The Effects of Centralized Government Authority on Black and Latino Political Empowerment

Abstract

Studies on centralization and its effect on political empowerment among racial minorities suggest that decentralized arrangements are optimal for increasing empowerment. However, this article argues that the "decentralization-asoptimal" perspective ignores the complicated history that racial minorities have had with government. To assess the effects of centralized government on political empowerment among racial minorities, this article examines how state takeovers of local school districts have affected black and Latino descriptive representation on local school boards. Using an original dataset of state takeovers of local school districts from 1989 to 2013, as well as case study analysis of Newark, New Jersey, this article shows that centralization affects communities differently according to the level of political empowerment they have at the time of centralization.

Federalism, Race, and the Politics of Turnaround: U.S. Public Opinion on Improving Low-Performing Schools and Districts

“…This loss of influence often occurs in majority-Black communities where school systems, including school boards, have historically served as a key pathway for people of color to enter elected offices (Henig et al, 1999). Again, studying state takeovers between 1989 and 2013, Morel (2016) finds that takeovers of majority-Black districts have tended to occur in contexts where African Americans have gained greater descriptive representation and that takeovers ultimately decrease Black descriptive representation. In contrast, takeover of majority-Latino/a districts is actually more likely to open the door for greater Latino/a descriptive representation in part because the targeted districts are contexts in which Latino/as had not previously been well represented in local government.…”

Looking Toward the Field: A Systematic Review to Inform Current and Future School Takeover Policy

“…Across the literature there was a consensus that school takeover as a reform strategy is disproportionately implemented in districts with predominantly students of color (Hunter & Swann, 1999;Morel, 2016;Oluwole & Green, 2009;Welsh et al, 2019a;Wright et al, 2020). The presence of school takeover policy was positively and significantly correlated to the percentage of non-white students in a state .…”

“…School takeover is complicated as it affects the functioning of elected bodies (e.g., school boards) as well as community and parent voice in schooling (Morel, 2016). When the state government can make unilateral decisions community voice is removed from the school.…”

“…Takeover often produced political upheaval rather than the stability needed to drive improvement (Mason & Reckhow, 2017). Districts where school boards were replaced experienced a change in board demographics following the school takeover, with Black school board representation being negatively impacted (Morel, 2016). Stability was often a driving reason for school takeover.…”

“…To illustrate this point, think of a liberal city nestled in a more conservative state, the Governor may be more representative of the voice of state taxpayers overall, not those who live in the city. Appointments were made intentionally in the takeover of schools in Newark, NJ; the state government appointed the interim school board so that it was representative of the demographics of the community the schools served (Morel, 2016). The superintendent in school takeover is vital to the political empowerment or disempowerment of the community.…”