Charter School Cherry Picking Was Predicted

Charter School Cherry Picking Was Predicted

Mike O., The Seventh Type blog, found an interesting document in his inbox.  Go over to his place and read the whole thing - the link to the entire document is at Mike O's place.  I'll post some of the highlights from this 1995 Delaware Senate debate on SB 200 (DE Charter School Law).  This document pretty much puts an end to the but, but... whocouldhaveknown debate. Here's part of the question and answer segment with Bill Manning (Red Clay's School Board President at the time)
SENATOR MARSHALL: Understanding that the harshest critics of charter schools around the nation where they’ve been in place and operating, is the issue of the schools skimming off the top and creating an elitist academy with public money. My concern is looking at the focus of the charter schools by attracting the best at times for a specific educational discipline offered by that charter school; and the concern of recruitment. I looked at children throughout New Castle County in moderate low income neighborhoods, I looked at the City, the west side, the east side, hilltop, I need to understand how your board and how you will guarantee fairness and equal access to every student from every unit.
Delaware Political Weekly: March 22-28, 2014

Delaware Political Weekly: March 22-28, 2014

Granted, he’s a Libertarian. Scott Gesty. Unfortunately, he’s not a Steve Newton Libertarian. More like a ‘they’re taking away our freedoms’ Libertarian. He congratulates himself on predicting that ‘Obamacare is destroying the healthcare system’. Man, can’t at least one of these third party types not make you unclean when considering casting a protest vote for them? Paging the Green Party… Looks like the Republicans are doing better in concentrating on recruiting candidates in General Assembly races...
Are “attracted” voters really worth more than “chased” voters?

Are “attracted” voters really worth more than “chased” voters?

The thesis at the heart of all my recent posts has been that "attracted" voters are inherently more valuable to a campaign than "chased" voters. I look at recent history and see the lackluster performance of Democrats during midterm elections, and mentally discount a chased voter to some fraction of a voter while I mentally add a premium to attracted voters. So, let's say each voter that the DNC manages to frighten into thinking about voting is worth .95 eventual votes and every teabag that is inspired by the teabag nonsense is worth 1.05 future votes. On election day a vote is a vote, but over the course of a campaign the marginal difference between the chased and the attracted must add up. Right? ...