AUGUST 24, 2026

CONTRIBUTIONS HELP PAY FOR THE WEBSITE, CONSTANT

CONTACT, AND DUES TO ATTEND CLUBS TO HEAR

SPEAKERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT!

Arizona’s ESA Program Is Safe — For Now

Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program appears likely to remain largely unchanged after two competing ESA ballot measures suffered defeats at the Arizona Supreme Court this week.

The result is unusual: a citizen-led proposal seeking to restrict and regulate the ESA program is expected to fall short of the November ballot, while a Republican-backed constitutional amendment designed to protect ESA funding has also been removed.

For now, that means Arizona’s existing ESA program remains in place without voters being asked to approve either side’s proposed changes this November.

Proposition 212 Falls Short

Proposition 212, known as the Protect Education Act, proposed significant changes to Arizona’s ESA program, including an income cap for some families participating under the universal eligibility expansion, along with additional regulations and accountability requirements.

Supporters needed 255,949 valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. They submitted more than 400,000 signatures, but the validity of thousands of those signatures became the subject of a court challenge.

A major issue involved how duplicate petition signatures should be treated.

Supporters argued that the method being used could effectively penalize them twice for duplicate signatures. The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed with that interpretation and ruled that the statutory process required the challenged signatures to be removed.

Under the resulting calculation, attorneys involved in the case projected Prop. 212 would fall approximately 14,900 signatures short of the number necessary to qualify. The case has been returned to the trial court for the final calculation, but supporters have acknowledged that the initiative is not expected to make the ballot.

Save Our Schools Arizona described the decision as a “devastating final blow” to the initiative, while Arizona Senate Democrats said the ruling would not end their efforts to seek additional accountability for the ESA program.

Republican ESA Protection Measure Is Out Too

But supporters of ESAs did not win everything this week.

In a separate decision, the Arizona Supreme Court also affirmed the removal of Proposition 145, a Republican-backed legislative referral intended to provide constitutional protections involving ESA funding.

The court concluded that the measure violated Arizona's constitutional requirements by combining separate subjects into a single proposed constitutional amendment. As a result, voters will not get to decide Prop. 145 either.

That distinction is important.

Prop. 212 sought to place new restrictions and requirements on the ESA program. Prop. 145 sought to provide additional legal protection for ESA funding. Neither is headed to voters.

ESAs Remain a Major Political Issue

The court decisions do not end Arizona's debate over school choice.

More than 100,000 Arizona students have participated in the ESA program, which allows eligible families to use state education funding for approved educational expenses outside the traditional public-school system. Supporters describe the program as empowering parents to select the education that best meets their child's needs, while critics argue that the rapidly expanded program requires greater accountability and oversight.

Those competing arguments were at the center of this year's ballot fight.

But barring another legal development, Arizona voters will not settle that debate through either of these propositions in November.

For families currently using ESAs, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: the initiative that would have imposed substantial new restrictions is expected to be off the ballot, while the Republican proposal intended to strengthen constitutional protections for ESA funding is off the ballot as well.

So, for now, Arizona's ESA program remains largely where it was before this election battle began.

ESAs are safe in Arizona — at least for now.

When Police Destroy a Home, Who Should Pay for the Damage?

A police standoff near 75th and Glendale avenues raises a question most homeowners have probably never considered:

If police destroy your home while doing their job, who pays to put it back together?

Police say 59-year-old Jeffery Peters barricaded himself inside a home and repeatedly fired at officers. During the response, SWAT used an armored vehicle to break through a brick wall and deployed tear gas into the house. By the time the standoff ended, the property had sustained extensive damage.

Police may have had every reason to use aggressive tactics to protect officers, neighbors and the public. I am not questioning the need to stop an armed suspect shooting at police.

I am questioning what happens to the property owner afterward.

What If the Homeowner Did Nothing Wrong?

According to reports, the suspect's daughter called 911 and said Peters should not have been at the home because there was an active order of protection. Authorities were still working to determine who owns the property.

Imagine being an innocent homeowner in that situation.

Someone barricades himself inside your home. Police understandably respond. An armored vehicle knocks down part of the property. Windows and doors are destroyed. Tear gas is deployed.

Then the crisis ends — and you are left with the bill.

A retired Phoenix police commander suggested the homeowner's first call should be to the insurance company.

There's a problem with that.

Many homeowners policies contain exclusions for damage resulting from government action. In fact, the insurance issue has become part of the larger national debate over police-caused property damage. Legal filings before the U.S. Supreme Court have specifically noted that standard homeowners policies generally do not cover damage caused by government action.

So the answer may be: the homeowner pays.

Is that right?

Courts Have Struggled With This Question

This isn't a new issue.

In the Colorado case Lech v. Jackson, police pursued an armed suspect who had entered a family's home. During a lengthy standoff, officers used increasingly aggressive tactics, including gas munitions, breaching doors and opening holes in the house. The property was ultimately rendered uninhabitable.

The homeowners sought compensation from the city.

The federal appeals court ruled against them, finding that police were exercising the government's "police power" rather than taking property through eminent domain. Therefore, the destruction did not qualify as a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

That may be the legal answer in some jurisdictions.

But I am not convinced it is the right public-policy answer.

There is a tremendous difference between police damaging the home of the criminal responsible for the confrontation and destroying the property of an innocent third party who had nothing to do with the crime.

Remember What Happened to Afroman?

Rapper Afroman — whose real name is Joseph Foreman — provides another example of why homeowners are asking questions.

In 2022, sheriff's deputies raided his Ohio home while investigating allegations involving drugs and kidnapping. Officers broke through his front door and searched the property. Ultimately, Afroman was never charged with a crime.

His security cameras captured the raid.

Afroman responded in an unusual way: he turned the footage into music videos, including one appropriately titled Will You Help Me Repair My Door? He told ABC News that he hoped to make money from the songs to help pay for damage caused during the raid.

Then came an extraordinary twist.

Seven law-enforcement officers sued Afroman over his use of the security-camera footage. This year, a jury rejected the officers' claims and sided with Afroman.

His story attracted national attention, but underneath the humor was a legitimate question:

Who repairs your property when police damage it and you aren't charged with anything?

I've Watched This Happen Across the Street from My Home

This issue is particularly interesting to me because I have watched a smaller version of it unfold right across the street from my own home.

Last May, two SWAT vehicles rolled down our street.

During the operation, police broke through multiple windows in the front of the house and damaged windows in the back. There were no shots being fired and no apparent immediate danger to officers or the surrounding community.

Three people were arrested.

They were released the same day.

Months later, the house is still boarded up.

I don't know the homeowner's financial situation, and I don't know why the repairs haven't been completed. But I do know the HOA has repeatedly contacted the homeowner about the condition of the property.

Think about the position that creates.

Police damage a house during an operation. The homeowner may be unable to get insurance to cover the repairs. The police department may not be financially responsible. Yet the HOA can turn around and demand that the homeowner fix the damage.

Something about that system doesn't make sense.

Supporting Police Doesn't Mean Ignoring the Question

Police officers sometimes have seconds to make decisions involving life and death. If someone is shooting at officers from inside a house, protecting lives must come before protecting drywall, windows or a brick wall.

But once the danger is over, society can have a separate conversation about who should bear the financial consequences.

If the homeowner committed the crime, that is one thing.

If the homeowner is completely innocent, why should that person potentially lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars because government legitimately needed to use his or her property to protect the public?

Perhaps cities should maintain insurance specifically for these circumstances. Perhaps states should establish compensation funds for innocent property owners. At a minimum, there should be a clear process for homeowners to seek reimbursement rather than discovering after the fact that neither their insurance company nor their government intends to pay.

Police should have the tools and authority necessary to protect our communities.

But innocent homeowners shouldn't have to sacrifice their homes in the process.

Public safety is a public responsibility. When an innocent person's property must be sacrificed to protect the public, the public should have a conversation about sharing that cost.

Flock Cameras Are Helping Police Solve Crimes — So Why Are Arizona Communities Pushing Back?

If you drive around the Valley, there is a good chance your license plate has passed a Flock camera.

Flock Safety cameras are automated license plate readers, commonly called ALPRs. They photograph passing vehicles and record information such as the license plate, vehicle characteristics, time and camera location. The information can then be searched by authorized users. Flock says its ALPR system does not use facial recognition or identify the driver.

There are legitimate reasons law enforcement likes the technology. A camera can alert officers when it detects a plate associated with a stolen vehicle, wanted suspect or missing person. Investigators can also search historical records when investigating a crime.

But Flock cameras are not limited to government.

Private businesses, neighborhoods and other organizations can purchase the technology, and private-camera information can potentially be shared with law enforcement. Flock itself confirms that its cameras can be used by law enforcement, private neighborhoods and businesses.

That includes major retailers. Home Depot has used Flock technology as part of its efforts to address theft and security. The company's relationship with Flock has also attracted scrutiny from some shareholders concerned about how surveillance information might ultimately be accessed by law enforcement.

So why are people suddenly questioning a technology designed to help fight crime?

Because the same system that can locate a stolen car can potentially be used to locate you.

Arizona Has Already Seen Misuse

Recent events in the Phoenix area demonstrate why the debate has intensified.

In Apache Junction, an officer resigned after an internal investigation determined he improperly used Flock cameras to locate his wife's vehicle during a personal dispute. Police Chief Michael Pooley said the officer would have been fired had he not resigned.

In Chandler, an officer admitted using the Flock system for a personal reason involving a family member and resigned. Chandler subsequently ended its Flock program and disabled its 40 cameras.

In Goodyear, an officer was placed on administrative leave after an audit identified potentially improper Flock activity. Police said the matter involved a possible criminal violation and referred the investigation to an outside agency.

And in Surprise, the city suspended its use of the cameras and placed an officer on administrative leave after an audit uncovered potential misuse.

These are not hypothetical concerns anymore.

They are happening in our own communities.

Some Arizona Agencies Are Walking Away

Some Arizona jurisdictions have decided the benefits no longer outweigh their concerns.

Chandler ended its contract and shut down its 40 Flock cameras after an audit flagged possible misuse.

Pinal County also decided not to renew its Flock contract. Sheriff Ross Teeple cited serious Fourth Amendment and privacy concerns.

Other Arizona communities, including Flagstaff, Sedona and South Tucson, have also moved away from the technology, while Tempe has changed how it shares Flock data.

This isn't simply an Arizona issue. The Associated Press reported this week that more than 50 agencies or jurisdictions nationwide have canceled, suspended or rejected contracts or deactivated cameras since the beginning of 2026, according to a tracker maintained by the anti-ALPR group DeFlock.

Why Are Citizens Concerned?

The strongest argument for Flock is also what makes people uncomfortable: it works because it records enormous numbers of vehicles driven by people who aren't suspected of committing any crime.

A single photograph of your license plate probably isn't particularly revealing.

But connect thousands of cameras together and make their information searchable, and critics worry that individual observations can become a history of someone's movements.

There are several concerns driving the backlash: privacy, warrantless searches, sharing information between jurisdictions, unauthorized searches by individual officers, access to privately owned camera data, how long information is retained and whether citizens have meaningful oversight over who searches the system.

There is also a fundamental question about the relationship between government and technology.

Just because technology can track something doesn't necessarily mean government should be able to track it without clearly defined limits.

Flock Is Responding

Interestingly, Flock itself appears to recognize that stronger safeguards are necessary.

The company announced major changes this week following nationwide criticism and documented cases of misuse. Flock says law enforcement customers will be required to use auditing technology designed to identify abnormal searches. Searches will increasingly need to be connected to case codes, and Flock plans to reduce its standard data-retention period from 30 days to seven days.

Those are significant changes.

They also raise another question: If stronger safeguards are necessary today, were the safeguards strong enough yesterday?

This Doesn't Have to Be an Anti-Police Debate

I strongly support law enforcement, and I can understand exactly why police departments want this technology.

If someone's child is missing, a violent criminal is fleeing or a vehicle has been stolen, most of us would be grateful if a Flock camera helped officers find them.

But supporting law enforcement does not require giving government unlimited access to technology without safeguards.

The recent cases in Apache Junction, Chandler, Goodyear and Surprise demonstrate something important: the greatest concern may not be the camera itself. It is who can access the information, why they can access it and what prevents someone from using it for personal reasons.

Technology is moving faster than government policy.

Before cities install hundreds more cameras, elected officials should be asking difficult questions about warrants, retention periods, information sharing, audits, disciplinary policies and exactly who has access.

Flock cameras can be a powerful crime-fighting tool.

They can also become a powerful surveillance tool.

The difference between the two is oversight.

Data Centers and Arizona's Power Grid: The Facts Are More Complicated Than the Headlines

If you follow the news or social media, you have probably heard some version of this argument: Data centers are coming to Arizona, they are going to consume enormous amounts of electricity, and residential customers will be stuck paying for the power plants, transmission lines and substations needed to serve them.

There is just one problem.

That is not how Arizona's regulatory system works.

Earlier this year, I attended the Arizona Corporation Commission's Large Load Users Development Workshop. Representatives from Arizona Public Service (APS), Salt River Project (SRP) and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) all made presentations about how large-load customers — including data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities — connect to Arizona's electric grid.

What I heard was considerably different from many of the sound bites we continue to hear.

A Data Center Doesn't Simply Plug Into the Grid

Connecting a massive new electrical customer isn't like calling the power company and asking for service at a new house.

Utilities must determine whether the grid can safely and reliably handle the requested load, what new infrastructure may be necessary and whether additional generation, transmission lines, substations or other improvements will be required.

APS, TEP, and SRP told the Commission they are receiving more requests from prospective large-load customers than their systems can currently accommodate. Both utilities have developed queue processes to evaluate and narrow those requests. APS has also proposed long-term contracts and upfront financial commitments from large customers to help ensure those customers — rather than residential and small-business ratepayers — bear the costs and risks associated with new infrastructure.

TEP similarly says it conducts detailed system studies before determining whether a proposed data center can be served without harming reliability or affordability for existing customers. If service is possible, contracts can then establish how the customer will pay its own costs and for infrastructure dedicated to serving it.

This is not an overnight process. Large-load projects require extensive engineering, planning, financial commitments and, depending on the project, regulatory approvals before power begins flowing.

And those protections matter.

"Growth Pays for Growth"

The principle repeatedly emphasized by the Arizona Corporation Commission is simple:

Growth pays for growth.

At the April workshop, there was broad agreement among utilities, regulators, consumer advocates and industry representatives that the "cost causer" should bear the costs it creates rather than shifting those costs to existing customers.

Arizona's approach can include special large-load rates, Energy Supply Agreements, minimum-bill requirements, collateral and credit requirements, termination provisions and direct assignment of generation, transmission and distribution costs.

APS, for example, says its approach for extra-large energy users includes minimum bills, collateral requirements and opportunities for customers to make upfront contributions toward new infrastructure through long-term agreements.

TEP's agreement for the initial phase of a proposed Pima County data center provides a real-world example. The ACC says the agreement requires protections including minimum payments, financial security and termination provisions. TEP also confirmed the data center would cover construction costs for necessary line extensions and a new switchyard.

That is an important part of this discussion that is often missing from social media.

The ACC Just Added More Protections

On August 12, the Arizona Corporation Commission unanimously approved another measure aimed specifically at protecting customers from the costs associated with large-load growth.

This time, the focus was Arizona's electric cooperatives.

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Duncan Valley Electric Cooperative, Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Mohave Electric Cooperative, Graham County Electric Cooperative and Trico Electric Cooperative jointly sought a standardized process for handling new large-load customers.

These cooperatives are already talking with multiple large-load businesses interested in locating facilities in their service territories.

Under the new framework, large-load service agreements will come before the Commission through a standardized application process.

ACC Utility Division staff must consider at least three important questions:

• Is the agreement in the public interest?
• Are the rates being charged reasonable?
• Does the agreement ensure that other customer classes are not subsidizing the large-load customer's commercial activities?
• 
  

Commissioner Kevin Thompson made the purpose particularly clear, saying large-load customers will continue to be responsible for costs associated with their commercial service, including new infrastructure and transmission construction.

Chairman Nick Myers described the policy as a way for rural Arizona to capture economic development without having existing utility customers subsidize it.

Why This Matters for Rural Arizona

The latest ACC action is especially important because the data center discussion is no longer limited to Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler or other major metropolitan areas.

Large-load developers are increasingly looking at rural Arizona.

That creates both opportunities and legitimate concerns.

A large industrial project can require tremendous electrical capacity. If a utility builds expensive infrastructure based on a developer's projections and that project is delayed, downsized or abandoned, somebody could potentially be left paying for those investments.

That is exactly why minimum billing requirements, collateral, long-term contracts, termination provisions and upfront financial commitments matter.

Arizona shouldn't blindly approve every large-load project that comes along.

But we also shouldn't reject economic development based on the assumption that residential customers automatically have to pay for all the infrastructure needed to serve it.

Arizona Has Been Working on This for Some Time

The August decision didn't come out of nowhere.

The ACC opened a formal docket on data centers and large-load customers in April 2025. At that time, Commissioner Thompson said the Commission needed to ensure residential and small-business customers were not burdened with infrastructure costs created by these massive new users. The Commission also stated then that Arizona's data center industry had, to date, been paying its fair share of power-generation and infrastructure expansion under existing rate structures and regulatory practices.

The Commission continued that work through the April 2026 workshop.

Now it has established additional protections for electric cooperatives serving rural Arizona.

This isn't a regulatory system ignoring the issue.

It is a regulatory system actively trying to stay ahead of it.

Don't Let a Sound Bite Replace the Facts

I understand why people are concerned about data centers.

They use tremendous amounts of electricity. Some proposed facilities are enormous. Arizona is growing quickly, and residents have every right to ask whether our electrical system can keep up.

Those are legitimate questions.

But there is a difference between asking hard questions and assuming the answers.

When someone tells you that your electric bill is going up because a data center is coming to Arizona, ask another question:

Who is actually paying for the infrastructure required to serve that data center?

The answer may be considerably different from what you have been hearing.

Arizona's regulators have made their policy direction increasingly clear: large-load customers should pay the costs they create.

That doesn't mean Arizona should stop scrutinizing these projects. Quite the opposite. We should continue demanding strong contracts, adequate financial guarantees, careful engineering studies and safeguards against stranded costs.

But the conversation needs to be based on facts.

Data centers and other large-load users should pay their own way. Arizona's Corporation

Commission has been taking steps to make sure they do.

Don’t Feed the Beast: The Rise of Rage Bait

Social media can be a great place to share information, learn about what is happening in our communities, and discuss important issues. Unfortunately, it has also become a breeding ground for something very different: rage bait.

Rage bait is content specifically designed to make you angry enough to react, comment, argue, or share. Increasingly, it is packaged to look like legitimate news or official information. It might be a professional-looking meme, a screenshot, a dramatic headline, a short article, or a few sentences claiming something outrageous happened.

The problem is that there may be little—or no—factual information behind it.

Sometimes the claim contains a small piece of truth but leaves out important context. Other times, it takes a complicated issue and reduces it to a few inflammatory words. And sometimes the claim is simply false.

The goal isn't necessarily to inform you. The goal is to get a reaction from you.

Rage bait frequently has several warning signs:

• False or missing facts. Important details or context are conveniently left out.
• Extreme language. Words are chosen to shock, frighten, or anger you.
• Outrageous statements or behavior. The content seems almost designed to make you say, "Can you believe this?"
• No room for debate. Opinions are presented as indisputable facts, with anyone who disagrees portrayed as ignorant, dishonest, or evil.
• No credible source. There may be no link to an original document, government record, full interview, study, or legitimate news report.

Before sharing something that makes your blood boil, ask yourself a simple question: Is this trying to inform me, or is it trying to manipulate me?

Take a few minutes to look for the original source. Read beyond the headline. Find the complete quote instead of the five-second clip. Check the government document rather than trusting someone's interpretation of it. Sometimes you will discover the story is legitimate. Other times, you may find that the viral version bears little resemblance to what actually happened.

There is another side to rage bait that concerns me just as much: what it is doing to the way we treat one another.

People routinely get into vicious online arguments with complete strangers. Hiding behind a keyboard makes it easy to say things we would probably never say if that person were standing in front of us. A disagreement over one issue quickly turns into insults, name-calling, and personal attacks.

What did anyone accomplish?

We can disagree without becoming enemies. We can debate policy without attacking someone's character. And we can decide that not every ridiculous statement on the internet deserves our attention.

In fact, sometimes the most powerful response is no response at all.

Social media platforms reward engagement. Every angry comment, argument, and share can help controversial content travel farther—even when you are commenting to tell everyone how wrong it is.

So the next time something appears in your feed that immediately makes you angry, resist the urge to react.

Check the facts. Consider the source. Look for the missing context.

And if it's clearly rage bait?

Keep scrolling. Don't feed the beast.

Arizona Is Losing Teachers and Nurses — Maybe We Should Ask Why

Arizona has two serious workforce problems that, on the surface, may appear unrelated: a teacher shortage and a nursing shortage.

One affects our classrooms. The other affects our hospitals and healthcare facilities. But the more I look at these two professions, the more similarities I see.

Both are professions built around service. Both require trained professionals who carry tremendous responsibility for other people. Both have become increasingly burdened with paperwork, documentation and responsibilities that were once handled by other employees. And in both professions, workers too often feel that when something goes wrong, administration does not have their back.

Maybe our problem isn't simply that we can't recruit enough teachers and nurses.

Maybe we need to spend more time asking why experienced professionals are leaving.

Arizona's Teacher Retention Problem

A new 13 News investigation describes what it calls Arizona's teacher retention crisis. Nationally, about 7% of teachers leave their jobs each year. In Arizona, that number is 14% — twice the national rate. Arizona also ranks 48th in elementary and secondary teacher pay, according to data cited in the report.

Pay certainly matters, and Arizona needs to remain competitive. But I don't believe we can solve teacher retention by talking about salary alone.

Talk to teachers and you quickly discover how much the job has changed.

A teacher's primary responsibility should be to teach. Yet teachers are increasingly asked to be counselors, social workers, behavior specialists, technology troubleshooters, data collectors and paperwork processors.

Every additional requirement may sound reasonable when considered individually. Add them all together, however, and eventually something has to give.

Teachers still have lessons to prepare. They still have papers to grade. They still need to communicate with parents. They still need to identify students who are struggling.

But now add testing requirements, data collection, documentation, professional development, technology platforms, individualized plans, meetings and an increasing number of behavioral issues.

Then we wonder why teachers burn out.

Nurses Are Experiencing Something Very Similar

Now look at nursing.

Arizona has been facing what the Arizona State Board of Nursing has described as the worst nursing shortage in the country, with the state projected to have 28,100 nursing vacancies by 2025.

The article describes nurses being overrun with patients and struggling to provide the level of care they want to provide. Nursing students doing clinical rotations are seeing the staffing shortage firsthand.

Again, increasing the number of people entering nursing programs is important. Arizona needs more nurses.

But there is another question we need to ask: Why are we having so much trouble keeping them?

Like teachers, nurses have watched their responsibilities expand.

Nurses obviously provide medical care, but increasingly they are also responsible for extensive charting and documentation, coordinating care, communicating with families, navigating electronic systems and completing administrative tasks—all while caring for patients.

Hospitals have become more technologically advanced, but technology has not necessarily made a nurse's day simpler.

And just like teachers, nurses often tell us that the workload keeps increasing.

The Missing Support Staff Matters

There is another similarity that deserves more attention.

Over the years, many organizations have tried to become more efficient by reducing support positions or consolidating responsibilities. On paper, eliminating a position can look like savings.

But the work doesn't disappear.

It gets transferred to someone else.

When clerical or support responsibilities disappear in a school, some of that work lands on teachers.

When support positions are reduced in healthcare settings, some of that work lands on nurses.

Then we look at the budget and say we saved money because we eliminated a position. But if a highly trained teacher or nurse is now spending part of the day doing work that could have been performed by another employee, did we really save anything?

More importantly, what did it cost us in burnout and retention?

Administration Has to Have Their Backs

There is another issue we don't discuss enough: employees need to know their administration will support them.

A teacher should not be afraid to enforce reasonable classroom rules because he or she believes administration will automatically side against the teacher when a complaint is made.

Teachers need administrators who will listen to parents while also respecting the professional judgment of the person standing in that classroom every day.

The same principle applies to nurses.

Healthcare organizations obviously must investigate legitimate complaints and maintain high professional standards. But nurses also need to know their supervisors understand what it is like to care for too many patients while simultaneously meeting an ever-growing list of administrative requirements.

Accountability and employee support are not opposites. Good organizations do both.

Stop Asking One Person to Do Five Jobs

Arizona needs to recruit teachers. Arizona needs to train nurses. We need competitive compensation, quality training programs and reasonable pathways into both professions.

But recruitment is only half of the equation.

Retention matters just as much. We cannot continually pour new people into professions while experienced professionals walk out the other side. Before creating another program, another form, another reporting requirement or another administrative task, leaders in education and healthcare should ask a simple question: Does this really need to be done by a teacher or a nurse? If the answer is no, give that responsibility to someone else.

Teachers should have more time to teach. Nurses should have more time to care for patients. And both deserve administrators who understand that supporting the professionals on the front lines isn't lowering standards. It is one of the best ways to maintain them.

Arizona's teacher and nursing shortages may look like two separate problems. I believe they are warning us about something much bigger.

Sometimes the best way to solve a workforce shortage isn't simply finding more workers.

It's creating workplaces where good people want to stay.

JOIN US THIS WEDNESDAY