|PDF (5 MB)|
2. Public Agenda Online. (1999). The poll report, On thin ice: How advocates and opponents could misread the public's views on vouchers and charter schools, was based on a June 1999 telephone survey of 1,200 members of the general public. Retrieved April 2004 from http://www.publicagenda.org/research/research_reports_details.cfm?list=32.
5. See the Web site of the National Center for Education Statistics. Select the Condition of Education: "Public alternative schools for at-risk students." Retrieved March 2004 from http://nces. ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section4/indicator27.asp.
6. As reported by K. Kafer in School choice 2003: How states are providing greater opportunity in education (2003). Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation. From a policy brief by the Education Commission of the States, Center for Community College Policy.
8. A good review of important potential outcomes of choice is included in a report from the National Working Commission on Choice in K-12 Education. (2003). School choice: Doing it the right way. Washington D.C.: Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.
12. Casserly, M. (forthcoming). No Child Left Behind: A status report on choice and supplemental services in America's Great City Schools. In C. Finn and F. Hess (eds.), Leaving no child behind: Options for kids in failing schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. For the 2003-04 school year, only six of the 41 districts surveyed by the Council of the Great City Schools received finalized state data before August. Fourteen received finalized data in August, and 21 did not receive finalized data until after the school year had begun. Casserly, op. cit, p. 15.
18. Reed. D. (forthcoming). Montgomery County, Title I and No Child Left Behind: Four stories ofimplementing schoolchoice.In C. Finn and F. Hess(eds.), Leaving no child behind: Options for kids in failing schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.