In this article, the authors examine the extent to which electronic information about schools is an effective means of facilitating informed school choice. Using data gathered from a web site providing information to parents in Washington, D.C., the authors find that the digital divide is a potent barrier against widespread use of this information, despite its importance and potential to bridge the “content gap.” Among those parents who do use the site, however, the authors find that the amount of information that the parents view increases the probability of attempting to change their child’s school.
Bartels, L. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194-230.
2.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1998). The basics of image theory. In L. R. Beach (Ed.), Image theory: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Bridge, G. (1978). Information imperfections: The Achilles’ heel of entitlement plans. School Review, 86, 504-529.
4.
Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2000, August 30). Shopping for schools: How do marginal consumers gather information about schools? Paper read at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
5.
Carver, R. L., & Salganik, L. H. (1991, Spring). You can’t have choice without information. Equity and Choice, pp. 71-75.
6.
Children’s Partnership. (2000). On-line content for low income and underserved Americans: The digital divide’s new frontier. Retrieved August 23, 2000, from http://www.childrenspartnership.org
7.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
8.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the “digital divide” to “digital inequality”: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Sociology Department.
11.
Frisch, D., & Clemen, R. T. (1994). Beyond expected utility: Rethinking behavioral decision research. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 46-54.
12.
Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B., & Steinmann, D. O. (1975). Social judgment theory. In M. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press.
13.
Henig, J. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
Henig, J. (1998, April). School choice outcomes: A review of what we know. Paper presented at Conference on School Choice, Law, and Public Policy, School ofLaw, University of California, Berkeley.
15.
Honaker, J., Joseph, A., King, G., & Scheve, K. (1999). Amelia: A program for missing data. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
16.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: CUP.
17.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
18.
King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (1998). Listwise deletion is evil: What to do about missing data in political science. Political Methodology Working Papers archive, Harvard University. Retrieved July 13, 1998, from http://web.polmeth.ufl.edu/papers/98/king98e.pdf
19.
King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 49-70.
20.
King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 347-361.
21.
Lau, R. R., & Levy, J. S. (1998). Contributions of behavioral decision theory to research in political science. Applied Psychology, 47(1), 29-44.
22.
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality (pp. 183-213). London: CUP.
23.
Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. In P. C. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
24.
Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Using web technology for governance reform. Political Communication, 17(1), 1-17.
25.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
26.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: CUP.
27.
Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2000). Can modern information technologies cross the digital divide to enhance choice and build stronger schools. New York: Teachers College Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
28.
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
30.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: John Wiley.
31.
Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economics Review, 68, 1-16.
32.
Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology and political science. American Political Science Review, 79, 293-304.
33.
Smithson, M. (1987). Fuzzy set analysis for behavioral and social sciences, recent research in psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
34.
Svenson, O. (1999). Differentiation and consolidation theory: Decision making processes before and after a choice. In P. Juslin & H. Montgomery (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: Neo-Brunswikian and process-tracing approaches (pp. 175-198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2000). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results 1.2.2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
36.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
37.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
38.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1998). The emerging digital economy. Washington, DC: Secretariat on Electronic Commerce.
39.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2001). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Retrieved January 3, 2001, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00
40.
Wilson, S. F. (1992). Reinventing the schools: A radical plan for Boston. Boston: Pioneer Institute.
41.
Zadeh, L. A., Fu, K-S., Tanaka, K., & Shimura, M. (1975). Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision processes. New York: Academic Press.
