The state-operated school district of Philadelphia bluntly admitted it could not afford to provide a sound basic education to the children of the district. It sought court approval for continuing to short-change the children of Philadelphia.
The Education Law Center reports:
“In March, Philadelphia’s state-operated school district filed an extraordinary legal complaint with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The lawsuit asks the Court to approve changes in school staffing levels and the way teachers are transferred and laid off, effectively nullifying portions of a collective bargaining agreement between the Philadelphia School District and the teachers union.
“Much attention has focused on the district’s request for changes in teacher staffing and work rules. But unnoticed is the district’s stark admission of the deplorable conditions that Philadelphia’s school children must endure after 17 years of direct state control over their education.
“In the court filing, the district says it wants to ease lay-off and transfer rules caused by an “unprecedented gap” between available funding and what’s needed just to maintain services at “prior year” levels. The district then describes the services it hopes to maintain, levels so palpably inadequate as to fall far below even minimum education standards.
“The complaint details the sub-basic education programs and support services now in district-operated schools. The district describes teacher and support staff as “bare bones,” at levels “20 percent smaller than the year before and 33 percent than just three years ago.” The district concedes it has made “very steep” layoffs, a one-third reduction in employees in just three years, leaving schools with “barely adequate” staffing.
“The district goes on to catalogue a parade of resource deficits plaguing the system: over 40 schools with no guidance counselor of its own; three-fourths of schools with no librarian assistant; and “significant cuts” to instructional materials and supplies, enrichment opportunities for students, extracurricular activities, administrative support and school cleaning services. And, of course, as parents of Philadelphia children know all too well: closing 24 neighborhood public schools.
“The complaint also acknowledges the “short supply” of school nurses, a fact familiar to Philadelphians in light of the deaths of two young students in schools lacking a full-time nurse in recent months.
“Even more remarkable, the district pinpoints the state’s $300 million aid cut in 2011-12 as being at the “root” of these serious deficiencies. And the district presents no evidence that the relief it asks for — making teacher layoffs and transfers easier — will generate any real budgetary savings. The district doesn’t offer the Court a plan for bringing teacher and support staff back to reasonable levels, reducing class size, providing interventions to struggling students, and keeping neighborhood schools open, safe and clean.
“The district’s filing is the legal equivalent of asking the Supreme Court for permission to rearrange deck chairs on a fast-sinking ship.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is a really interesting case. First I’ve heard of it.
LikeLike
So where did all the money go? This is a nightmare. If public education goes, there goes any chance of real democracy.
LikeLike
“So where did all the money go?”
That’s always the question. I don’t know how far this case will ultimately go, but if it goes far enough, the answer to your question will probably be litigated. And that would be interesting. Outside of bankruptcy, it’s rare that arguments about budgets go before a court.
LikeLike
What I read between the lines is that teachers cost too much and without raising taxes to pay for them, cities and states now want to pay less and don’t care if the teachers are great or not. But they will label them great even if they are not to fool parents and the public. Isn’t that what TFA has been doing?
It’s obvious in the tax less, Tea Party, libertarian insanity that has caused grid lock in Congress has led to this state of affairs where paying trillions for wars is okay but not a penny more for our public schools unless it makes a billionaire and/or corporation richer.
The results may be the end of a livable wage for teachers, no medical unless Obamacare covers them and no retirement plans other than what lowly paid teachers can pay into a Wall Street, US bank controlled retirement investment plan and so far those 401K plans have mostly failed miserably for the working class. In fact,for instance, I lost about $40 thousand in those types of plans over the years. Without CalSTRS, I’d could easily be homeless now or dead because I would never be able to retire.
It is obvious that this is what the Obama White House wants. A country where only the rick can afford to not work and everyone else has to work until death takes them—a return to the family structure where the younger generations take care of the older when the idler can no longer care for themselves or earn a living.
Charles Dickens wrote about this world in his work. The workhouse, prisons for debtors, large numbers living in poverty and on the streets. Don’t forget that under G.W. Bush the bankruptcy laws were changed for the working class so they could never get rid of debts they couldn’t afford to pay—instead, bankruptcy just stretches those payments out further for the rest of your life.
LikeLike
401k plans are the biggest phony baloney rip off. They were never meant to replace regular pensions, they were meant to complement already existing pensions. 401Ks will never supply the average person with enough money for retirement and in addition, when the economy or the stock market tanks you can kiss your 401K bye, bye. Not to mention possible fees which can eat away at your 401K funds. But Social Security continues to make its payments through wars, bank failures, recessions and the mini depression of 2008. Here in NJ, Christie is working overtime to destroy the public pensions of teachers, police, fire fighters and government employees. He has already eliminated the COLA for current and future retirees. He blames NJ’s economic woes on the pension fund and he’s refusing to put the state’s contribution towards the pension fund but then the other governors, D or R, were no better. They balanced the budget on the backs of the public employee pension fund, they kicked the can down the road and off the cliff into the abyss.
LikeLike
“when the economy or the stock market tanks you can kiss your 401K bye, bye.”
What do you think pension funds invest in?
LikeLike
With the BILLIONS of dollars being “donated” to reform education, and funding lawsuits to bust unions/fire teachers, one would think the money could best be spent fixing crumbling schools, paying teachers properly, hiring MORE specialists, funding enrichment programs and the like.
Instead, we have cities wanting to further underfund schools, raise class size, cut programs, cut specialists, cut nurses, cut, cut, cut, until there is….what? Nothing left? No place for the kids to get educated and no one to teach them? What a shameful, selfish waste of the Gates, Broad, Walton, etc., et al. monies, efforts and time. They could be doing something truly worthwhile, if they weren’t so driven to profit off the taxpayers’ backs.
LikeLike
FLERP, 401Ks are sold as something terrific, miraculous, sure fire, no worry, practically risk free money makers. You need to talk to the propagandists for 401Ks who want to replace regular pensions with these “instruments.” So this is how it works, the hucksters and privatizers promote 401Ks as some sort of panacea but when they fail you are told: “You dummy, you should have known that 401Ks are dependent on the stock market, so tough luck stupid!” Oh, OK.
LikeLike
Again, what do you think pension funds are dependent on?
LikeLike
I believe the major difference is that the risk is spread. If the state is on the hook, they are more likely to police their investments. If Joe Schmo loses his life savings because of a poor investment policy, no one blames anyone but Joe. If the state has some skin in the game, then someone is likely to notice if they lose their shirts. It is some protection, perhaps not much, given public officials tendency to avoid all responsibility for poor decisions.
LikeLike
True, in California, there is a thirteen member, appointed board of trustees with other fail safes built in to watch them. CalSTRS was founded in 1913 and even during the Great Depression (and every other economic downturn), it has never missed paying retired teachers on time in more than one hundred years.
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, with a portfolio valued at $154.8 billion (this is investments and cash on hand and not IOUs from the government or taxpayers) as of October 31, 2012, is the largest educator-only pension fund in the world. CalSTRS administers a hybrid retirement system, consisting of traditional defined benefit, cash balance and voluntary defined contribution plans, as well as disability and survivor benefits. CalSTRS serves California’s 856,000 public school educators and their families from the state’s 1,600 school districts, county offices of education and community college districts.
The only way CalSTRS would fail is if the fake education reformers and their billionaire backers somehow corrupted the system by planting enough of their puppets inside and/or managed to change the laws in California that offer protections to this retirement system.
LikeLike
NY times on pensions vulnerability now that they do not invest in bonds.
LikeLike
It’s true, although I’m sure some readers will react with a “but it’s funded by John Arnold!” Of course, technically the pension funds are invulnerable until their insurer, the state or municipal government, is literally unable to issue paychecks for the teachers, firefighters, cops, sanitation workers, corrections officers, and clerks. If it weren’t for accounting rules, there’d be no reason to even bother keeping track of what the funds were investing in and what the obligations were.
LikeLike
Flerp, Joe is basically correct. A 401-K, particularly with employer matched
contributions, is better than nothing. However, it is not better than the traditional
defined benefit pension plan, which is designed to withstand economic
storms far better than the defined contribution plans. (401K, IRA, 457 etc…)
LikeLike
I agree. Pension funds for public employee defined benefit plans are nominally dependent on investment returns, but in fact are dependent on the solvency of the responsible government entity. So governments can promise benefits without regard to funding levels or actual investment returns. Unless and until the government is bankrupt and unable to pay its employees, the retiree will be paid in full. That’s the beauty of the public employee defined benefit pension.
LikeLike
Yes – Government is magic and can provide everybody with whatever they wish at no cost. A government just needs a printing press. It worked for Zimbabwe.
LikeLike
Flerp, you make sound like the “solvency” of a state or locality is determined by some kind of impersonal, natural law, or that it’s the result of random forces, like the weather.
Budgets are political artifacts and the “pension shortfalls,” which the John Arnold’s of the world are so quick to use as a premise for eliminating defined benefit pensions, are the result of political decisions, often ideologically-based, to underfund those very same pensions.
Those decisions to underfund pensions are usually the result of taxation and corporate welfare policies promoted by the very same politicians who then say we can’t “afford” to provide deferred compensation (which is what pensions are for teachers)) and a decent retirement to public employess
LikeLike
Decisions to underfund pensions are certainly political decisions, although I don’t think it’s accurate to say that those decisions “are usually the result of taxation and corporate welfare policies.” From what I’ve seen, the decisions to underfund public employee pensions are usually made by state legislatures, very often with the support and collaboration of the large public employee unions.
It’s true that states and cities *could have* decided to put a lot more money pension funds, from any number of sources: revenue that might have been brought in by higher taxes; revenue that might not have been spent on tax breaks for corporations; money from payroll that could have been freed up by layoffs. But why would they do that when nobody was telling them to? Did the UFT or the NYSUT fight to increase employer contributions in the early 2000s, when retroactive benefits were being enhanced? Are the UFT or the NYSUT fighting to increase employer contributions even today? Of course not. Ask the unions and their reps on the pension fund boards, and they’ll say the same thing they’ve been saying forever: “There’s no need, the funds are well-managed and in great shape.” And they might add: “The very idea that the pension funds are underfunded is a myth propagated by people who want to destroy pensions.”
LikeLike
I cannot remember a time when blaming my debts on those to whom I owed money ever got me out of meeting those obligations. How come state governments, who are obligated to provide certain funds toward pension obligations, can blame their lack of responsible financial planning on the people to whom those pensions are owed?
LikeLike
There’s nothing inherently wrong with defined benefit pension plans. However promises to pay somebody in the future do not automatically fulfill themselves. You can promise your child to pay for his/her college education. But if you limit yourself to just promising and do nothing to assure the fulfilment of this promise then your promise may turn out to without value.
LikeLike
Flerp,
You are most certainly correct that the UFT and NYSUT have done little or nothing to insure that legislated pension benefits are in fact fully funded – though there’s a lot of variation and NYC’s Teacher’s Retirement System is better-funded and managed than most – but I think that proves my basic point: the unions’ inaction is part and parcel of the political character of these issues.
I think the public sector unions have consciously chosen not to push for the regular and reliable funding of pensions. The most benign explanation is that there’s been a tacit or explicit mutual understanding between them and their legislative allies that calling for the taxes on the rich that would be required is politically unrealistic.
Everyone hopes to muddle through, and perhaps that is not so unrealistic, since the actual shortfalls are overblown and given an apocalyptic cast for political purposes. Yes, the billions in pension underfunding are a lot of money, but these are not bills that must be paid in full tomorrow. The money is due over many years and, given the political will (acknowledged to be absent right now), it can be raised without onerous cost to the economy or the overwhelming majority of people.
LikeLike
The problem is one of compounding, though. These pensions aren’t designed to function on a “pay as you go” basis, like Social Security is. They rely on a compounding effect, and the longer the can gets kicked down the road, the bigger the problem gets.
As for the problem being overblown and not too onerous to fix, I guess it depends on we mean by “onerous,” and also what we mean by “fix.” What evidence is there that the problem will ever be fixed unless it has become so onerous that there is no other choice? For NYC, I don’t know what that kind of world would look like, but it’s a scary thought to me. Between now and then, I imagine class sizes getting a lot bigger, facilities getting a lot worse, and attacks on the very idea of public employee defined benefit plans getting a lot more intense. And what will the ultimate “fix” be? A tax on the super-rich, who will finally hand over the huge sack of money that will solve all these problems by itself? I find that hard to believe. I’m more inclined to think the fix will come with the cost of even deeper cuts to services. Probably also the eradication of defined benefit pensions entirely. There are a lot of possibilities between a rock and a hard, and they all seem onerous to me.
LikeLike
Or perhaps you’re right and we’ll muddle through. It’s really going to suck, though.
LikeLike
Flerp,
Hoping to muddle through is not something I’d argue for. I only brought it up because I think that’s an important dynamic at work, and that many parties are willing to go that route. Absent the will to tax the rich via increased capital gains taxes, financial transaction taxes, wealth taxes, etc., then the war of all against all – pensioners vs. children – is a good investment.
Finally, you seem to suggest that full funding of teacher pensions equals larger class size. There is no budget or financial Law of Gravity connecting the two; like everything else, that’s a political and value decision.
What makes you think that the kind of people who want to renege on teacher pension obligations care at all about class size? In their ideal world, retirees will live on cat food (though their insufficiently-funded 401ks will be a nice source of Wall St. fees), and the kids will be 60 cubicles to a room, pointing and clicking at screens.
LikeLike
“Finally, you seem to suggest that full funding of teacher pensions equals larger class size. There is no budget or financial Law of Gravity connecting the two; like everything else, that’s a political and value decision.”
There’s a short response and a long response to this. The short answer is that there is absolutely a law that connects the two. It’s the law that says that, in any given budget, every dollar spent on X is a dollar not spent on Y. The more you spend on pension contributions, the less you can spend to hire additional teachers and build or lease additional classrooms. That is a law. The explosion of pension costs in the second half of the 2000s was certainly one of the factors (along with plummeting state aid) that has contributed to the recent increases in class sizes in NYC schools.
(The same law applies to raises in teacher salaries. Every extra dollar you spend on salary for an existing teacher is a dollar you cannot spend on an additional teacher. This is the most obvious reason why unions always prioritize raises over class size reductions in contract negotiations.)
The longer response to the statement that “full funding of teacher pensions equals larger class size” is that it depends on the timing. If you want to free up cash to hire more teachers or increase salaries or buy 50,000 iPads in the near term, shortchanging the pension funds can help you do that. Whether public pensions should be fully funded isn’t an abstract question. If the answer to that question is “yes,” then you’ve immediately blown a multi-billion dollar hole in the budget. Classroom spending gets (more) crushed, hiring gets frozen, layoffs happen, etc. Parents don’t like that, workers don’t like that, and mayors don’t like that. I’m no different, I don’t like it either. But it’s not the kind of problem that gets easier over time.
And it should go without saying, the twin sister of under-funding pensions is the retroactive enhancement of pension benefits without any offsetting increase in contributions. This happened everywhere in the 1990s, and it kept happening in many places through much of the 2000s. There’s not much to be done about that now (although I noticed Chicago recently rolled back a COLA enhancement for some city workers), but we shouldn’t let it keep happening.
LikeLike
We’re talking past each other at this point: while there are interests and embedded political habits at work, there is no “law” that commands the existence of a zero sum game between class size and teacher pensions. If there was, why hasn’t emerged during previous economic crises? Teacher pensions have always been generous compared to most, yet during NYC’s financial meltdown in the mid-70’s, the teacher’s pension fund was literally a financial angel for the City of New York, buying its bonds when no one else would; yet now it’s cast as source of conflict between students and teachers, and of potential fiscal crisis. That has nothing to do with “law” and everything to do with the balance of power between Capital and Labor, and the accumulation strategies of Capital, which now include the aggressive takeover and re-direction of public and worker-oriented resources.
That zero sum game is based on a premise of fiscal austerity that is ideologically and politically freighted. Change the politics – not an easy thing to do and not something I’m necessarily predicting – and you change the equation.
LikeLike
“We’re talking past each other at this point”
Probably a bit, I don’t know. I understood that you would object to the “zero sum” rule. And I *think* I understand your argument here: that the “zero sum” approach to fiscal policy is a product of bright-line spending limits imposed by austerity; that austerity itself is not an economic rule but rather a type of economics; that the economics of austerity are designed to protect the interests of those who sit closest to the spigot of capital, at the expense of those who sit furthest away from it. I believe much of that, maybe all of it, although with some caveats. One, I think that austerity doesn’t really impose a zero sum rule. What it does is impose a specific sum, a smaller one, which sets off a new fight over resources. Two, I do believe that if you run deficits that are big enough for long enough, it will start to matter. Three, I am dumbfounded and terrified by the scale and complexity of the US economy, not to mention the global economy.
All that said, I think fiscal policy is a very different animal at the state and municipal level than it is at the federal level. States and municipalities can’t print money and can’t use deficit spending. A balanced budget amendment is, essentially, a “zero sum” mandate. Each year, the expenses cannot exceed the revenue. We can argue about whether the revenue is high enough, and whether we should raise more of it through taxes, fees, or borrowing. But when those arguments are finished, the revenue outlook basically forecast is what it is, and the process of drawing up the new budget is a zero sum game. You may think it’s not fair, and you may be right, but being right about that doesn’t change how budgets work.
I’ll think about what you’re saying about the mid-70s crisis. Remember, you’re a native and you’ve got at least a decade and a half of wisdom on me. It’s book-learning for me.
LikeLike
The shortfalls in 401Ks are caused primarily by A.not contributing enough money for long enough a period of time, B. high (but not hidden) fees on actively managed funds, and C. poor diversification (too much invested in company stock, e.g.). 401Ks were also meant to be a supplement to Social Security income and other tax-advantaged savings plans like IRAs, not a direct substitute for a defined benefit plan.
Flerp! has already pointed out the obvious–for the most part, the pension funds are investing in exactly the same markets as the mutual funds. There’s nothing special that protects pension funds from making bad decisions — witness the $600 million bath Calstrs and Calpers took on their investment in a giant apartment complex in New York City — or exorbitant fees. The public employee pension funds in New York City cough up $500 million every year just for outside consultants.
Funny thing: every progressive’s favorite candidate for mayor, John “8%” Liu, wanted to consolidate the five separate city pension boards into one, mostly to eliminate the need for those consultants and to cut down on other overhead. Union leaders worked furiously behind the scenes to get him to scrap the idea. Turns out there was a little too much sunlight in this deal for their liking, regardless of what it would have saved.
That’s all I think most reasonable people who aren’t in on the deal want: a clear presentation of what everything costs and a discussion of what the trade-offs are. In 2014-2015, the NYC DOE will spend about $4000 per student on pensions, money that could go a long way toward lowering class sizes or expanding course offerings.
LikeLike
“401Ks were also meant to be a supplement to Social Security income and other tax-advantaged savings plans like IRAs, not a direct substitute for a defined benefit plan.”
That certainly is a comfort to teachers who don’t get social security.
LikeLike
LikeLike
well done, Jon!
LikeLike
Reporting from just outside Philadelphia with some knowledge of the problems here( my wife, a Philadelphia public school K-2 life skills teacher, is thankfully into her 4th day of a gradual return to normalcy this summer after a hellacious year of day and night and weekend work without the needed supports or resources), and the news is not encouraging.
My understanding of the complaint filed by the state commission which runs the district (SRC), was that it was intended to scare the teachers union into pay and benefits concessions (they are working without a new contract) which to date have not been given and hopefully won’t be. The SRC claims, by the way, that under the state law which created it Philadelphia teachers may not strike, unlike all other teachers here, and striking will forfeit their licenses! More recently the SRC refused to submit or approve a budget for next school year, as it was required to do so, by law, at the end of May, because the budget would have called for even more teacher layoffs and class sizes exceeding 40 students. Last week the city council approved loans of 50 million for the schools but according to the superintendent another 66 million is needed just to continue the horrible conditions which passed for schooling in Philadelphia last school year.
Corbett, our tea party governor, is running for reelection and promised some more funding before it was recently discovered that tax revenues in Pennsylvania are down and he is facing a deficit. No surprise there since he has refused to permit taxing of the Fracking here which is ripping up huge swaths of the Pennsylvania landscape and fouling the water. Regardless, Corbett is now on record as conditionally supporting new revenues only if his bill to switch all newly hired teachers out of our defined benefit pension system and into 401k plans is also passed by the legislature.
So what will be the solution for Philadelphia students and their parents?
Sadly, I predict Obama, Duncan, and Campbell Brown will try to join the lawsuit, plead for the “civil rights” of students to have a quality teacher in every classroom, and argue, see Vergara, for the end to tenure and seniority.
Problem solved.
Best wishes for a happy and relaxing summer to my fellow teachers out there.
LikeLike
From http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsiedle/2010/10/07/401ks-americas-biggest-investment-fraud-was-foreseen-and-preventable/:
Why were they doomed? Regulators and employers were unconcerned about pervasive conflicts of interest; excessive, hidden fees and wrongdoing that resulted in billions being skimmed from 401k accounts. Lack of adequate employer contributions further ensured that there was simply no way there would be enough in 401ks to fund participants’ retirement goals. But that didn’t stop regulators, employers and the mutual fund industry from touting 401ks as “retirement plans” to unsuspecting workers. Fraud of this magnitude, involving trillions, makes Madoff look like chicken feed.”
LikeLike
Sounds a bit like defined benefit pension funds.
LikeLike
Prove it!
Where there is money, there will be crooks—like maggots to a carcass. It isn’t the retirement plans that are corrupt. It’s the individuals who find their way in and then look for ways to steal what doesn’t belong to them or, as they did with the lead up to the 2007-08 global financial crises, they buy corrupt politicians who change the laws making a crime of fraud legal so they get away with the theft or the punishment is being sent to an unfenced country club prison for white collar crime with tennis courts and golf courses.
Corporate retirement plans, Social Security, Medicare, public sector retirement plans—all have been targets of fraud. Remember Enron?
Instead of punishing the hard working victim by doing away with those retirement plans, we pass stronger laws to make it more difficult to steal the money meant to fund retirement plans and punish the criminals with life sentences in Russian gulags or death by ten thousand cuts.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you’re asking me to prove, but it sounds like we’re in agreement that when it comes to conflicts of interest, fee expenses, and a heavy reliance on volatile equity investments, public employee pension funds and 401k retirement plans have a lot in common.
LikeLike
Like I said, where there’s money, human maggots will be attracted to the green carcass. It doesn’t matter if it is the private sector or public.
And punishment for these criminals should be harsh. Very harsh!
But punishment for white collar crime is soft as along as you don’t pull a Madoff and steal from the rich.
Do you think Madoff would be in prison for multiple life sentences if he had taken the path Jordan Belfort took and only stole from the working class?
LikeLike
Defined benefit plans are distinctly different from defined contribution plans.
LikeLike
Crossposted the original article.
What a shame.
LikeLike
I am happy to report that this evening, as reported on the News page of Philly.com, the Pa. Supreme Court threw out the District’s complaint, holding that the issues of work rules, transfers, tenure and the like were matters for collective bargaining.
LikeLike
This is where there should be a DISlike button for the action described in this excellent, clear condemnation.
LikeLike
Still on the table is the School Reform Commission’s insistence that the PFT, teacher’s union, contribute $96 million in concessions to supplant the nearly $300 million needed to open with bare-bones staff, programs and conditions. The Philadelphia teachers have worked for four years without increases; for salaries that are 20% lower than surrounding school districts. Most, provide their own materials and supplies. The principals’ union agreed to concessions, shorter work year. Teachers are being asked to take cuts but also to work longer days, unlimited evenings and Saturdays as needed. If I were to work for the IU (a nearby county special ed service provider for public schools), I would be making $22,000 more with better benefits and conditions. Why do I stay? Primarily, because as a resource room teacher, I have worked with my students for a portion of their every school day since they were in Kindergarten; for some, that’s a 5-6 yr. daily relationship with them and their families. It’s a deep bond of trust, confidence and source of security which they depend upon…as one of my 4th grade boys, who has worked so hard since K to overcome his hearing loss and has become a straight A, proficient student, (who plays a terrific clarinet because of my encouragement!) recently confided to me,” You’re the only reason I want to be in school. You do things for me.You make me be the best and I wouldn’t want to be here if you weren’t here.” …I know he means it. I know him and my others, better than anyone else at the school. Our relationship spans across all the years of eliminated programs, the cuts, all the staff changes. How do i abandon those strong emotional bonds, and take away their one constant amid all the uncertainty, disruption and deprivation created by these political funding wars?….How could I do ever that, and still expect to sleep at night?…It’s clear. They count on my presence. They gave me their hearts and they have mine…Consistency is what is best for young students… That is why i stay.
LikeLike
Another huge problem are these so called testing companies draining the districts with their expensive tests that are supposed to save the future workers and make them smarter than ever. All that’s happening is that kids are too distracted by their cell phones and parents are ignorant enough to let their school aged children to have phones. Kids just don’t care about school anymore. We can’t keep up with their cell phones with our books and paper and pencil activities. We don’t get computers for each kid and when they do get an iPad they just play games on them. The cellular companies need to help teachers to control cell phone use as well as parents. When teachers can’t get kids to get off of their phones a lot of instruction time is lost and the kids slip farther and farther. Kids won’t even give up phones to administrators. Some kids have serious melt downs or runaway when their parents take their phones away. I’ve known students who drop out because they are so emersed in social media they can’t do anything school related. It’s scary what’s happening in the public education system. I’ve had coworkers that are so addicted to their phones that they’ve lost their jobs.
LikeLike