Previously, AZ Department of Health Services director Cara Christ, along with Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman released guidelines for doing so ostensibly in a safe manner based on metrics related to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The three data benchmarks that will guide school reopening decisions are:
- The number of cases. Schools could open in a limited capacity when the county's rate of new cases per 100,000 people dips below 100 per week for two weeks, or their is a two-week consecutive decline in cases.
- People testing positive. Schools are recommended to open in a limited capacity when the percentage of people testing positive for COVID-19 in their county falls below 7%.
- Hospitalizations. Schools could open on a limited basis when the percent of hospital visits caused by COVID-like illness falls below 10% for two weeks.
From today's Yellow Sheet Report,
JO Combs, the most notable district where teachers are bucking their governing board’s decision to ignore Ducey’s guidelines, is in Pinal County, which meets [only] two of three guidelines – its cases per capita is not below 100 for two consecutive weeks but it is on a two-week downward trend and the county meets the benchmark of less than 10 percent of hospital visits being for Covid-like illness for two consecutive weeks. However, the percent of tests coming back positive has been well over 7 percent for two consecutive weeks (10.6 percent and 9.1 percent with the most recent week ending Aug 2). Schools in JO Combs were supposed to open for hybrid learning on Aug 17, but a standoff between teachers and the school leaders [whatever that means] led to full cancellations of in-person and virtual learning for three days this week, leading [so who exactly was doing the ACTUAL leading?] the governing board to vote last night to reverse its decision on in-person learning and instead offer virtual learning only. Today’s weekly school metrics update shows four counties have hit the metrics to reopen for hybrid learning: Apache, Cochise, Coconino and Yavapai."Leaders" (including elected officials) only lead when voluntary obedience is granted by the constituents. Even military officers understand the concept.
We have to learn from what we do right and what we do wrong, then move on. There were twenty-three of us, back to back. Now there are twenty-two. We have to get each other home in one piece.”
The Marine nodded, accepting this line of reasoning. Strong combat leadership is never by committee. Platoon commanders must command, and command in battle isn’t based on consensus. It’s based on consent. Any leader wields only as much authority and influence as is conferred by the consent of those he leads. The[se] Marines allowed me to be their commander, and they could revoke their permission at any time.
Fick, Nathaniel C.. One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer (p. 276). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.By the way, also in today's Yellow Sheet Report, "[Democratic US Senate nominee and former US Navy Captain] Mark Kelly spent roughly 40 minutes on the Republic’s political podcast dodging questions about how he would govern, and pivoting to criticisms of McSally." I don't know how the questions were posed to Kelly, but my initial impression is that US Senators do not govern anyone except their staff. It may be just a little bit premature for Kelly to be considering a run for Arizona governor or president of the United States.
Of course, there are plenty who would say to me, "well you know what they were talking about." To which I respond that words matter. There's a reason many journalists are unable to make the distinction between elected officials and leaders.
*****
And in the Unintended Consequences caused by shortsightedness and failure of imagination Department (also from the Yellow Sheet Report),
...former lawmaker Rich Crandall backed Invest in Education’s battle at the [Arizona] Supreme Court with an amicus brief that he said aimed to warn Republicans that they’ll regret restricting initiatives if they lose political power at the Capitol. Crandall and his attorney, Kory Langhofer (who successfully challenged the 2018 Invest in Ed initiative) called the initiative “flawed policy that should not be enacted.”
However, they urged the high court to reject the Chamber of Commerce’s argument that ARS 19-118.01, as enacted by Leach’s Laws 2017, Chapter 52 (H2404: initiatives; circulators; signature collection; contests), which made it illegal to pay initiative petition circulators by the signature, means that Petition Partners violated that law when it paid circulators bonuses and other incentives based, in part, on the number of signatures they gathered. While banning paying per signature is a constitutionally valid precaution, the law doesn’t ban petition circulation companies from rewarding productive workers with bonuses, as those working for Invest in Ed did, Langhofer argued in the brief.
The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously agreed that the incentive structure didn’t violate ARS 19-118.01. Crandall told our reporter that he decided to join the fray because he’s worried that when Republicans lose the majority in either the House or the Senate, the barriers Republicans have set up to ballot access in the Legislature and in the courts will cripple their ability to set policy. “Someday, that may be our only option as Republicans,” he said. “And if you make the rules so strict that a citizen’s initiative can never get on the ballot, this could [will almost certainly] come back to bite us in ways we haven’t even imagined.”
He imagined a scenario whereRepublicans[Democrats] control the House and Senate and Governor’s Office and attempt to curtail school choice. Republicans might want to use the initiative to reinstitute school choice policies, which are generally popular among voters, and have them voter protected, he noted.
“This isn’t really about Invest in Ed,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment