Kumashiro, Kevin K. (2008) The Seduction of Common Sense: How the Right Has Framed the Debate on America’s Schools. Reviewed by Victor Diaz, Arizona State University

Kumashiro, Kevin K. (2008) The Seduction of Common Sense: How the Right Has Framed the Debate on America’s Schools. NY: Teachers College Press Pp. 98         ISBN 978-0-8077-4868-8 Reviewed by Victor Diaz Arizona State University December 13, 2008 In the arena of education reform, it seems that just a little “common sense” on the part of policy makers would go a long way toward fixing America’s schools. Common sense policies like measuring what students learn, holding schools accountable for providing a quality education, staffing schools with qualified teachers, imparting social values to students, and ensuring that all students have the opportunity to learn regardless of race, class, or gender are all the nation's leaders need to do to make schools better (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Kevin Kumashiro does not discuss the merits of these arguments in The Seduction of Common Sense: How the Right has Framed the Debate in Education. Rather, he analyzes the source of these arguments by exposing the ways in which political conservatives in the United States have framed the debate about school improvement, relying mostly on scare tactics, so-called “family values,” and white privilege. In doing so, the Right has focused the public on “common sense” that does not actually hold the answers for improving America’s schools. Michael Apple argues, “One of the most important objects of rightist agendas is changing our common sense” (2001, p. 9). Kumashiro writes, " 'Common Sense' narrowly defines what is considered to be consistent with the purposes of schooling. Common sense does not tell us that this is what schools could be doing; it tells us that this and only this is what schools should be doing. To reform schools in a fundamental way, one first must redefine common sense and reframe how we think about education” (p. 5). The Seduction of Common Sense attempts to meet the goal of redefining common sense topics using an analysis of the Right’s framing tactics, and offering new frames for how the Left ought to go about improving the nation's schools. In the opening chapter, Kumashiro argues that conservatives have used a four-tier approach to framing the debate in education by using money from conservative-based philanthropies. First, they have created institutions within higher education that impart conservative ideology to students. Second, they employ think tanks to create research that solidifies their ideology, while making their views easily digestible for politicians and policy makers (deMarrais, 2006). Third, they have organized local community organizations that advocate policies aligned to their educational ideologies at the local level. Finally, they use the media to spread their messages about how schools ought to operate (Lakoff, 2004). To provide examples of this work, Kumashiro argues that the Right has concentrated its energy on several initiatives that undermine public education. For example, the Right has argued for relief in the taxation of Americans to fund public education by privatizing the education system and offering vouchers to parents of schoolchildren. To achieve these policies, ideologies around privatization are spread to young scholars and developing citizens in higher education. In addition, research organizations and think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute conduct research intended to prove that initiatives like vouchers demonstrate the benefit of privatizing education. At the same time, local groups are organized around issues such as school choice in order to advocate for vouchers. Finally, news organizations on television and radio are employed to spread positive messages and argue for privatization. The Right has succeeded in several states, e.g., Arizona, where so-called neo-voucher laws (charter schools, tuition tax credits, and the like) have been adopted. Aside from privatization and tax cuts, Kumashiro argues that the Right uses the same approach to undermine public education through funding and spending restrictions, alternative teacher certification, censorship, and standards and accountability. Through successful framing, the Right controls the debate on America’s schools, assuring that their solutions are the ones that receive the most attention in the marketplace of ideas, while also being accepted as “common sense” by ordinary people. Ultimately, the Right does this to advance their agenda on education and enforce their ideology that education is meant to provide for the business and economic sector, and not the social welfare of the nation. If the American people accept their policies as common sense, the nation advances their ideologies of maintaining the status quo of schools: a status quo built on inequity and lack of access for marginalized people. Absent from this conversation, Kumashiro argues, is the advocacy for policies and practices that benefit marginalized people. In the second chapter, Kumashiro deconstructs three frames the Right has used to shape the way in which their policies are viewed. Through savvy public relations, funding from wealthy philanthropists, and a keen eye for framing debates, the Right has portrayed itself as the “owners” of traditional family values. These values consist of self-sufficiency and meritocracy, which form the base for their political agenda. These neo-liberal values presume that a level playing field in education exists, which many marginalized groups know to be false. Additionally, in a post-9/11 world, the Right has presented itself as a “beacon of goodness,” shining its light on evil-doers. When the public views foreign policy from the Right in this way, it is sure to have a spillover effect on education policy. Another frame employed by the Right is one that is based on fear and scare tactics. The Right has invested countless dollars and hours in convincing the American people that there is a frightening crisis in education. Whether it is American inferiority to other developed nations in math and science, the need for higher education in order to survive in the economy, or the achievement gap in America’s schools, the Right has positioned itself as the problem solvers of this crisis. If Americans are truly afraid, they will turn to those who have solutions to their problems and will uncritically comply with their policies. To return to the previous example, the propaganda of the crisis in public education has allowed the Right to advance its policies on vouchers in the name of school choice. By making the public afraid of the deterioration of public schools, communities have pushed for the right to choose the school in which they send their children. Additionally, by charging that public schools are so dysfunctional that hard work and self-sufficiency by students no longer assure them an excellent education, families have looked to private schools to provide neo-liberal values to their children. The frames of family values, good versus evil, and fear have allowed the Right to control discussions of public education. As if that were not enough, Kumashiro further argues that the Right has appropriated other frames in education, namely the frames of safety and diversity. The Leftist frame of providing a sense of security, both physical and emotional, for marginalized people has been co-opted by the Right to advance policies that silence difference and push uniformity, instead of celebrating difference and pushing for equity. Kumashiro explains that issues of heterosexism and homophobia have been framed by the Right in a way that ensures LGBT youth will never have the space they need in school to become de-marginalized. To borrow from Hegel, essentially, the Right creates a synthesis between the Left’s thesis and the Right’s original antithesis that more closely aligns with their positions than the Left’s. Kumashiro writes, “Appropriation has allowed the Right to mask its underlying purpose and, consequently, communicate its messages in ways that bring more people on board with its initiatives. Sometimes the Right has been so successful at framing an issue that the Left has had a difficult time reframing and refocusing” (p. 69). Another example of the Right framing education is the current debate over the achievement gap, which is the topic of Chapter 4. According to the author, the simple title of the “achievement gap” is a frame that masks the real issues present in the racial disparities in achievement in the United States. Kumashiro cites Gloria Ladsen-Billings’s (2006) work and calls for a reframing of the achievement gap as the “Educational Debt” that has arisen from Jim Crow, segregation, and systematic racism and discrimination in education. According the Kumashiro, the term achievement gap “implies that White and Asian students are learning what students are supposed to learn and they define success in schools” (p. 75). This frame further privileges Whites, while demanding that African-American and Latino youth assimilate with their White peers. In addition, by lumping Whites and Asians together, the “achievement gap” reinforces the misperception of Asians as a model minority that has quietly, and obediently, assimilated to White America. Finally, Kumashiro argues that the frame of the achievement gap has resulted in the Left joining the side of the Right in education reforms that include the privatization of education, the narrowing of curriculum, and the deflecting of the collective responsibility everyone owes to oppressed people in this country. In the final chapter, Kumashiro offers new frames the Left must create if they truly wish to disrupt the status quo in education and lead the nation in a discussion of what schools could be like. The three frames he offers are the right to be different, the idea that oppression hurts everyone, and connecting multiple human rights in order to have deep discussion over education as one part of the over-arching agenda of protecting human rights. Much like Audre Lorde’s assertion that there “can be no hierarchies of oppression,” Kumashiro feels all of those who believe in disrupting the status quo of systematic hegemony in education need to align around their shared oppression. He calls for sweeping reforms in human rights, education included. It is in this final chapter that Kumashiro truly strikes at the issue inherent in the Right’s framing of education debates. He writes that the Left is fractured into two camps. One camp fights for cultural and identity politics for particular groups, such as LGBT rights or policies that will impact one marginalized group. On the other side is a group that struggles for progressive, class-based policies that will impact the nation’s economy, such as raising corporate taxes or funding social programs. He says they both need to rally around the bigger picture if the Left is going to reframe the debate. The argument of the Right framing the debate is certainly valid, but it is this fracturing of the Left that is to blame for the Right’s dominance in the debate on America’s schools. Although Kumashiro spends the majority of his book explaining what the Right has done to win its seat at the table in education reform, more discussion should be spent over the fracturing of the Left, resulting in neo-liberal policies and well-intentioned political leaders who have only worsened the living conditions of working class Black and Brown people in the United States. While it is true that the Right is fractured as well, the privileges they wield as a dominant group render this division meaningless. Kumashiro only skims the surface in the understanding that the political Right of the United States is predominately composed of White Male Christians who, due to the privileges they wield, do not need to frame the debate. Their historic role as the dominant group guarantees the domination of their ideas, regardless of the frames they use. Marginalized people do not need a reframing of a debate. They need social justice based actions that will build their power base and grant them voice. They need to fight for their own liberation, not simply frame a debate with a group that is not interested in their freedom. The reforms Kumashiro wishes to see in the United States will not arise from frames the Left uses to explain its political ideologies. It will arise from actions taken by the Left that aid the resistance of marginalized people against their dominant oppressors. It is clear in his book that Kumashiro is yearning for social justice, and is borrowing from Freire and others in his discussion of oppression. Yet, his book fails to analyze deeply the current situation or to offer hopeful actions that can be taken to make changes in our schools, our educational system, and our society. The real discussion should be an exploration of how schools can produce citizens who can meet the challenge the author presents in the final chapter. Frames are important, but the kind of mobilization and rallying around common ideas Kumashiro touches on in his last chapter are of the utmost importance. It has been argued that youth are in the best place to create and lead this movement, as their ability to shape culture is unrivaled by any other group (Maira and Soep 2006). Yes, the Right does a good job framing debates, but they do so by exercising their privilege to ignore other perspectives. They do not have to pay attention to how they frame debates. The marginalized and their allies do. References Apple, M. W. (2001). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God and inequality. New York: Routledge. deMarrais, K. (2006). “The have and have mores”: Fueling a conservative ideological war on public education (or tracking the money). Educational Studies, 39(3), 201-240. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. New York: Chelsea Green. Lorde, A. (1983). “There is no hierarchy of oppressions.” International Books for Children Bulletin 14. Maira, S. & Soep, L. (2005). Youthscapes: The popular, the national and the global. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Education Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479. About the Reviewer Victor Diaz is a PhD student in Arizona State University’s Educational Policy and Leadership Studies program. He holds a M.A. from San Francisco State University in Educational Equity and Social Justice. After teaching summer school in the Bronx, NY, he taught English and ELD at a high school in East Side San Jose for five years. He returned to Arizona to become a Program Director for Teach For America-Phoenix, where he mentored and supported middle school and high school teachers.