There really isn't any substitute for experience or short cut to proficiency. This shouldn't be surprising. All jobs and professions involve craft knowledge. You can't be a good bartender, minister, welder or surgeon without practice and learning from your screw-ups. Why should teaching be any different?
When practitioners aren't allowed to openly share their critical perspectives, they lose the ability to speak their own truths and use first-hand experience as a lever for change.
There are so many critical power struggles in the educational sphere, it's easy to overlook gender bias. But it's there. And it explains a lot.
The punitive cloud hanging over teachers is darker today than it's been in a long time. Let's not make it worse by taking the human element out of teacher evaluation, in favor of numbers.
Think about the race to get into limited-admission charters. Think about urban districts that hire Teach for America teachers, because of their competitive pedigree, rather than fully prepared teachers who grew up in the neighborhood. Think about pep assemblies to prepare kids for standardized testing--which has now turned into another stack-ranked statewide competition.
Is there a template for the process of learning to be a good teacher? Are there indispensible tools--like common standards, materials and assessments? Or is it an "every man for himself" sort of thing, a long sequence of trial and error and observation, fitting what works into a cohesive whole--building a profession?
Has practice-based teacher leadership come a long way in the last decade--or has the concept become co-opted and marginalized by all the organizations and funders that want to own it?
A true teaching profession would mean no longer risking a career by flying against district policy when the students in the classroom need something "unofficial" in order to grasp concepts, love learning, or identify and own their skills and talents.
College ready? It's not about test scores. It's about having the self-awareness to choose IHEs and fields of study wisely, in an era when people are likely to have more than a dozen grown-up jobs. It's about having a clear purpose for attending college. If the primary purpose is cashing in, OK. But there are other reasons to get a rich and varied education.
Like any number of silver policy bullets--the Common Core State [sic] Standards, teacher evaluation by test data, and for-profit charter schools spring to mind here--requiring additional physical education in schools is not the go-to remedy for a clear crisis, in this case, rampant childhood obesity. It (like the aforementioned bullets) is simply something we can do, when the real, long-term solution seems impossible, out of reach or "too expensive."