AndersonJ. C., & GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin,103, 1–15.
2.
AndersonK. M., & ResnickM. A. (1997). Careful comparisons: Public and private schools in America.Alexandria, VA: Advocacy Research Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 611)
3.
AscherC. (1996). Performance contracting: A forgotten experiment in school privatization.Phi Delta Kappan,77(9), 615–621.
4.
BraceyG. W. (1998). About those private school achievements.Phi Delta Kappan,79(8), 629–630.
5.
CabreraA. F., CastanedaM. B., NoraA., & HengstlerD. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence.Journal of Higher Education,63(2), 143–164.
6.
CohenD. L. (1994). Parent involvement drops off after early grades.Education Week,14(1), 6.
7.
ColemanJ. S., HofferT, & KilgoreS. (1982). High school achievement.New York: Basic Books.
8.
CoonsS. (1997). Catholic schools serving disadvantaged students.Future of Children,7(3), 140–144.
9.
CoulsonA. J. (1999). Market education: The unknown history.Somerset, NJ: Transaction Books.
10.
CrawfordJ., & FreemanS. (1996). Why parents choose private schooling: Implications for public school programs and information campaigns.ERS Spectrum,14(3), 9–16.
11.
GamoranA. (1996). Student achievement in public magnet, public comprehensive, and private city high schools.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,18(1), 1–18.
12.
GilesH. C. (1998). Parent engagement as a school reform strategy.New York: Columbia University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 419 031)
13.
GoldhaberD. D. (1996). Public and private high schools: Is school choice an answer to the productivity problem?Economics of Education Review,15, 3–12.
14.
GroganP. R. (1999). An urban school that works, created by teachers and students who did it their way: A review of “Making It Up as We Go Along: The Story of the Albany Free SchoolJournal for a Just and Caring Education,5(4), 406–409.
15.
HanksD. (1996). How Milwaukee's choice program helps poor children succeed in school.Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 422 431)
16.
HendersonA. T., & BerlaN. (Eds.). (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement.Washington, D. C.: Center for Law and Education.
17.
JohnsonK. A. (1999). Comparing math scores of black students in D.C.'s public and Catholic schools.Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 209)
18.
JoreskogK. G., & SorbomD. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
19.
KirschenbaumH. (1999). Night and day: Succeeding with parents at school.Principal,78(3), 20–23.
20.
McHughB., & SpathS. (1997). Carter G. Woodson elementary school: The success of a private school curriculum in an urban public school.Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,2(2), 121–135.
21.
NataleJ. A. (1995). Write this down.American School Board Journal,182(12), 16–20.
22.
OlejnikS. F. (1984). Planning educational research: Determining the necessary sample size.Journal of Experimental Education,53, 40–48.
23.
PetersonA. M. (1997). Aspects of school climate: A review of the literature.ERS Spectrum,15(1), 36–42.
24.
PetersonP. E. (1998). Vouchers and test scores.Policy Review,93, 10–15.
25.
RothsteinR. (2000). The behavior of public and private schools.School Administrator,57(5), 36–41.
26.
ShokraiiN. H. (1997). Why Catholic schools spell success for America's inner city children.Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 562)
27.
TurnerJ. (2000). Parent involvement: What can we learn from research? Spotlight: Working with parents.Montessori Life,12(2), 37–39.
28.
WitteJ. F. (1996). School choice and student performance. In LaddHelen (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
