The Value of Bi-Partisan Support for School Choice

This post is part one in a series of three posts on school choice focusing on value: the value in true bi-partisan support of an issue, the inherent value in choice, and the ultimate value in education.  Check back on 9 & 23 September for parts 2 & 3, respectively.

In politics, there are two phrases we hear often: “bi-partisan support” and “it’s for the kids!”

Often these are barely lip service, trying to spin focus on an issue that generally has neither real bi-partisan support nor any real effect on children, but on one issue in particular, both couldn’t be more true.  School choice is an issue that transcends party lines and truly is for the kids.

While some on the left would focus in the “village” they claim is needed to raise children, and some on the right would focus myopically on which specific “choice” is best, a band of parents, school board members, and state legislators are setting aside other differences to increase opportunities for all children.

At the Denver Amplify School Choice Conference in August 2016, a panel discussion between Dr. John Evans (former Republican State Board of Education At-Large member and State Senator) and Rep. Angela Williams (Democrat) shared their perspectives on the truly bi-partisan support for school choice in Colorado and nationwide.

Rep. Williams said that the purpose of the legislature getting involved in school choice is to enhance student achievement, allow for innovative methods of instruction, provide resources for local school governance, and provide parents with alternatives.

Rep. Williams highlighted the legislature's role in education as providing funding, ensuring that all students receive a high-quality education, and ensure that ALL students have equal opportunity to attend high-quality schools no matter their zip code.

Rep. Williams was co-sponsor of three bills to make headway in leveling the playing field for charter schools in 2016: SB16-187 and SB16-188 (both of which died in committee, but were largely incorporated into the School Finance Act, HB16-1422, which passed), and SB16-208, which became law.

In July 2016, the NAACP proposed a resolution at their national convention that was later adopted by their Board calling for a “moratorium on charter schools”.  Rep. Williams, a member of the NAACP responded to this proposal with a forceful proclamation: “I’m not going to stand by and send our children to failing schools.”

Highlighting another area where bi-partisan support of charter schools has made a significant impact, Dan Schaller of the Colorado League of Charter Schools gave a presentation highlighting the success of charter schools in traditionally liberal Denver, Colorado; focusing in particular on the largely cordial relationships between charter schools and the Denver Public Schools Board.

A lot has changed over the past decade for Denver Public Schools (DPS), in large part thanks to the increase of charter schools and the unique relationship they enjoy with the school board in Denver.

Issue	Mid-2000s	2016
Academic Growth	Lowest rate of AG in all mid-to-large CO School Districts	Highest rate of AG in mid-to-large CO School Districts since 2012
Growth Rate	Out of 98,000 available seats, 31,000 (32%) were empty
Timely Graduation	Less than 39% of students graduate high school on time	65% of students graduate high school on time (166% increase)
In-District Schooling	Just under 25% of students left for other districts or options, costing DPS $125m annually	Fastest growing urban school district in the country
Grade Level Performance	33% in 2006	48% in Fall 2014
Additional Issues	DPS now… ·    …sends 48% of their high school graduates to college ·    …has 1 in 7 low-income students go to college (state average is 1 in 20) ·    …has closed or replaced 48 underperforming schools and opened 70 new schools (mostly charter) since 2005 ·    …has a SchoolChoice universal enrollment system which makes it easier for parents to choose their child’s school (in or out of district) ·    …sends over 18% of their students to charter schools

In Denver, bi-partisan support was critical to these successes.  A message-neutral tone, such as focusing on quality schools rather than the type of school, creating results and not being about choice just for choice’s sake, and focusing on the results for the kids being the ultimate goal, not how or where the results were created, built the foundation for progress in a traditionally hostile environment.  Additionally, a focus on pacing progress (sometimes slower to gain in the long run), creating equity (rather than equality), and pursuing autonomy and accountability within the district breeds trust and builds valuable relationships.

Without bi-partisan support, kids will continue to lose.  Focusing on the value of gaining and sustaining that support is key to providing quality education to all children and options to all parents.  It is, after all, for the kids.

Spoiler Alert! and "Close" Elections

Taken from here.

Of 101 Colorado races in 2014, only 9 races had "spoilers" (races where the winner had less than 50%).  And of those races, only 4 resulted in a Democratic victory.  That means 4% of Colorado races were "adversely" affected by third party candidates (if you're a Republican).

U.S. Senate: Cory Gardner (Republican), 48.21%

Governor: John Hickenlooper (Democratic), 49.30%

Secretary of State: Wayne Williams (Republican), 47.34%

Treasurer: Walker Stapleton (Republican), 49.87%

Senate District 5: Kerry Donovan (Democratic), 49.04%

Senate District 19: Laura Woods (Republican), 47.61%

Senate District 20: Cheri Jahn (Democratic), 46.81%

House District 17: Kit Roupe (Republican), 47.27%

House District 29: Tracy Kraft-Tharp (Democratic), 49.40%

Taken from here.

Additionally, there were 15 races where the margin of victory was within 3.5%, which one could consider to be "toss-up" seats (close enough that they can go either way in the right election circumstances).

U.S. Senate: 1.95% (39,688 votes)

Governor: 3.35% (68,238 votes)

Secretary of State: 2.36% (46,525 votes)
Senate District 5, 3.31% (1,301 votes)
Senate District 16, 2.74% (1,897 votes)
Senate District 19, 1.05% (663 votes)
Senate District 20, 0.62% (439 votes)
Senate District 22, 2.24% (1,336 votes)
Senate District 24, 1.74% (896 votes)
House District 3, 1.46% (443 votes)
House District 17, 2.02% (289 votes)
House District 30, 0.56% (106 votes)
House District 31, 0.98% (229 votes)
House District 36, 2.90% (668 votes)
House District 59, 0.50% (170 votes)

8R/7D

Taken from here.

What does all this mean?

1. "Spoilers" actually work in favor of Republicans, too, so quit yer whining.
2. There were a number of fairly close election in 2014--this was the Republican's year to lose, and lose they did in Colorado... way too often.  Infinitely winnable seats slipped through our grasp once again.

94%: The 2014 Election Wrap-up Post

Sorry for the long delay on this--family life and work have been a little nutty since the election.

Taken from here.

Okay, so it isn't the 97% of 2012.  But I'll take it.  Especially because, once again, Nate Silver isn't better than me (we tied this time, counting his U.S. Senate Predictions).

This election was not decided on Election Night in Colorado.  Had we gone based on Election Night results, Colorado would now have a Republican Governor, a 20R-15D Senate Majority, and a 33R-32D House Majority.  That... didn't exactly happen, now did it?

This is why early returns are, frankly, unimportant!  I watched way too many people get their hopes up.  That smashing 7%+ victory for Cory Gardner on Election Night?  It was actually just under 2%.  It wasn't a blowout.  Beauprez winning?  Nope.  He lost by 3.35%.  Taking the State House?  Ha... no.  And we barely have a Senate Majority.  Don't forget that it took weeks for Adams County to finish counting, and that there was one seat within the margins for an automatic recount in Southwest Colorado (House District 59), although the ultimate result there didn't change.

Below is a brief review of the final election results.  Results may be found on the Secretary of State's website.

Legend:
Bold denotes incumbent
Italic indicates an incorrect call
Red shows a Republican Pick-up
Blue delineates a Democratic Pick-up
Races with no-call are green

Statewide

Pre-Election Make-up: 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 4 Democrats, 2 Republicans 
Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats
Seats up: 5

• U.S. Senate (class 3): Cory Gardner (Republican)
• Governor: John Hickenlooper (Democratic)
• Attorney General: Cynthia Coffman (Republican)
• Secretary of State: Wayne Williams (Republican)
• Treasurer: Walker Stapleton (Republican)

3/5

Congressional

Pre-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 toss-up
Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Seats up: 7

• Congressional District 1: Diana Degette (Democratic)
• Congressional District 2: Jared Polis (Democratic)
• Congressional District 3: Scott Tipton (Republican)
• Congressional District 4: Ken Buck (Republican)
• Congressional District 5: Doug Lamborn (Republican)
• Congressional District 6: Mike Coffman (Republican)
• Congressional District 7: Ed Perlmutter (Democratic)

6/6, 1 toss-up

CU Regent

Pre-Election Make-up: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Post-Election Make-up: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Seats up: 3

• Congressional District 2: Linda Shoemaker (Republican)
• Congressional District 6: John Carson (Republican)
• Congressional District 7: Irene Griego (Democratic)

3/3

State Board of Education

Pre-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Seats up: 3

• Congressional District 1: Valentina Flores (Democratic)
• Congressional District 3: Marcia Neal (Republican)
• Congressional District 7: Jane Goff (Democratic)

3/3

State Senate

Pre-Election Make-up: 18 Democrats, 17 Republicans
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 18 Democrats, 16 Republicans, 1 toss-up
Post-Election Make-up: 18 Republicans, 17 Democrats
Seats up: 18

• Senate District 1: Jerry Sonnenberg (Republican)
• Senate District 2: Kevin Grantham (Republican)
• Senate District 3: Leroy Garcia (Democratic)
• Senate District 5: Kerry Donovan (Democratic)
• Senate District 6: Ellen Roberts (Republican)
• Senate District 7: Ray Scott (Republican)
• Senate District 9: Kent Lambert (Republican)
• Senate District 11: Michael Merrifield (Democratic)
• Senate District 13: John Cooke (Republican)
• Senate District 15: Kevin Lundberg (Republican)
• Senate District 16: Tim Neville (Republican)
• Senate District 19: Laura Woods (Republican)
• Senate District 20: Cheri Jahn (Democratic)
• Senate District 22: Andy Kerr (Democratic)
• Senate District 24: Beth Martinez-Humenik (Republican)
• Senate District 30: Chris Holbert (Republican)
• Senate District 32: Irene Aguilar (Democratic)
• Senate District 34: Lucia Guzman (Democratic)

15/17, 1 toss-up

State House

Pre-Election Make-up: 37 Democrats, 28 Republicans
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 36 Democrats, 29 Republicans
Post-Election Make-up: 34 Democrats, 31 Republicans
Seats up: 65

• House District 1: Susan Lontine (Democratic)
• House District 2: Alec Garnett (Democratic)
• House District 3:  Daniel Kagan (Democratic)
• House District 4: Dan Pabon (Democratic)
• House District 5: Crisanta Duran (Democratic)
• House District 6: Lois Court (Democratic)
• House District 7: Angela Williams (Democratic)
• House District 8: Beth McCann (Democratic)
• House District 9:  Paul Rosenthal (Democratic)
• House District 10: Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (Democratic)
• House District 11: Jonathan Singer (Democratic)
• House District 12: Mike Foote (Democratic)
• House District 13: K.C. Becker (Democratic)
• House District 14: Dan Nordberg (Republican)
• House District 15: Gordon Klingenschmitt (Republican)
• House District 16: Janak Joshi (Republican)
• House District 17: Kit Roupe (Republican)
• House District 18: Pete Lee (Democratic)
• House District 19: Paul Lundeen (Republican)
• House District 20: Terri Carver (Republican)
• House District 21: Lois Landgraf (Republican)
• House District 22: Justin Everett (Republican)
• House District 23: Max Tyler (Democratic)
• House District 24: Jessie Danielson (Democratic)
• House District 25: Jon Keyser (Republican)
• House District 26: Diane Mitsch-Bush (Democratic)
• House District 27: Libby Szabo (Republican)
• House District 28: Brittany Pettersen (Democratic)
• House District 29: Tracy Kraft-Tharp (Democratic)
• House District 30: JoAnn Windholz (Republican)
• House District 31: Joe Salazar (Democratic)
• House District 32: Dominick Moreno (Democratic)
• House District 33: Dianne Primavera (Democratic)
• House District 34: Steve Lebsock (Democratic)
• House District 35: Faith Winter (Democratic)
• House District 36: Su Ryden (Democratic)
• House District 37: Jack Tate (Republican)
• House District 38: Kathleen Conti (Republican)
• House District 39: Polly Lawrence (Republican)
• House District 40: John Buckner (Republican)
• House District 41: Jovan Melton (Democratic)
• House District 42: Ronda Fields (Democratic)
• House District 43: Kevin Van Winkle (Republican)
• House District 44: Kim Ransom (Republican)
• House District 45: Patrick Neville (Republican)
• House District 46: Daneya Esgar (Democratic)
• House District 47: Clarice Navarro-Ratzlaff (Republican)
• House District 48: Stephen Humphries (Republican)
• House District 49: Perry Buck (Republican)
• House District 50: Dave Young (Democratic)
• House District 51: Brian DelGrosso (Republican)
• House District 52: Joann Ginal (Democratic)
• House District 53: Jeni Arndt (Democratic)
• House District 54: Yeulin Willett (Republican)
• House District 55: Dan Thurlow (Republican)
• House District 56: Kevin Priola (Republican)
• House District 57: Bob Rankin (Republican)
• House District 58: Don Coram (Republican)
• House District 59: J. Paul Brown (Republican)
• House District 60: Jim Wilson (Republican)
• House District 61: Millie Hamner (Democratic)
• House District 62: Ed Vigil (Democratic)
• House District 63: Lori Saine (Republican)
• House District 64: Tim Dore (Republican)
• House District 65: Jon Becker (Republican)

63/65

2014 Predictions: The Snapshot

Bottom line (up front): It doesn’t look good for Colorado Republicans.  Again.

Image used from here

2012 was a rough year for Colorado Republicans.  So was 2010 (despite it being a peak GOP year in Colorado and the “Tea Party wave” occurring… well, everywhere, it seems, but Colorado), 2008, 2006, and 2004.  Looks like 2014 will be following suit, because not enough has been done to change Colorado’s political environment.  Republicans are still playing catch-up to a decade-old strategy that has long since been improved upon by the other side.

Below are a snapshot of my predictions, with a brief explanation for each set.  On Monday, I’ll be posting the specifics on each district and explanation for my predictions.  That will be a long post.  Because of the number of races covered, there really isn’t a way to make it short, although I’ve done what I can from 2012 to make it more compact without reducing the amount of necessary info. 

Now, without further delay, my 2014 predictions…

Statewide: 3D/2R — think it is likely that Republicans do what they have done the last 2 off-cycle elections (2010 and 2006): Lose at the top of the ticket, but win other races statewide.  This year, however, I don’t think Republicans will be as lucky as they were in 2006 and 2010, winning only one—maybe two—other statewide races, instead of all three.

Congressional: 3R/3D/1 Toss-up — The Congressional Districts were re-drawn in 2011 to be essentially non-competitive, with the thought that CD6 would eventually be a Democratic district.  Is 2014 the year for it to go D?  I guess we’ll find out.

CU Regents: 2D/1R — No change from the current make-up of the board in this election.

State Board of Education: 2D/1R — No change from the current make-up of the board in this election.

State Senate: 18D/17R (8R/5D/5 Toss-up) — The make-up of the State Senate for seats not up for election in 2014 is 10D/7R, for a total of 18D/17R currently.  I believe that SDs 3 and 11 will flip back to D, which brings us to 20D/15R (the make-up pre-recall).  I believe SDs 5 and 16 will go R, and 19 and 22 will stay D, so there will be NO net change to the State Senate.

State House: 35D/28R/2 Toss-up — I think there may be either no net gain in the State House (toss-ups going one each to Rs and Ds), or there will be a one-seat pick-up for Republicans (if both go R).  There is, of course, the lesser chance of a Democratic pick up (if both go D), but I think that is relatively unlikely.

Ballot Initiatives — While I am not making predictions on ballot initiatives (I lack the data to make an informed conclusion there), my recommendations are as follows:

• YES on Prop. 104 
• NO on Amendment 68 and Prop. 105 
• No recommendation on Amendment 67 (I will likely be undervoting on that one myself)

In other words… there will be either net losses or no change across the board for Republicans if the results are as pessimistic as I expect.  I hope I’m wrong, because I’m honestly kind of tired of saying “I told you so,” at this point.  Unfortunately, I think I’ll be more right than wrong... again.

Comments?  Challenges?  Let me know!

Opinion: Myths and Reality about the Colorado Recall Elections

There has been a lot of misinformation promulgated by far too many Establishment Republicans (and parroted by sheeple who haven't bothered to do their research) in this recall election.  We already have to fight Democrats--it's even more frustrating we have to keep fighting the false statements on our own side as well.  Here are several of those myths--debunked.

MYTH #1: "Owen Hill lost Senate District 11 in 2010 by 360 votes because of the Libertarian; therefore without a Libertarian in the race we are guaranteed a victory!"

Facts:

1. This is NOT the same district as it was in 2010.  In 2010, Senate District 11 was a fairly evenly matched district that had been held by a Republican until Senator Morse's first win in 2006.  On 1 November 2010, the registration numbers looked drastically different than they do as of the latest numbers from the Secretary of State (1 August 2013).  See the first set of charts below for a comparison.  Please pay attention to the Active Voters % --  that is the most telling voter registration statistic, especially now because there will be no mail ballots this election.  Yes, SD11 picked up total Republican voters--but you'll notice they also picked up total voters overall, and Senate District 11 now has one of the largest contingents of Unaffiliated voters in the state.
2. Not only have the voter registration numbers changed, the district performance numbers have changed, too.  Senate District 11 went from "leans Democrat" in 2010 (which, in my estimation, was a significant understatement based on the numbers) to pretty solidly Democrat now because of reapportionment.  The district performance went from D+1 in 2010 to D+6 in 2013.  See the second set of charts below for the reapportionment district average performance (for statewide races), and keep this in mind: 2010 was a wave Republican year, so that is likely a high-water mark for Republican performance.  It is unlikely, unless we see similar circumstances once again, to ever see that kind of Republican performance again until at least reapportionment in 2021.  And, you'll notice, even in that wave Republican year, both districts' reapportionment numbers underperformed the state GOP average and significantly outperformed the state Democrat average.

REALITY: Basing any assessment of Senate District 11's performance now, in 2013, on the old district's numbers doesn't prove any point other than that you are ignorant of the reapportionment process and it's ramifications.  They simply aren't comparable as they are not the same district.

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 3:

As of 1 November 2010:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	32,483	49.27%	11,079	43,562	46.52%
Republican	16,345	24.79%	5,568	21,913	23.4%
Unaffiliated	16,790	25.47%	10,907	27,697	29.58%
Total	65,930		27,706	93,636

As of 1 August 2013:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	38,327	46.83%	5,685	44,012	45.36%
Republican	19,081	23.31%	3,202	22,283	22.97%
Unaffiliated	23,798	29.08%	6,168	29,966	30.88%
Total	81,846		15,184	97,030

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 11:

As of 1 November 2010:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	16,186	33.99%	5,968	22,154	33%
Republican	15,160	31.83%	3,798	18,958	28.24%
Unaffiliated	15,845	33.27%	9,502	25,347	37.76%
Total	47,623		19,502	67,125

As of 1 August 2013:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	23,257	33.7%	4,524	27,781	33.29%
Republican	18,097	26.22%	2,902	20,999	25.17%
Unaffiliated	26,447	38.32%	6,752	33,199	39.79%
Total	69,016		14,427	83,443

Reapportionment District Performance Averages vs. State Averages in 2010 and 2012:

	Reapportionment Average	2010 Statewide Average	2012 Statewide Average	Difference 2010	Difference 2012
SD3 DEM	58.22%	44.39%	47.15%	+13.83	+11.07
SD3 REP	40.2%	52.58%	46.76%	-12.38	-6.56
SD11 DEM	53.1%	44.39%	47.15%	+8.71	+5.95
SD11 REP	44.5%	52.58%	46.76%	-8.08	-2.26

MYTH #2: "If a Republican wins now, we only have to win one seat in 2014 to have the majority in the State Senate!"

Facts:

1. While technically true if you do the math, this makes the (I think bad) assumption that we hold those two seats in 2014.
2. What is far more likely is that we lose Senate Districts 3 and 11, but gain Senate Districts 5, 16, and at least one of 20, 22, or 24.  Any three of those five and we have the majority.  All five of those seats have a much better chance of a Republican winning than either Senate District 3 or 11.  I'll discuss those districts more in-depth in a later post.

REALITY: Even if a Republican takes these two districts in 2013, there is no guarantee the seats are retained, and I think there's a great likelihood they will be lost in the 2014 General Election.

MYTH #3: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Their lawsuit to make the State of Colorado follow their own Constitution will derail the recall election!"

Facts:

1. Most of the arguments about why this lawsuit was a good thing have already been laid out: in my post earlier on the subject, by this great analysis, and in an excellent article today from Media Trackers.  Please read those so I don't have to repeat myself or redo the work of others who have summed it up so well.  The key takeaway, if you don't want to spend the time reading them, is that this lawsuit not just about ballot access, but just as much about eliminating mail-in ballots from this election
2. Lazy, low-information voters who otherwise wouldn't get off their duffs and vote can't sit in the convenience of their homes and not having mail-in ballots gives the recall proponents a significant advantage.  Incumbents have a much easier time winning with low-information voters.
3. Without mail-in ballots, it is much harder to cheat in elections.  Worse than uninformed voters, mail=in ballots lend themselves to fraud, such as voters being coerced or otherwise threatened by union thugs, or having their ballots filled out for them.  

What still amazes me is that Republicans are upset about this lawsuit.  In fact, Republican Party Chairman Ryan Call put out a press release parroting the same talking points as John Morse!  That is all shades of screwed up, and should be a wake up call to Republicans everywhere.

REALITY: This is proof positive that Republican apparatchiks no longer care for the Constitution, but push whatever they think will create "victory" (meaning money in their pockets) for them.  No wonder they have been consistently losing in this state since 2004.  Moreover, surprise, surprise--it not only didn't "derail the recall", it actually gave the recall a fighting chance by removing mail-in ballots from the equation.  How about them apples?

MYTH #4: "Those meddling Libertarians!  So they didn't derail the recall, but they did disenfranchise military voters!"

Facts:

1. You know what... I'll just let Secretary of State Scott Gessler do the talking for me here.  You can find his whole release at this link.

"As someone who served overseas in the Army and consequently missed an election myself, I’m particularly concerned about our military and overseas voters who want to cast ballots. Currently, El Paso County has 645 and Pueblo has 287.

Colorado is ready to serve them.

Last year I deployed a statewide electronic mail ballot delivery system for military and overseas voters. It worked extremely well, contributing to a 65% jump in turnout, even while most states saw a drop.

That system is already at work in the recall elections. The large majority of our military and overseas voters have already signed up for electronic ballot delivery. They have already received ballots. If more candidates qualify, we will work with El Paso and Pueblo to get them new ballots quickly, through electronic ballots, fax, and expedited mail. Forward deployed service members can even radio their votes to their commanders, and we can accept those ballots eight days after the election. Finally, we’ll take additional steps, if necessary." (emphasis added)

REALITY: As Secretary Gessler points out, there are other, better ways of reaching military voters--with electronic ballots (something for which he won an award for in 2012).  No one is disenfranchised, and, in fact, it is now more likely these service men and women will have their vote count, since there was no guarantee they would recieve their mail ballots in time, even though they were sent 30 days in advance (already a violation of UOCAVA standards).  You can also look at the comments on Clear The Bench Colorado's coverage for more on military voting.

MYTH #5: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Maybe they didn't derail the recall or disenfranchise military voters, but with a Libertarian on the ballot, they'll split the vote and ensure Morse stays in office!"

Facts:

1. As of right now, no Democrat has declared in Senate District 11, and no Libertarian has declared in Senate District 3.
2. The recall vote is a two part process: first, a yes or no vote on the recall, and then if yes, a vote on the replacement candidate.

REALITY: If there is no Democrat on the ballot in SD11, it would be impossible to "split the vote".  In fact, the more peole you can turn out to vote "yes" on the recall, the greater the likelihood of success.  

Let me repeat that, since it is the most commonly promulgated lie I've heard this entire recall election process: a Libertarian on the ballot not only doesn't split the vote, it actually makes it more likely that Morse gets recalled.

Update: typo in one of my charts fixed--thanks to Kevin J. for the catch!