Maybe it's just the cynic in me speaking, but what if the whole thing is a false flag? "Well, if $100M can't fix public education, perhaps we should [[raise|remove] the H1B cap | make it easier to start private schools and give them all the money | some other bullshit]."
In addition, according to the MSN article:
In 2010, Mayor Booker found a loophole in getting money to help fund Newark's educational reform. It came in the form of philanthropic donations, which, unlike government funding, required no public review of priorities or spending. Gov. Christie approved the plan, and Booker's job was to find the donors.
[...]
The reform ended up looking like this: taking low-performing public schools and closing them, turning them into charter schools and "themed" high schools. But there was no easy way to expand charters without destabilizing traditional public schools.
In the months following the gift announcement, Booker and Christie still had no superstar superintendent and no reform plan.
(Emphasis mine.) This only happened due to a "loophole" in the law, which tells me that there were no good intentions when it went into place. It was probably just as much a bribe--sorry, lobbying effort--to friends and family of Christie, Booker, or both, as it was a school reform effort. And, unfortunately, even if it was totally legit, it wouldn't have worked thanks to an issue mentioned in the article:
Booker appointed Cami Anderson for the job. She implemented ways to help students and improve schools (all which The New Yorker detailed), but there were roadblocks along the way, like how the students brought the issues going on in their homes with them to the classroom.
You could have the best classrooms, the best tech, the best teachers, and no nagging administration; but if the students aren't getting meals outside of school, if they have to walk to/from school worried about being accosted by gangs or thugs, if their parents aren't around (be it from abandonment or working multiple jobs) and able to be involved in both making sure the student studies and within the school, then scores and the graduation rate will likely improve at a rate that would be considered a rounding error.
If that money had gone to improve the community (primarily through offering local, well-paying jobs to the parents, secondarily through safety concerns) then I believe it would have done far, far more to improve student education then any effort they undertook.