The Neo-Colonization of a School District Pt. 3

Under any fascist power structure, controlling resources is equally as important as controlling people. 

I’d argue that when one controls resources (e.g., economic, intellectual, social, etc.), one controls the people who depend on those resources to survive. 

According to the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse, meaning it —and it alone —can allocate spending, prioritize spending, and withhold spending, with “encouragement” from the chief executive, of course. The party in control of Congress dictates how it wields this power. This month’s midterm elections gave Democrats that power. 

The same is true for in-state governments. But what happens when both political parties, regardless of who touts the majority vote, are in alignment concerning how resources, namely fiscal resources, are utilized? On the surface, it may seem like an example of bipartisanship and lead to the assumption that such alignment would produce positive outcomes. Sadly, for Camden City, it hasn’t. 

Bipartisan alignment between parties has only led to a destructive takeover of the city’s municipal government, law enforcement, and public schools. 

The Desire to Spend Camden’s Money For Them 

A major reason Camden is under the control of the state of New Jersey traces back to the state authority’s desire to dictate how taxpayer dollars are spent. The Abbott cases likely spurred this sudden shift.

In the initial and subsequent decisions in Abbott v. Burke, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state’s reliance on local property wealth denied students in poorer districts a “thorough and efficient” education under the state’s Constitution and that a funding formula was needed to provide urban school districts with sufficient funding to offer an education comparable to that of wealthier districts. 

Therefore, the state funding provided to underfunded urban school districts under the Abbott v. Burke rulings—and decisions about how those funds were spent—remained under local control, specifically the control of Black and Brown communities. 

Some might say this distribution of funds was the beginning of the end. NYU professor Domingo Morel’s research supports this, suggesting that increases in federal and state funding for local school districts are associated with a greater likelihood of state takeovers. All four New Jersey school districts taken over by the state (Jersey City, Paterson, Newark, and Camden), for example, are Abbott districts. 

According to the most recent state education data, 8 of the 10 highest-funded school districts are Abbott districts; Jersey City, Paterson, and Newark (districts at one time under state authority) rank in the top 5. Although Camden ranks 12th in total spending, it ranks 2^nd in per-pupil spending among Abbott school districts (18^th in the state). Ultimately, this data suggests the state has a vested interest in managing the influx of spending Camden has received through the Abbott ruling, as it has in Jersey City, Paterson, and Newark.  

If we look to neighboring cities for what Camden’s future may hold, the chapter can quickly become bleak. Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson (ranked 1st, 3rd, and 4th, respectively, for total statewide funding) were each under state control for roughly 30 years. If that is any indication, CCSD is likely to remain under state control for at least another decade, although laws are in place to prevent that. 

Politicians like Chris Christie, however, are good at manipulating laws to make their dreams come true, although the fault lies with his political predecessors. The 2002 takeover of Camden City’s municipal government, under Jim McGreevey (and extended in 2007 by Jon Corzine), made the takeover of schools (and, namely, district finances) possible. As part of the municipal takeover, the governor had veto power over CCSD financial decisions made by the board of education. In 2006, CCSD was placed under a fiscal state monitor, who set the district’s spending parameters.

In 2013, Chris Christie’s administration built on the state’s existing authority by using the Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) framework to maintain oversight of local school districts. Enacted in 2005, QSAC established a statewide accountability system that evaluated districts across five areas: Instruction and Program, Fiscal Management, Governance, Operations and Personnel. Although the framework applied to all school districts, its most significant effects were felt in Abbott districts. Under QSAC, poor performance in any of the five areas could provide grounds for state intervention, giving the state another avenue to exercise control over local school governance.

QSAC attempted to exercise this control using Camden as a test case. In 2018, the Education Law Center testified before the state legislature that Chris Christie’s administration used QSAC to establish a new form of state takeover in Camden where public schools would be replaced by charter schools. Although QSAC remains in place, a proposed bill would prohibit the state from using its evaluations as evidence to justify taking over a school district.

Regardless, QSAC has served, and will continue to serve, as a mechanism for the state to exert control over Camden, whether the district is formally under takeover or not. QSAC is unlikely to restore local control in Camden. Instead, QSAC may contribute to dismantling CCSD altogether. 

Settler Colonialism of School Buildings  

Another reason for state intervention in CCSD stems from a perceived desire to revitalize, or gentrify, the community in ways that lead to certain outcomes. One could argue that state intervention allows CCSD school properties to be repurposed under the Urban Hope Act and replaced with Charter schools, encouraging the sort of reverse white flight that can be observed in many prominent Black and Brown communities across the country. 

The 1950s and 60s marked the early start of white flight from Camden to the suburbs. Not only did white communities leave Camden, but zoning ordinances in suburban municipalities like Cherry Hill effectively priced Black and Brown folks out of certain communities, forcing them to stay near urban centers. All of this happened with assistance from the federal government and real estate companies who used block-busting tactics, racially restrictive covenants, and racially exclusive mortgage subsidies. As these communities left, so did much of the local infrastructure and corporate manufacturing that sustains successful and thriving communities.

While public interest has returned to Camden, it follows a national trend where the same forces that drove white flight — economics, affordability, lifestyle preferences, and policy — now operate in reverse, causing gentrification and racial and economic displacement. Those who once flocked to the peace and quiet that the suburbs provided are now tired of long commutes and high property taxes, and yearn for the nightlife, entertainment, shorter commutes, greater proximity to major cities like Philadelphia, and property tax relief that a revitalized Camden could provide. 

Corporations benefit most from property tax relief, and although the sell tends to promise “new” jobs, they omit that many of those positions are already filled by the individuals, typically white, who already occupied them. Except now they live and work in a new location: your city. 

For many, the pull to invest in a gentrified city relies on a promise of a few key things: a police department, jobs that are already in the city, a robust medical center (see the now Cooper Norcross Health: formerly Cooper Hospital, which is immersed in a $3 billion expansion), and quality public schools. 

One thing is for sure: many white parents may struggle to justify sending their children to Camden’s public schools. [This stems from the stigma CCSD carries: a failing district whose students underperform academically, whose educators aren’t properly resourced, and whose daily operations are prone to mismanagement.]. They also aren’t likely to send them to Renaissance Schools or traditional charters. But thanks to Camden’s current system, which lets parents advocate for a new charter school for their children, they don’t have to choose between sending their children to private schools—which they perceive as safer or higher quality—or remaining in the suburbs. Charter school legislation enables them to segregate their children and use taxpayer dollars to do so. 

Current charter school attendance data helps us see how.

According to the NJDOE, 64,000 students are enrolled in charter schools. 6% or 3,975 of those students are white. Although most of those students (2,074) attend charters where most students are Black, Latino/a/e, or a combination of the two. They are spread across 67 schools, averaging 31 white students per school. However, the remaining students (1,901) attend schools (17) where either whites or Asians are the majority. This distribution illustrates that while white students make up a small share of charter school enrollment statewide, they are concentrated in a relatively small number of schools where white or Asian students constitute the majority, while those attending predominantly Black and Latino/a/e schools are dispersed across a much larger number of campuses.

Simply put: research shows that white parents, for a myriad of reasons, are more reluctant to send their children to schools where Black and Brown students make up the majority. Rather than challenge the system that makes the quality of education so vast across racial lines, disproportionately impacting Black and Brown people, they may seek to use public policies to their advantage. This, I would argue, is what gentrification is all about, or, at least, how it starts.

What It All Means 

Ultimately, control of Camden’s school means control over the city’s resources—and the ability to direct those resources toward the interests of people outside the community. 

Our society is one divided by the haves and the have-nots. Through state intervention, local officials can influence where public investments go and, in turn, who benefits.  Yet, as has often been the case, those who “have” the most don’t look like those who have the least. That seems to have been a crucial part of the plot all along.

Part 4 will close this series by exploring the ramifications of the takeover of CCSD on politicians, as well as the overall takeaway from the white power structure taking over the mechanisms that determine how Black and brown children are educated.