1. U.S. Department of Education, n.d. Nation’s Report Card Shows Continued Progress—General. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/report-card.html. Last accessed on May 30, 2007.

2. The Education Trust, 2005. Closing the Achievement Gap: 2005 NAEP Reading and Math Results Show Some Gains, But Slowing Progress. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust. Available at http://www2.edtrust.org/EDTrust/Press+Room/NAEP+2005.htm. Last accessed on June 1, 2007.

3. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, n.d. Education Indicators for the White House Social Statistics Briefing Room (SSBR). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ssbr/-pages/mathematics.asp?IndID=29. Last accessed on May 30, 2007.

4. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005. Average Scale Scores and Achievement-Level Results in Mathematics for Students With Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading_math_2005/
s0029.asp?printver=. Last accessed on June 3, 2007.

5. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2004. Perspectives on the Gaps: Fostering the Academic Success of Minority and Low-Income Students. Naperville, Ill.: Learning Points Associates. Available at http://search.learningpt.org/query.html?qt=Perspectives+on+the
+Gaps%3A+Fostering+the+Academic. Last accessed on July 23, 2007.

6. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2004. Successful Charter Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2006. Charter High Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

7. The Center for Education Reform, 2006. All About Charter Schools (CER Quick Facts). Washington, D.C.: The Center for Education Reform. Available at http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&
documentID=1964. Last accessed on May 30, 2007.

8. Finn, Jr., C. E., Hassel, B. C., and Speakman, S., August 2005. Charter School Funding: Inequity’s Next Frontier. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Progress Analytics Institute, and Public Impact. Available at http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/charterfinance. Last accessed on July 23, 2007.

9. Lake, R. J. and Hill, P. T., eds., 2005. Hopes, Fears & Reality: A Balanced Look at American Charter Schools in 2005 (p. 15). Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, National Charter School Research Project. Available at http://www.ncsrp.org/downloads/HopesandFears2005_report.pdf. Last accessed on June 30, 2007.

10. Ibid., p. 11.

11. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, October 2005. Digest of Education Statistics: 2004 (Table 100). Available at http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_100.asp?
referrer=list. Last accessed on August 17, 2007.

12. Hoxby, C. M., 2004. Achievement in Charter Schools and Regular Public Schools in the United States: Understanding the Differences. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research.

13. Hamilton, L. S. and Stecher, B. M., 2006. "A Better Way of Measuring Charter School Success and Failure," chapter 6 in Hopes, Fears, and Reality: A Balanced Look at American Charter Schools in 2006, R. J. Lake and P. T. Hill, eds. Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, National Charter School Research Project.

14. U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, 2004. Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/index.html. Last accessed on June 1, 2007.

15. Unraveling the "Teacher Shortage" Problem: Teacher Retention is the Key, Aug. 20–22, 2002. A symposium of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and NCTAF State Partners, Washington D.C. Available at http://www.ncsu.edu/mentorjunction/text_files/teacher_ retentionsymposium.pdf. Last accessed July 17, 2007.

16. A 2003 survey of California charter schools by the Reason Foundation found school directors reported using aggressive early intervention strategies and remediation strategies to help reduce the rate of special education classification of students. Reason Foundation, Special Education Survey, as found in L. Snell, 2004. Special Education Accountability: Structural Report to Help Charter Schools Make the Grade. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, Reason Public Policy Institute. Available at http://www.reason.org/ps319.pdf. Last accessed on June 1, 2007.

17. A 2002 report from the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education reported that two out of five special education students are assigned to the program "simply because they haven’t learned how to read." U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2002. A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/ reports/images/Pres_Rep.pdf. Last accessed on June 30, 2007.

18. Research shows that English language learners "… historically have suffered from disproportionate assignment to lower curriculum tracks on the basis of inappropriate assessment and, as a result, from over-referral to special education." In La Celle-Peterson, M. W. and Rivera, C., Spring 1994. "Is It Real for All Kids? A Framework for Equitable Assessment Policies for English Language Learners," Harvard Educational Review 64, no. 1, p. 2. Available at http://ceee.gwu.edu/products_ELLS/isitreal.pdf. Last accessed on July 7, 2007.

19. 2004–05 Chicago Public Schools: Charter Schools Performance Report. Available at http://www.ren2010.cps.k12.il.us/docs/2004-2005_Performance_
Report.pdf. Last accessed on July 3, 2007.

20. According to section C-4 of the U.S. Department of Education’s Charter Schools Program, Title IV, Part B, Non-regulatory Guidance (July 2004), the following students may be exempted from a charter school’s admissions lottery: students enrolled in a public school at the time it is converted to a charter school, current students’ siblings, children of charter school’s founders, and children of employees in a work-site charter school (so long as the total number of students allowed under this exemption constitutes only a small percentage of the school’s total enrollment).

21. Moses, R. P. and Cobb, Jr., C. E., 2001. Radical Equations: Math Literacy and Civil Rights (p. 5). Boston: Beacon Press.

22. CCA’s alternative licensing program requires completion of course work, school-based training and mentoring, and observation and monitoring of the integration of effective practices. To qualify, candidates apply, document 30 semester hours of courses in their content field, pass state-required tests, and agree to be evaluated by the Colorado Department of Education. After one year these teachers receive a provisional credential and after two more years of supervised work they are awarded their professional credential.

23. Brodsky, A., 2005. 390,343 Children Left Behind: Who’s Closing the Achievement Gap in Colorado’s Schools? (pp. 2, 17–18). Denver: Colorado Children’s Campaign. Available at http://www.coloradokids.org/our_issues/k12_education/ projects.html. Last accessed on June 2, 2007.

24. Filby, N., 2006. "Approach to Methodological Rigor in the Innovation Guides," working paper. San Francisco: WestEd.

25. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2004. Successful Charter Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charter/index.html.