本研究主要目的在於探究教育政策評估理論之內涵與理論基礎、模式與評估標準，接續分析臺灣及主要國家幼兒教育券政策的緣起與發展，進而應用理論架構，評估北、高兩市實施幼兒教育券政策之實施成效，最後，歸納理論建構及應用分析之發現，提出具體建議，以作為一般教育及幼兒教育行政人員進行政策評估之參考。
本研究運用文獻分析法進行理論的探究，並使用問卷調查法與訪談法以瞭解北、高兩市幼兒教育券政策的實施成效，而獲致以下結論：
一、教育政策評估除了有精密的計量方法技術外，應有形而上的理論作為指導依據。
二、教育政策評估模式日趨多元化，有助於政策精準性的提昇。
三、教育政策評估方法強調質量並重，兼採實證論與詮釋論方法的使用。
四、利益關係人在教育政策評估過程中扮演重要角色，宜審慎考量政治倫理與注意政治問題的處理。
五、教育政策評估標準需建立其信效度，並適時運用專業判斷合理使用。
六、各國幼兒教育券政策實施經驗兼重家長選擇權的強調與幼教品質功能的提昇。
七、北、高兩市的幼兒教育券政策實施成效滿意度高，能充分減輕幼兒家長就學負擔。
八、北、高兩市實施成效有明顯地區差異，臺北市較重視家長的選擇權，而高雄市則較注意政策的影響與問題。
九、降低補助年齡與提高補助金額是幼兒教育券政策未來有待努力的重點。
十、幼兒教育券政策持續施行與簡化申請手續，有助於政策美意的落實。
根據研究的結果，本研究針對教育政策評估理論建構、一般教育行政機關、幼兒教育行政機關三方面提出建議：
一、 對教育政策評估理論建構的建議：(一)擴大教育政策評估研究範圍；(二)增加教育政策評估研究對象；(三)多樣教育政策評估研究方法；(四)應用多元教育政策評估標準；(五)整合教育政策評估研究模式；(六)長期教育政策縱貫評估；(七)加強教育政策評估相關研究。
二、 對一般教育行政機關的建議：(一)定期進行教育政策實施成效評估，以落實教育績效的提昇；(二)教育政策評估所採取的模式宜有多元化考量；(三)教育政策評估方法兼採質量並重，以深化落實教育活動成果；(四)重視教育政策評估過程中的政治倫理，以利教育政策的有效評估；(五)建構教育政策評估標準系統，以增加教育政策評估的可信與有效程度。
三、 對幼兒教育行政機關的建議：(一)幼兒教育券政策實施除應有全國統一做法外，更應有因地制宜的調整；(二)幼兒教育券政策的實施應朝向降低補助年齡，以擴增受惠幼兒；(三)幼兒教育券政策之實施宜提高補助金額，以減輕家長負擔；(四)幼兒教育券政策施行宜簡化申請手續，以達到便民的目的；(五)幼兒教育券政策應持續施行，以落實嘉惠幼教的德政美意。

The aims of this dissertation are to explore the content, rational, model, standard of educational policy evaluation theory, and to analyze the nursery education voucher policy in Taiwan and the other nations. And then the framework of educational policy evaluation theory is applied to evaluate the effects of implementation of nursery education voucher policy in Taipei and Kaohsiung. Finally, it is concluded to the results of theory construction and case analysis. The suggestions are presented to educational administrators for planning and evaluating educational policy.
The methods literature review, questionnaire and interview are used in this study. Ten important conclusions are as follows:
First, educational policy evaluation is based on the theories of philosophy, administration, economics, sociology, and psychology except the delicate measurement and technique of quantities.
Second, the diversified models of educational policy evaluation models are helpful for improving the accuracy of policy.
Third, the method of educational policy evaluation emphasizes both on the quantity and quality based on experimentalism and hermeneutics.
Forth, political ethics, and concern about the role of stakeholders and how to handle political affairs, should be taken into consideration in educational policy evaluation.
Fifth, the standards of educational policy evaluation must establish reliability and validity for evaluators to use professional judgments.
Sixth, the experience of nursery education voucher policy implementation is focused on parents’ school choice and the quality improvement of early childhood education.
Seventh, satisfaction of nursery education voucher policy implementation in Taipei and Kaohsiung is high because the voucher would reduce the tuition of five-year-old children.
Eighth, there are significant differences between Taipei and Kaohsiung on the effects of nursery education voucher policy. Parents’ choices are more emphasis in Taipei, and policy influence and problems are more emphasis in Kaohsiung.
Ninth, the main work to promote the quality of nursery education voucher policy is to push the government to place more importance on lowering the age to receive the grant and raising the amount of voucher in the future.
Finally, nursery education voucher policy must be continued to put into effect and simplify the application procedures are contributed to carry on the purpose of nursery education policy.
According to the findings and conclusions of this research, some suggestions are given to follow-up research in the construction of educational policy evaluation theory, educational administrative organs, and early childhood educational administrative organs.

參考文獻
一、中文部份：
王文科譯(1989)。Scriven的消費者評導向評鑑取徑。載於黃光雄編譯，教育評鑑的模式。臺北：師大書苑。
王如哲(2000)。知識管理的理論與應用-以教育領域及其革新為例。臺北：五南。
丘昌泰(1995)。公共政策：當代政策科學理論之研究。臺北：巨流。
全國幼教聯合會(1998)。在公平開放中發展幼兒教育。四一O教改聯盟。
江啟昱(1993)。CIPP模式之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。臺北：行政院教育改革審議委員會。
何瑞薇譯，Edward Sallis 著(2001)。全面品質教育。臺北：元照。
吳明清(1998)。教育研究：基本概念與方法分析。臺北市：五南。
吳清山、黃久芬(1995)。美國教育選擇權之研究。初等教育學刊，4，1-26。
吳清基(1992)。教育行政決定理論與實際問題。臺北：文景。
李允傑、丘昌泰(1999)。政策執行與評估。臺北：國立空中大學。
沈姍姍(1997)。教育機會均等理念之式微？－自教育改革趨勢探討。載於中華民國比較教育學會、中國教育學會編，社會變遷中的教育機會均等。臺北：揚智。
林水波、張世賢(1991)。公共政策。臺北：五南。
林佳琦(1983)。計畫評估。國立中興大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林海清(2001)。知識管理與教育發展。臺北：元照。
林清江(1985)。文化發展與教育革新。臺北：五南。
林鍾沂(1987)。公共政策評估理論之研究-理論之重建。國立政治大學政治研究所博士論文，未出版。
長尾立子(1975)。 兒童福祉事業概論。全國社會福祉協議。
柯三吉(1998)。公共政策：理論、方法與臺灣經驗。臺北：時英。
胡志沛(1998)。回應性評估理論之研究-兼論臺北縣老人年金政策。國立中興大學公共行政所碩士論文，未出版。
唐納博士著，馬康莊譯(1985)。社會學理論的結構。臺北：桂冠。
秦夢群(1997)。教育行政─實務部分。臺北：五南。
秦夢群(2001)。市場機制或社會正義-教育券政策走向之評析，載於「第八次教育行政論壇論文集」。新竹師範學院初等教育系、中華民國教育行政學會主辦。
翁興利、施能傑、官有垣、鄭麗嬌(1998)。公共政策。臺北：空中大學。
袁振國(1996)。教育政策學。南京：江蘇教育出版社。
高雄市政府教育局(1998)。高雄市政府兒童托教津貼實施要點。取自於http://wwwedu.kh.edu.tw/members/grp03/all-low.htm.
康正言(1985)。公共政策影響評估之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版。
張明輝(2002)。知識經濟時代的學校經營理念。取自http://web.ed.ntnu.edu.tw/-minfei/article(schooladmin)-14. html.
張芳全(1999)。教育政策。臺北：師大書苑。
張春興(1994)。教育心理學。台北：東華。
張鈿富(1995)。教育政策分析-理論與實務。臺北：五南。
張鈿富(2001)。教育政策評鑑與方法，載於「第八次教育行政論壇論文集」。新竹師範學院初等教育系、中華民國教育行政學會主辦。
張德銳(1997)。誰選擇？誰損失？-學校選擇權對教育機會均等的影響。載於中華民國比較教育學會、中國教育學會編，社會變遷中的教育機會均等。臺北：揚智。
張德銳(1998)。美國學校選擇政策的實施經驗與啟示。載於楊思偉編，家長學校選擇權。臺北：商鼎。
張慶勳(1987)。教育機會均等與學前教育義務化之探討，教育文粹，16，20-20。
教育部(1988)。邁向學習社會。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(1995)。中華民國教育報告書－邁向二十一世紀的教育遠景。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2000)。中華民國教育統計。臺北市：教育部。
曹俊漢(1990民79)。公共政策。臺北：三民。
莊勝義(1997)。教育機會均等理想、研究與實踐-回顧與展望。載於中華民國比較教育學會、中國教育學會編，社會變遷中的教育機會均等。臺北：揚智。
都私立幼稚園連合會(1997)。平成九年東京都區市町別補助金調查一覽表。東京。
陳奎熹(1990)。教育社會學研究。臺北：師大書苑。
陳恆鈞譯，James P. Lester & Joseph Stewart, JR.著(2001)。公共政策-演進研究途徑。臺北：學富。
陳舜芬(1989)。Stufflebeam的改進導向評鑑途徑。載於黃光雄編譯，教育評鑑的模式。臺北：師大書苑。
陳漢強(1999)。幼兒教育券之分析研究。教育部國民教育司委託研究。
陳麗珠(1996)。教育券制度在我國可行性之研究─以高級中等教育為例。臺北：國科會。
曾冠球(1998)。政策評估方法之理論與實踐 : 典範變遷的觀點。 國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版。
游進年(1999)。CIPP模式在臺灣省國民中學訓輔工作評鑑應用之研究---以宜蘭縣為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版。
黃乃熒(1997)。父母選擇教育系統的教育政策意涵對教育機會均等的分析。中等教育，48(3)。
黃月麗(1998)。邁向學習社會的現況與展望。載於中華民國比較教育學會，終身全民教育的展望。臺北：揚智。
黃光雄編譯(1989)。教育評鑑的模式。臺北：師大書苑。
黃政傑(1990)。課程評鑑。臺北：師大書苑。
黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。臺北：東華。
黃炳煌(1987)。教育問題透視。臺北：文景。
黃振隆(1993)。「學習社會」的理念。成人教育雙月刊，16，頁40-45。
黃瑞祺(1996)。批判社會學-批判理論與現代社會學。臺北：三民。
楊文雄(1980)。教育評鑑理論及其在教育行政決策上的應用。屏東：臺灣省立屏東師範專科學校。
楊瑩(1994)。教育機會均等─教育社會學的探究。臺北：師大書苑。
臺北市政府教育局(1999)。臺北市八十七學年度幼兒教育券執行情形報告：市政會議報告案，未出版。
蓋浙生(1985)。教育經濟學。臺北：三民。
蓋浙生(2001)。教育經營與管理。臺北：師大書苑。
劉朝芳(2000)。幼兒教育券實施之研究。彰化師大教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
潘慧玲(1989)。Owens與Wolf: 抗詰式的評鑑途徑。載於黃光雄編譯，教育評鑑的模式。臺北：師大書苑。
蔡秋桃(1995)。幼兒教育思想。臺北：五南。
蔡清田(1992)。泰勒課程理論之發展。國立臺灣師範大學教育系碩士論文，未出版。
鄭宏財(1999)。全面品質管理信念與學校教育 : 理論與實際。高雄：復文。
鄭孟忠(2001)。我國幼兒教育券實施成效及其對家長教育選擇權影響之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鄭新輝(1997)。家長教育選擇權的可行性分析。初等教育學報，10。
鄧秀穗(1998)。臺北市幼兒教育券之執行問題與對策。臺北市政府公務人員訓練中心薦任級股長培育班第十七期專案研究報告，未出版。
盧美貴(1997)。臺北市幼兒教育券政策研究。臺北：臺北市政府教育局。
盧美貴(1999)。我國幼兒教育券政策實施可行性之研究。國科會專題研究報告(NSC88-2413-H-133-007)。
盧美貴(2000)。臺北市幼兒教育券政策實施成效分析。臺北市教育局委託研究專案。
謝文全(1993)。教育行政-理論與實務。臺北：文景。
謝美慧(1998)。從Steiner教育科學建構之方法論省私比較教育方法論之建立。比較教育，45，51-60。
謝美慧(1999)。從政策分析的觀點評析英國幼兒教育券計劃。人文及社會科學教學簡訊，10(2)，136-159。
簡紅珠譯(1989)。目標導向的評鑑：Tyler的傳統。載於黃光雄編譯，教育評鑑的模式。臺北：師大書苑。
簡楚瑛(1988)。我國幼兒教育義務化之探討。載於簡楚瑛著，幼兒、親職、教育。台北：文景。
顏國樑(1997)。教育政策執行及其相關因素之研究-理論建構與應用分析。國立臺灣師範大學教育系博士論文，未出版。
顏國樑(2001)。回應性教育政策評估理論及其在教育政策評估的啟示，載於「第八次教育行政論壇論文集」。新竹師範學院初等教育系、中華民國教育行政學會主辦。
羅清水(2000)。教育政策執行評估之研究-以高職實用技能班政策為例。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育所博士論文：未出版。
羅清俊、陳志瑋譯(1999)。公共政策新論。臺北：韋伯。
二、英文部份：
Aadams, J. E. Jr. (1994). Implementing program equality: Raising the stakes for educational policy and practice. Educational Policy, 8(4), 518-534.
Alkin, M. C & Patton, M. Q. & Weiss, C. H. (Eds.). (1990). Debates on evaluation. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.
Ambler, J. (1994). Who benefirs from educational choice: Some evidence from Europe. Policy Analysis and Management, 13(3), 353-355.
Anderson, S. B. & Ball, S. & Murphy, R. T. (1992). Encyclopedia of educational evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass ; Ann Arbor, Mich. : U.M.I..
Anderson, S. B. & Ball, S. (1978). The profession and practice of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Apple, M. W.& Subkoviak, M. J.& Lufler, H. S. (Eds.). (1974). Educational evaluation: analysis and responsibility. Berkeley, CA.: McCutchan.
Bauer, R. A. (1966). Social Indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beales, J. R. & Wahl, M. (1995). Private vouchers in Milwaukee: The PAVE Program. In M. M. Terry (Ed), Private vouchers (pp. 41-73) Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Burgess, R. G. (Ed.). (1993). Educational research and evaluation: for policy and practice? London; Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
Campbell, C. (1970). Voucher payments and the public schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 064 783)
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Catterall, J. S. (1984). Education vouchers. Bloomington: The Phidelta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Central Office for Information (1996). Nursery education vouchers research among providers. London: Central Office for Information.
Chelimsky, E. (1985). Program evaluation: Patterns and directions. Washing D.C.: The American Society for Public Administration.
Comfort, L. K. (1982). Education policy and evaluation-A context for change. New York: Pergamon Press.
Cronbath, L. J. et al. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Franscio: Jossey-Bass.
Daverport, T. H. (2000). Some principles of knowledge management. from http://www.bus.utexas.edu/kman/kmprin.htm
Daycare Trust (1996). Inside the Voucher Scheme. The Impact of the Nursery Education Vouchers upon UNISON Members and the Services they provide for Children under Five, Interim Report. London UNISON.
Department for Education and Employment (1996a). Nursery education scheme: The next steps. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Department for Education and Employment (1996b). Nursery education scheme: A guide for parents. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Department for Education and Employment (1996c). Nursery education scheme, Report on Phase One. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Duffy, B. (1996). The school’s perspective. Paper presented at National Children’s Bureau Conference, The Nursery Voucher Scheme: Lessons from Phrase 1, 29 October 1996. London: Institute of Education.
Dunn, W. N. (1994). Pubic policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dye, T. R. (1998). Understanding public policy. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Elmore, R. F. & Fuller, B. (1996). Emperical research on educational choice: What are the implications for policy-makers. In B. Fuller & R. F. Elmore(Eds.), Who choose? who loses?- Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of schools choice (pp. 187-201). New York: Teachers College Press.
Everitt, A. (1996). Developing critical evaluation. Evaluation, 2(2), 173-188.
Feigl, H. (1951). Principles and problems of theory construction in psychology. In W. Dennis(ed.), Current trends of psychological theory (pp. 182-200). Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Finn, C. E. Jr., Manno, B. V. B., & Vanourek, G. (1997). Charter schools in action: Final report. Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institue.
Freeman, H. E. (1977). The present status of evaluation research, Evaluation Studies Review, 2,17-25.
Fuller, B. , Elmore, R. F. & Orfield, G. (1996). Policy-making in the dark: Illuminationg the school choice debate. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who choose? who loses?- Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp.1-21).New York: Teachers College Press.
Glasman, N. S. & Nevo, D. (1988). Evaluation in decision making: The case of school administration. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Glennerster, H. (1996). Vouchers and quasi voucher in education, Social Policy Review, 8, 125-137.
Gowin, D. B. (1963). Can educational theory guide practice. In Education Theory, 10. 12-20.
Greene, J. P. , Howell, W. & Peterson, P. E. (1997). An evaluation of the cleveland scholarship program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program in Educational Policy and Governance.
Greene, J. P., Peterson, P. E., Du, J., Boeger, L. & Frazier, C. L. (1996). The effectiveness of school choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program’s evaluation. Occasional Paper, 96-103. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program in Educational Policy and Governance.
Hass, G. (1983). Eighty tears of curriculum theory. In G. Hass (ed.), Curriculum planning: A new approach (4th Ed.). Boston: Alley & Bacon.
Henig, J. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hopkins, D. (1989). Evaluation for school development. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluation with validity. Beverly Hills: Sage.
House, E. R. (ed.). (1986). New directions in educational evaluation. London; Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Jobert, A. (ed.). (1997). Education and work in Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. London ; New York : Routledge.
Judith, P. (1996). Myths of educational choices. New York: Praeger.
Kahne, J. (1996). Reforming educational policy: Democracy, community, and the individual. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kappa, P. D. (1971). Educational evaluation & decision making. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock.
Kells, H. R. (1988). Self- study processes: A guide to self-evaluation in higher education (3rd ed.). New York：American Council on Education.
Lewisham Borough Council (1996). Nursery vouchers. London: Lewisham Borough Council, Education Department.
Lincolin, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. New Bury Park: CA: Sage.
Madaus, G. F. & Scriven, M. & Stufflebeam, D. L. (eds.). (1983). Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston; Hingham, MA, U.S.A: Kluwer-Nijhoff: Distributors for North America, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Martinez, V., Godwin, K. & Kemerer, F. R. (1995). Private vouchers in San Antonio: The CEO programs. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), Private vouchers (pp.74-99). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Martinez, V., Godwin, K. & Kemerer, F. R. (1996). Public school choice in San Antonio: Who chooses and with what Effects? In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who choose? who loses?-Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp.50-69). New York: Teachers College Press.
McGee, J. C. & Kissane, B. (1994). The educational voucher: Are we ready for it? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379767)
McTaggart, R. (1991). When democratic evaluation doesn’t see democratic. Evaluation Practice, 12(1).
Moe, T. M. (Ed.). (1995). Private vouchers. Stanford. CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Mohr, L. B. (1992). Impact analysis for program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Moore, G. (1983). The nature of educational theory. In D. Lawton (ed.), Theory and practice of curriculum studies (pp. 10-11). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nachmias, D. & Nachmias, C. (1979). Public policy evaluation: Approaches and models. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Nagel, S. S. (1988). Policy studies: integration and evaluation. New York: Praeger.
National Children’s Bureau (1996). Preparing for phrase one: An interim report on the nursery voucher scheme in four local authorities. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Norris, N. (1990). Understanding educational evaluation. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Office of Standards in Education (1997). Nursery education voucher scheme. London: OFSTED.
Owens, T.R. (1971). Application of adversary proceeding for educational evaluation and decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Owens, T.R. (1973). Educational evaluation by adversary proceedings. In House, E.R.(ed),School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Palumbo, D. J. (ed.). (1987). The politics of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patterson, C. H. (1977). Foundations for a theory of instruction and educational psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Patton (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research method. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Percy, S. L. & Maier, P. (1996). School Choice in Milwaukee: Privatization of a Different Breed. Policy Studies Journal, 24(4), 649-665.
Peterson, P. E. & Noyes, C. (1997). School Choice in Milwaukee. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti (Eds.), New schools for a new century: The redesign of urban education (pp. 123-146). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Popham, W. J. (1975). Educational evaluation. N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Posavac, E. J. & Carey, R. G. (1997). Program evaluation: methods and case studies. N.J: Prentice Hall.
Powers, J. M. & Cookson, P. W. (1999). The politics of school choice research: Fact, fiction, and statistics. Educational Policy, 13(1).
Pratte, R. (1971). Contemporary theories of education. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. (1979). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rivliv, A. (1971). Systematic thinking of social action. Washington, D.C.: Bookings Institution.
Ross, A. M. (1953). Generalizations in the social sciences, American Journal of Sociology, 59, 52.
Rouse, C. E. (in press). Private vouchers and student achievement: An evaluaton of the Milwaukee parental choice program. Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Sanders, J. R. (1994). The program evaluation standards: how to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Scottish Council for Research in Education (ed.). (1990). The evaluation of educational programmes: methods, uses, and benefits, report of the Educational Research Workshop held in North Berwick (Scotland), (pp.22-25), November 1988. Amsterdam; Rockland, MA: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of education. In R. E. Stake (ed.), Curriculum evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, 1. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Scriven, M. (1974). Prose and cons about goal-free evaluation, Evaluation Commernt, 3, 1-4.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). CA: Sage.
Sider, R. J. (1999). Making Schools Work for the Rich and the Poor. Christian Century, 116(23).
Sieber, W. D. (1981). Fatal remedies. New York: Plenum.
Siraj Blatchford, I. (1996). Quality and equality, paper presented at National Children's Bureau Conference, October 1996, Institute of Education, London.
Soskin, D. (1995). Pre-school for all: A market solution. London: Adam Smith Institute.
Sparkes, J. & West, A. (1998). An evaluation of the english nursery voucher scheme 1996-1997, Education Economics, 98(6), 2, 171-185.
Stake, R.E. (1975). Evaluation the art in Education: A responsive approach. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Steiner, E. (1986). Crisis in Educology. In J. E. Christensen (eds.), Proceedings of a conference on educational research, inquiry and development with an educologucal perspective. Australia: Educology Research Associates.
Steiner, E. (1988). Methodology of theory building. Australia: Educology Research Associates.
Stufflebeam D. L. & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation : A self-instructional guide to theory and practice. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Suchman , E. A. (1967). Evaluation research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Taylor, F. (1910). Stop management. New York: Harper and Row.
Taylor, F. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Row.
Tyler, R. W. (1966). Resources, model, and theory in the improvement of research in science education. In J. S. Richardson & R. W. Howe, The role of centers for science education in the production, demonstration, and research (pp. 31-40). Ohio: Ohio State University. ED 013 220.
Tyler, R. W. (ed). (1969). Educational evaluation: New roles and new means, 68th yearbook of the NSSE, part 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R. W. & Madaus, G. F. & Stufflebeam, D. L. (eds.). (1989). Educational evaluation: classic works of Ralph W. Tyler. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Walberg, H. J. & Haertel, G. D. (eds.). (1990). The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation. New York: Pergamon Press.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Weiss, C. H. (1973). Between the Cut and the Lip. Evaluation, 1(2).
Weiss, C. H. (1992). Evaluation research. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Wells, A. S. (1993). Public funds for private schools:Political and first amendment considerations. American Journal of Education, 101(3), 209-233.
Westminister City Council (1995). 7th Operation of the Nursery Voucher Scheme in Phrase One: Submission to the Education and Employment Select Committee of the House of Commons. London: City of Westminister Council, Education Department.
Witte, J. F. (1996). Who benefits from the Milwaukee choice Program. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who choose? who loses?-Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 25-49). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wittee, J. F. (1998). The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 229-251.
Wolf, R. M. (1990). Evaluation in education: Foundations of competency assessment and program review. New York: Praeger.
Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R. & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd.). New York: Longman.