Considering alternatives for federal education policy in the United States: a critical perspective on No Child Left Behind Jacqueline Edmondson* and Alexandra D’Urso The Pennsylvania State University, USA (Received 30 June 2008; final version received 29 August 2008) The pending reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the George W. Bush administration’s iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, provides an important opportunity to consider what federal education policy could be in the United States. In this paper, we explain how the rationalization of education, particularly of reading instruction, has led to the failure of NCLB, even on its own terms. Our analysis critiques the underlying assumptions of this policy and proposes different possibilities for education policy, particularly the potential for policy to: (1) provide possibilities for all citizens to engage in democratic life, (2) provide access to information, and (3) to embrace the complexities of learning and literacy. Keywords: critical studies; NCLB; policy Introduction Only by understanding the unique dynamics of federal education politics will reformers be able to craft a more effective national role in school reform. And if the United States is to more fully realize its ideal of being the land of opportunity, improving public education is clearly a necessary, if not sufficient, condition. (McGuinn, 2006, pp. ix–x) As we write, the future of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) awaits the outcome of a historic American presidential election. Yet to date, politicians, including the two candidates for US president, are largely unwilling to question what is generally perceived to be the overall aim of the legislation: closing the achievement gap. The Bush administration has successfully framed the law in ways that make it politically difficult to challenge (see Lakoff, 2004); in other words, who would want to publicly attack a law that proposes to leave no child behind? Instead, politicians offer proposals for revisions to the law as it exists, rather than suggest a new frame and a different direction for the US federal government in relation to K-12 public education. None question the relationship between student performance, inequitable school resources, and the eroding socio-economic conditions that impact student success in school (such as health care, availability of nutritious affordable food, and stability in the job market), and none reconsider the relationship between the federal government and public education in the United States – a relationship that has become increasingly authoritarian and rationalized. The promise of a new and hopefully different federal administration in the United States provides an opportunity to reevaluate NCLB while simultaneously envisioning a new, comprehensive education policy that provides all students with *Corresponding author. Email: jxe117@psu.edu Critical Studies in Education Vol. 50, No. 1, February 2009, 79–91 ISSN 1750-8487 print/ISSN 1750-8495 online ß 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17508480802541230 http://www.informaworld.com