This year (2012) marks ten years of No Child Left Behind and the U.S. federal government's officialdesignation of what qualifies as "scientifically based research" (SBR) in education. Combined, these twopolicies have resulted in a narrowing of education via standardization and high stakes testing (Au, 2007) aswell as the curtailment of forms of inquiry that are deemed legitimate for examining education (Wright,2006). While there has been much debate about the benefits and limitations of the NCLB legislation (e.g.,Au, 2010) and SBR (e.g., Eisenhart & Towne, 2003), critical researchers have held strong to their position:The reductionistic narrowing of education curricula and educational research cannot solve the present andhistorical inequities in society and education (Shields, 2012). Contrarily, reductionism (via standardization and/or methodological prescription)exacerbates the challenges we face because it effectively erases the epistemological, ontological, and axiological diversity necessary for disruptinghegemonic social structures that lie at the root of human suffering (Kincheloe, 2004). Not only has NCLB proven incapable of overcominginequalities, but there seems to be sufficient evidence to suggest it was never really intended to eliminate poverty and human suffering. That is, itseems NCLB, despite its lofty title and public discourse, is actually designed to advance the agenda of handing public education over to for-profitcorporations to manage and p...