Eduardo V. Genao A magnet school in Hartford, CT has been stirring up a ton of controversy after its principal Eduardo V. Genao (pictured) allegedly coerced several mixed students to change their racial identity to white so that the school would qualify for more funding. Genao claims he asked for every student’s permission, but most deny this, and say that he guilted them into identifying as white for the good of the school:

Genao conceded that he asked teachers to help him identify biracial students and that he called the students to his office. In the course of discussing their racial classifications, he acknowledged, he spoke with them about the school’s funding. “I did indicate to the students and the parents how the formula works,” he said.

In fact, state guidelines tie the funding of magnet schools that opened before this year to residency, not race… to qualify for magnet school funding, schools must draw at least 30 percent of their students from the suburbs – a standard Sport & Medical Sciences Academy meets.

Race becomes a factor, for schools established before this year, in regard to compliance with the Sheff vs. O’Neill school desegregation settlement. It says 28 percent of a magnet school’s students must be white in order to count toward reducing racial isolation. With just 89 white students in a population of 400, or 22 percent, Sport & Medical Sciences falls far short.

Genao, who is in his first year at the magnet school and is new to Hartford, said he did not realize the state law linking funding to racial quotas applies only to new schools and not to established schools such as his. He denied, though, that the change in the students’ racial classifications was linked to money.

This case has drawn attention to the massive inconsistencies that still exist in the ways schools collect racial data. Of course, this can all be traced to the Department of Education’s delays in implementing federal guidelines that require it, along with all federal agencies, to allow people to check all that apply, instead of just one box.
Personally, I think this should be a wake-up call to us mixed folks that our ambiguous status can be exploited for others’ financial and/or political gain. Another good example of this is Ward Connerly’s ongoing campaign to eradicate all racial categories. He uses sob stories of mixed people who are forced to pick one box as an illustration of why racial categories don’t make sense. But what some people fail to realize is that this initiative is extremely dangerous because in effect, there would be no way of tracking civil rights violations or racial discrimination.

Wesley – I think you’re underestimating the importance of race in this issue. Since the Reagan administration, the Republican Party (and the DLC/Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party in the past 16 years) have made it their strategy to use “color blind” language which serves as a code for issues that, at best, are racialized, and at worst, are outright racist (best example: Reagan’s first speech after accepting the 1980 was in Philadelphia, MS – the place where 3 civil rights workers were assassinated in 1964. In front of an all white, confederate flag waving crowd, he said “I am now, and always have been, in favor of states rights.” No racial terms, but it’s pretty clear what every person there interpreted the statement to mean).

NCLB works in a similar way. Middle and Upper Class parents (who are mostly white) can support the policy because they all know the overwhelming majority of their kids will pass the tests without a significant change in their children’s educational program. However, at the same time, the program requires a wholesale reorganization of education for working class and poor students. I don’t think anyone would argue that the ability to pass an NCLB test will do anything to help students prepare for the dynamic world we live in (as Thomas Friedman’s loyal following amongst edubloggers would attest). NCLB, as we all know, leaves these children further behind. It is also part of the Republican/”New Democrat” strategy to further regulate all aspects of the lives of the poor and working classes (like Clinton’s ‘Welfare’ Reform).

I think you’re right though in terms of the political aspects of the policy. To borrow Lisa Delpit’s terminology, t is a classic case of appealing to people based on what they think is best for Other’s Peoples Children.

Thanks for your support, Wesley.