Re: Why are only 22 year olds . Many Reasons
    Posted by: Okay then.. on 5/26/13
    () Comments

    Any 23 year old who applied for a job and won out over veteran teachers with years of experience because they are:
    cheaper
    healthier
    are single
    don't have children
    won't question what the administration wants/rock the boat
    are willing to go along with the newest fads
    have more energy than older tea
    is NOT going to have a good first year experience! Any principal who hires this way is not only a total (bleep)ing moron, they are breaking the law. Is that someone desirable to have as a boss? These newbies will be expected to devote 14 hours a day to the job. But that's beside the point! "We hired you because you are young, healthy, have boundless energy, aren't encumbered by a family, won't question the school rules, don't have enough experience to question education dogma-- or what I as the principal tell you to do-- and are tech savvy".. said NO ADMINSTRATOR, EVER!

    No district really has the policy of refusing to hire older experienced teachers unless they get no 25 year old applicants with no experience. If a district is filled with newbies it is because that district has problems; beginner teachers start there until they can get into the system and get a better job.

    On 5/21/13, mm, you are overlooking something wrote:
    >
    > Not all older teachers are veterans. Some are mid-life career
    > changers who are freshly trained, energetic, optimistic, tech
    > savvy, and healthy. Plus, they have decades of accumulated
    > knowledge and wisdom from decades of reading and reflecting and
    > living. They only thing they lack is youth, and that seems to be
    > enough in many districts to make them unemployable.
    >
    > 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.