1. C. Hoxby (ed.). (2003). The economics of school choice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

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.

3. See the Web site of the Education Commission of the States. Retrieved March 2004 from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report. aspx?id=205.

4. Magnet schools: Select No Child Left Behind: Choice: Magnet Schools: Quick Facts. Retrieved March 2004 from http://www. ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issue.asp?issueid=19.

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.

7. See the Web site of the Center for Education Reform. Retrieved April 2004 from http://www.edreform.com.

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.

9. Howell, W. (forthcoming). Parents, choice, and NCLB's future. In C. Finn and F. Hess (eds.), Leaving no child behind: Options for kids in failing schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

10. Schneider, M., Teske, P., and Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

11. Howell, op. cit., p. 25.

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.

14. Casserly, op. cit., p. 21.

15. Casserly, op. cit., p. 11.

16. Pinzur, M. (2004, February 3). New schools guide puts parents in the know. Miami Herald.

17. Howell, op. cit.; Schneider, op. cit.

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.

19. See Reed, op. cit., for analysis of choices offered in Montgomery County, Md., and how parents responded.

20. See WestEd. (2000). Teachers who learn, kids who achieve. San Francisco: Author.

21. Hess, F. (1998). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

22. Howell. op. cit.; Schneider, op. cit.