Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
I don't believe that 50% figure tbqh. Not in any form.
Younger employees in general are hungrier, more energetic, more passionate, less bitter, less cynical, less baggage, healthier (less time off) with less family responsabillities (less time off) and more up-to-date educations, with far less "we do it my (old) way" attitudes.
Ask our resident poster Ken what the debate value of "cases I know" are.
I think old employees are, in general, more experie3nced and knowledgeable, at the cost of a variety of drawbacks and limitations, generally speaking, and that this is compunded exponentially in any Union-based employment, where the oldest, best paid, most benefits employees are routinely the worst acting, least productive, most problem creating, worst attitudes in the group.
As I said, in EVERY sector of employement, the old wily vets face competition from the hungry young up-and-comers.
Teachers are not, and should not, be an exception to general rules of competition, because teachers (despite all the propaganda) are not special or different, they're just workers working a job, same as the rest of us.
|
A 3rd or 4th year teacher is all of those things you attribute to 'young' teachers, with less of the many shortcomings of a rookie, and they're the ones on the hot seat these days, stick in limbo. But forget about that - what's the incentive to teach if you know it's a 10 year career? Here's the 'difference' you're looking for: In other industries, you assume you'll prove your worth on the bottom line. Either through sales, or efficiency, knowledge, etc. Here the only thing that can possibly change is your salary, to the detriment of your value on the bottom line, no matter what your value In the classroom is. You can't teach 2 classrooms at once, you can't teach them 'faster' and get the next group In there early, etc.
TBH, it sounds like you don't value public education, and are willing to let it sink as far as it can in order to cut the money spent on it.