “Assessment Report.” It reveals that huge percentages of students, in public and charter schools, are not academically proficient. Check it out for yourself.

Some people are beginning to call for the return of public control through a fully authorized school board. But I wonder if this will make much of a difference. The charter school consortium is well-organized and extremely well-funded. In addition, the political machine would counter any effort to increase public school parent empowerment.

So, Camden’s devolution into a nonpublic school district seems to have an air of permanence. The situation will remain stagnant unless there is a dramatic shift in electoral and political power. I hope I am wrong.

José E. Delgado served on the Camden school board from 1985 to 2012.