Domingo Morel has written a compelling and soundly researched book. It is a must-read for any graduate student who needs an excellent example of a dissertation turned book. It is also a must read for any scholar of urban politics and governance. Using a mixed methodological approach, including an original data set of nearly 1,000 school districts, case studies of several cities, content analysis, and more than 70 interviews with state education officials, state legislators, city council members, school board members, teachers, parents, and community leaders, Morel authors what he calls the “first” systematic study to examine the effects of state takeovers on local school districts. More specifically, he explores the politics of state takeovers. He seeks to understand the effects of takeovers on local governance and the implications of takeovers for our understanding of democracy and citizenship. Grounding his analysis squarely in the field of political science (i.e., state and local government and urban politics), the author hypothesizes that state takeovers disrupt existing governmental regimes. Groups in power would be negatively affected by state takeover, while politically marginalized groups would be aided in their path to political empowerment not previously available to them.

Morel deftly uses data to make the case that in Newark, New Jersey, state takeover was about race and political power. He shows that as African Americans gained political power in Newark and were successful in garnering increased state funding for education via the courts, the city became increasingly vulnerable to state challenge and intervention. He shows how calls for state takeover were anchored in political power and control of resources. Furthermore, using empirical data, he shows that in Newark and other African American—led cities, African American communities are disproportionally negatively affected by state takeovers and more likely to have elected school boards abolished. In Newark, which had a black mayor, black majority city council, and black majority school board, takeover had a detrimental effect on democracy and African American political empowerment: The elected school board was abolished, school funding cut, and jobs lost.

As Morel further unfolds his argument, he notes that takeovers also have the capacity to address politically marginalized groups by creating opportunities for excluded groups to participate in governance decisions. In Newark, state takeover did not represent a loss of political power for Latinos. Before takeover, there was only one Latina on the nine-member elected board. After takeover, there were four Latinos on the 15-member appointed board, raising their level of representation to more closely resemble their share of the city’s population. In 2000, when the Newark school board switched back to an elected board, Latinos participated at a higher rate than in the period before takeover. And by 2003, Latinos had elected five representatives to the nine-member board, a first in the history of Newark school politics.

Morel demonstrates this hypothesis further with a case study of Central Falls, Rhode Island. In 1991 when state takeover of the schools occurred, Latinos had no representation in the mayor’s office, city council, or school board. The dwindling white population dominated city politics. After takeover, the state abolished the all-white elected school board and created a state-appointed board, giving Latinos three of the nine seats. The author goes on to show that takeover seemed to help establish a connection between the Latino community and the schools. In 2012, 21 years after the state takeover, Central Falls elected its first Latino mayor and shortly thereafter elected several Latinos or allies to the city council. State takeover of the schools in Central Falls helped pave the way for Latino political empowerment.

The analysis of Newark, Central Falls, New Orleans, Baltimore, and other cities overwhelmingly supports Morel’s hypotheses. And while rightly noting the complicating factor of race, he effectively shows that African American communities were overwhelmingly negatively impacted by state takeovers. These communities were more likely to be targeted and to experience more punitive forms of state takeover. Conversely, in Latino communities that experienced state takeover, the impact was more beneficial, aiding in their quest for political incorporation and empowerment.

Morel’s study highlights fissures in the theoretical framework used by most urbanists in the study of urban governance issues—regime theory. The author suggests that while the theory is still relevant, it must be expanded to account for the growing importance of state governors. He argues that, as states have shifted to greater centralization and cities have transitioned to black or minority-led urban regimes, the presence of state governments in local affairs, particularly in public education, has increased, and that has significant implications for our understanding of urban governance. To this end, he introduces the concepts of cohesive and disjointed state–local regimes.

The case study of Newark demonstrates the value of these concepts. For example, under Democratic Governor James Florio (1990–94), who was elected with the help of New Jersey’s urban centers, the Newark school district saw an increase in school funding and a decrease in state monitoring and efforts to take over the school system. As Morel puts it, “Newark officials were able to exercise influence over a state administration that relied on Newark voters for its electoral success” (p. 108). This cohesive regime between Newark’s political leaders and the governor was mutually beneficial. However, between 1995 and 2001, a disjointed state–local regime existed with the election of Republican Christine Todd Whitman. During her administration, the Newark school district was taken over and Newark suffered greatly. The takeover had significant economic and political consequences. The elected school board was abolished and the superintendent removed. Massive firing of school administrators, teachers, and support staff followed. The state takeover, as Morel writes, “undermined the city’s political leadership and local economy” and replaced “the office of mayor as the most influential political office overseeing the schools” (p. 109). Consequently, Morel concludes, communities are better served and represented under cohesive state–local regimes.

In short, what the Newark case study tells us is that communities can achieve much more by working together than when at odds with one another. Urban education reform can only be achieved when “there is a recognition that the success of black education is tied to the development of citizenship and a community’s political empowerment” (p. 138). Indeed, the author argues that for marginalized communities of color, it is essential to integrate local political empowerment with education reform.

Morel ends the book by asking, “How can marginalized, low-resourced communities address this political/educational dilemma?” (p. 139) He argues that the long-term solution may be to revisit the “federal-urban axis” that emerged during the 1960s. He suggests that there is room for the federal government to increase its presence in three areas: “funding, establishing stronger links between the federal government and cities, and providing equal rights protections to communities of color that are politically marginalized by the actions of state governments.” (p. 140). While this may have been feasible four decades ago, given the conservative turn in American politics it is unlikely that the federal government will take a more active role in urban education or to step up to disrupt, in any way, state actions that disempower minority communities. Likewise, it is unlikely that the courts, particularly the increasingly conservative Supreme Court, will be an ally in urban education reform or the empowerment of marginalized communities of color.

The election of Ras Baraka as mayor of Newark is important to note and suggests that the people there are ready to continue the struggle for political empowerment and, ultimately, the control of their schools. Communities of color that have been marginalized and disempowered may need to take a page from history and engage, once again, in the activism and resistance of the 1960s. Takeover outlines why this may be necessary.