George Norcross’s credentials as a political boss are gold-plated and shiny: He put his brother in the state Senate, pushed aside former acting Gov. Richard Codey to make Stephen Sweeney the Senate president, and gave Republican Gov. Chris Christie the Democratic legislative votes to slap around the public employee unions that were once a core of New Jersey’s Democratic Party — the party to which Norcross says he belongs.

But now Norcross — vilified by the state’s teacher unions as the worst sort of manipulator — apparently wants to be known as a kinder, gentler political boss. Maybe even as an educational reformer and, to gain those credentials, he’s doing some things the shadowy political figure hasn’t done before — like hire a press spokesman, appear at news conferences with Christie, and give one-on-one interviews in which he expounds on his educational views.

He needs some work.

He believes, for example, that children in Camden and other cities should be taken out of public schools — "the equivalent of juvenile prison."

"We have to change the environment they’re in, and put them in a private, parochial, or charter environment," says Norcross.

Groups he controls are likely soon to open charter schools in Camden, including one on land now owned by the state’s School Development Authority and set aside for a public school: It’s good to be a pal of the governor.

And, at his behest, legislators from Camden County are about to introduce a voucher bill, a scaled-back version of an $800 million bill now bottled up in the Legislature.

In his ideal world, the parents of children enrolled in charter and other privatized schools will be "mandatorily" engaged in helping those schools, he says, or their children will be asked to leave. "That’s exactly the way charters operate," he says.

He concedes that, under such a scheme, most urban children, maybe as many as 60 percent, will be left behind in traditional schools — private, parochial and charter schools are not obliged to take or retain everyone — and those children are more likely to have problems and "less engaged" parents than those in privatized schools. Their needs will cost more per pupil.

"But we have an obligation to save children who are reaching out to us. You can’t keep the status quo simply because you don’t have an answer for what to do with the 60 percent or so that might remain in the public schools."

Resulting higher per-pupil costs can be handled by reducing staff and consolidating buildings, he says. While he wants to reform conventional schools, he is against any reform plan that would result in increased spending for public schools.

He admits poor children need more resources than more affluent children. "Certainly, it costs more money but, even with spending all that money, the results are inexcusable. You’re not seeing any effective results. None. Zero."

Organizations like Newark’s Education Law Center — backed by national studies — disagree, but never mind.

Norcross wants a "dual strategy": While some children are placed in charter and voucher schools, the state should improve traditional public schools. But, beyond "substantial bonuses" for good teachers, he didn’t offer any solutions that would be part of his "strategy."

"If it were easy, it would have been done a long time ago," he says — repeatedly.

Norcross concedes he is unfamiliar with studies showing charter or voucher schools in places like Milwaukee have done no better than conventional schools. "I’m not disputing the fact there are reasons some things have worked and some things haven’t worked," he says, "but you cannot put your entire level of confidence in the way public schools are operating."

Besides, he says, Milwaukee can’t be compared to Camden.

He wouldn’t touch the issue of racial segregation in urban schools, saying "economic issues" are more important. The most he would say about racial isolation is that "any and all ideas should be discussed and explored," maybe in an "education summit.’’

Norcross says he is a big fan of bringing private companies and other institutions into the operation of schools. He talks about the "brilliant doctors and nurses" at Cooper University Hospital in Camden "who could lend themselves" to the operation of charter schools. He is the chairman of the hospital’s board.

But then he backed away from suggesting "brilliant doctors and nurses" would have any time or interest in running, or teaching at, charter schools. He suggested they could be "mentors" to the children, finally insisting that simply lending the name of a famous person or institution to a privatized school would result in its improvement.

Like, say, his name: "If the name Norcross was on a charter school, you can be damned sure the education there will be provided at the highest level."

Related coverage:

• George Norcross and pension reform (Or, how I came to believe in the bogey man)

• N.J. Democrats reject NJEA ad campaign attacking Senate President Stephen Sweeney

• Braun: N.J. public workers aren't the enemy - or the solution - in budget battle