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

    On 5/26/13, Okay then.. wrote:
    > 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 teachers..no tea. I didn't mean tea partiers :).
    > 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.