Pulled this, from Jose Delgado, up from the comments:

It is comforting to now have so many people articulate the fact that the NJ DOE strategy has always been the eventual destruction of the public school district through implementation of a Portfolio Management strategy. For years I felt like I was the only person on earth that had taken the time to read the NJ DOE document that clearly outlined this goal and the manner in which it was to be carried out. Though secret when first developed by the NJ DOE’s Portfolio Management Office (the very existence of such an office speaks volumes) it was made public through a Courier-Post article.
The plan articulated a process that would establish the “state as the primary actor, pulling multiple levers at one time (closures, new charters, Interdistrict Choice, Takeovers, etc.).” It went on to emphasis that, “The district [would be] solely a school operator, not the portfolio manager.” The document resembles an invasion and occupation plan developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Of course there are a few incorrect assumptions. For example, when addressing “Governance Issues” it anticipated that “Legislators would be in favor; Mayor likely would not.” This error can be attributed to a belief that any Mayor worth their salts would resist given their responsibility to protect an important institution such as the public schools. They were unaware that Mayor Redd is merely a political operative answerable first to Democratic Party Boss George Norcross.
The author(s) could not have anticipated the affects that the Urban Hope Act (UHA) would have on the scope, timing and impact on the overall plan. The UHA was passed and amended years later. The addition of the so-called Renaissance Schools, among other things, increased the number of Charters and as a result additional public and existing charters would be closed. Thus the “Portfolio Management In Camden Plan” underestimates the number of charter schools and the devastation that this will have on the district’s local school budget.

The state’s agenda has never been to improve the local schools. Take for example, the August 9, 2012 directive, in which Commissioner Christopher Cerf instructed the BOE to “conduct a national search for a superintendent with prior success in reforming an urban school district with persistently low student achievement.” Yet, immediately after officially taking over the district, they appointed a gentleman with just two-years of classroom experience as Superintendent. This followed the plan’s script that “a leader that is in favor of this agenda” be appointed superintendent. The need for educational training and professional expertise went out the window.

The underlying fact is that the people of Camden were never consulted by anyone about what Governor Christie and the NJ DOE intended to do after they took over the district. What we are witnessing is the undemocratic destruction of a school district composed almost entirely of black and Hispanic youngsters. This is not an accident, it is policy. Just check out the other districts that have been taken over. The fact that they have the cooperation of political operatives that look like the invaded community doesn’t make it all right.