GoingBatty
For twenty-eight years, New Jersey has been in the business of taking over the operations of certain locally-run schools — urban ones in particular.
In 1989, the state took control of the Jersey City school district. In 1991, it was Paterson, New Jersey’s turn. Next was Newark in 1995. The most recent takeover, in 2013, was of Camden City’s school district.
The impetus for these takeovers was financial mismanagement and academic underperformance, along with a belief that state leaders would succeed where local leaders failed.
New Jersey was the first state to enact legislation allowing it to take control of local school districts. Since the passage of New Jersey’s law, twenty-eight states have enacted similar policies. At present, sixty districts around the country are under some form of state management; many districts taken over were in minority-majority, low-income districts.
After decades, New Jersey has recently agreed to return Jersey City and Newark schools to local control, claiming its job has been done.
After a 2015 review of Jersey City’s school operations and personnel issues, the state asserted that problems had been thoroughly addressed. Likewise, the Newark Unified School District had seen improvements, including an increase in its graduation rate to 77 percent from 54 percent in 1995. Camden remains in state control, under which it has seen its math and literacy scores double over the last two years. The graduation rate has also gone up in Camden schools, from 49 to 64 percent since the state takeover and the dropout rate has fallen by 15 percent.
So, is New Jersey just that good? A closer look suggests maybe not.
New Jersey urban school districts have high enrollments and big budgets that can be difficult to manage. One way to gain control? Outsourcing education.
Over the years, a staple of New Jersey’s plan for districts under their control has been closing low-performing schools and replacing them with privately run schools. For example, Newark’s One Newark plan led to numerous school closures and a sharp rise in the city’s reliance on charter schools. In fact, the four municipalities that lost their districts to the state are home to 45 percent of the state’s charter management organizations. Newark alone is where 20 percent of all state charter management organizations are located.
School privatization, as has been shown time and again, is detrimental to children of color, and black children in particular.
According the New Jersey Department of Education, during the 2016-2017 school year, 92 percent of the charter enrollment in these taken-over districts was black and latino students.
In addition to resegregating schools, charters are privately-run but funded by taxpayers, taking money out of the public school system and putting it in the hands of charter executives. And they are less accountable to public oversight, which can allow for questionable discipline practices and sidestepping educational standards.
It’s also worth noting that the majority of the charter organizations are created and led by white people. While white people are capable of educating children of color, race matters in the classroom. Many of these schools are rooted in policies of “no-excuses,” exploiting the values and ethics of hard work and determination often expressed in black and brown households. However, an atmosphere of no-excuses leaves students and parents little to no room for practicing restorative justice or challenging systemic racism within organizations.
The legacy of state takeovers of New Jersey schools has become one of occupation rather than success. Rather than actually improving existing schools, New Jersey divested itself of education in Newark, Jersey City and Paterson, and now Camden, allowing for a reallocation of school funds to suburban and rural districts while wiping its hands clean of the task of educating low-income children of color.
School districts have often failed to adequately educate poor children of color. But New Jersey, or any state, punting that responsibility on to charter organizations with terrible track records for educating such students is even more irresponsible. Once power is returned, local districts are left to sort through the new education apparatus that has created more division within the system and the community.
State takeovers aren’t about making good on the promise to provide all children with a quality education. Rather they allow states to let themselves off the hook for a responsibility they never wanted in the first place.