Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons
    Posted by: and then there is the nepotism.... on 5/23/13
    () Comments


    Clearly not all the 22 year old new grads are hired because there
    simply are not enough jobs, but mostly the people who are hired seem
    to be in that category. Maybe this was not the case even a few years
    ago, but since hundreds of thousands of teachers ha ve been laid off
    nationwide, employers are more picky. (Can any of you administrators
    confirm what has been posted on this board that younger teachers are
    favored because they are cheaper to insure?) We may believe there is
    age discrimination, but how could anyone prove it? The other day I
    ran into a first year teacher career changer in the district where I
    sub. She appeared to be in her thirties. Hmmmm, I thought, that's
    interesting. I don't normally see that. But then she mentioned that
    her mom has been teaching for 25 years in the district. Ohhhhhhh, I
    thought. I see.

    On 5/23/13, NOT TRUE.. PERIOD!! wrote:
    > Reality checks:
    >
    > 1) RIFed teachers MUST LEGALLY be hired first for positions!
    >
    >
    >
    > 2) Decent principals want experienced teachers not those who
    > are "single, cheaper, feshly trained and seen as less likely to
    > be dogmatic implements to change".
    >
    >
    >
    > 3) Refusing to hire older staff and giving jobs to 22 year olds
    > because they are "healthier, more energetic, more tech savvy and
    > cheaper.." is AGE DISCRIMINATION!
    >
    >
    >
    > 4) In this economy there are many applicants for jobs.. it is
    > simply not credible that most jobs go to those with the least
    > experience.
    >
    >
    >
    > If your district only hires 22-27 year olds, that is a MAJOR red
    > flag something is not right within the district.
    >
    >
    >
    > On 5/20/13, mm wrote:
    >
    >> They are usually single, energetic, optimistic, and healthy.
    >
    >> They're cheaper. They usually are tech savvy. They are freshly
    >
    >> trained and seen as less likely to be seen as dogmatic
    >
    >> impediments to change (i.e. little baggage). I'm a vet and see
    >
    >> the benefits in experience as well. But, a good mix is needed
    >
    >> to create a first - rate staff unless the admin thinks that
    >
    >> they can 'raise' a core staff.
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >> On 5/19/13, J wrote:
    >
    >>
    >
    >>> getting hired for teaching jobs? Fresh out of college
    >
    >>
    >
    >>> kids. Why?
    >
    >>
    >


    Posts on this thread, including this one

  • Why are only 22 year olds , 5/19/13, by J.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/20/13, by mm.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds , 5/21/13, by that is not necessarily true in the district I work in....
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/21/13, by mm, you are overlooking something.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/21/13, by Judy2/CA.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/21/13, by OK well, I wasn't overlooking that....
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/21/13, by gain experience in education.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/23/13, by NOT TRUE.. PERIOD!! .
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/23/13, by and then there is the nepotism.... .
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/24/13, by J.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/24/13, by mm.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/24/13, by Consider applying outside of the district and relocating..
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/26/13, by Okay then...
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/26/13, by Poster above..corrections.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons, 5/27/13, by J.
  • Re: Why are only 22 year olds , 6/04/13, by J.