State takeover of school boards is a controversial policy choice aimed at reforming "underperforming" districts. It includes the limiting or complete removal of powers of an elected school board. However, this policy intervention is overwhelmingly implemented in school districts serving predominantly Black communities. Despite extensive nationwide use, very little is known about how to terminate this policy intervention. This article uses the theoretical heuristics of race-evasiveness to analyze interviews primarily with board members, district-level administrators, and other policy actors (n=18) in the three extant Missouri districts impacted by the policy. Specifically, we (1) interrogate policy actors' perspectives for when and how two juxtaposing narratives--either race-evasive narratives or race-conscious narratives--emerge in their discussion of this policy; and (2) examine if and how policy actors' reliance on these juxtaposing narratives changes how they approach appropriate policy termination strategies. We found that local policy actors demonstrate complex race-evasive or race-conscious understandings of the school board intervention policy and that their use of narratives changed how they discussed proper policy termination strategies. Policy actors who relied on race-conscious narratives questioned the legitimacy of the policy, contextualized the policy within Black political enfranchisement, and were also more likely to express confidence in the Black citizenry. Policy actors that understood the policy from a race-evasive perspective were more likely to recommend accountability metrics as the most important aspect of the policy termination process. Because of the centrality of democratic control of school boards in the civic vitality within the United States, this analysis suggests that policy actors should be encouraged to understand and interrogate a race-conscious lens in this policy.