In August 1996 Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, and Jiangtao Du, with Leesa Boeger and Curtis L. Frazier, issued a report called "The Effectiveness of School Choice in Milwaukee." The report, referred to as GPDBF, presented data that indicated that low-income minority students in their third and fourth years of participation in the Milwaukee choice program performed better on standardized math and reading tests than did students who were not selected for the program. The GPDBF report explained why its results differed from those reported by a previous research team headed by Dr. John Witte. The Witte report found no effect of enrollment in choice schools on test performance. Witte, in the paper "Reply to Greene, Peterson, and Du," replied to the GPDBF report in late August 1996. This paper, a response to Dr. Witte, discusses methodological issues that affect the evaluation of school choice in Milwaukee. The paper argues that the Witte response failed to cast doubt on the GPDBF findings, and that Witte failed to justify his own analysis against reasonable criticism. The paper defends the GPDBF findings against three criticisms made by Witte: (1) that GPDBF used a mode of analysis inappropriate for educational research; (2) that GPDBF sample sizes were too small to allow for reasonable statistical inference; and (3) that missing cases biased the GPDBF results. Seven tables are included. (LMI)