As part of the 10 Ideas: A Millennial Lesson for Education series, a call to improve evaluations so that they better reflect teachers' skills while holding them accountable.

If you were asked to choose the teacher that had the biggest impact on you, how would you make your decision? Would you base it on his engaging teaching methods, the academic improvement you made under his tutelage, or the positive atmosphere of learning he created in the classroom every day? Education policymakers around the country are trying to tackle a similar question: How should we evaluate and compensate teachers fairly?

When it comes to evaluating teachers, America's educators have tended to focus on the inputs involved in the education process. These inputs include teacher education level, teacher experience, and the size of the classroom, among other things. Although an emphasis on inputs makes sense intuitively, recent studies (such as the above) have shown that they actually don't bear strong correlations with student achievement. There are some nuances to this, such as the significant improvement in teacher quality in the first several years of teaching experience. But these studies as a whole have shown what some people might know intuitively: just because a teacher has a master's degree and experience does not mean that she will be good at her job. This fact has led many researchers and policymakers to argue that teacher compensation should instead be at least partly outcome-based, or based on student achievement.

In fact, even in an increasingly polarized political realm, many policymakers on both sides of the aisle seem to agree that outcome-based methods of teacher evaluation should be an important component of teacher evaluations. The specific mechanism that many policymakers have chosen to use as the basis is the value-added model of measuring student achievement. These models use standardized testing to assess students' baseline level of knowledge. They are then able to calculate the value added to student achievement scores by teachers after controlling for variables such as socioeconomic status and race.

On the surface, the incorporation of these value-added measures into teacher evaluations (alongside principal evaluations, portfolio reviews, and more) seems ideal. After all, these value-added models ostensibly allow school districts to sort teachers based on effectiveness, reward the good teachers, and develop or replace the ineffective teachers.

Buy a copy of The Unfinished Revolution: Voices from the Global Fight for Women’s Rights, featuring a chapter by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Ellen Chesler.

In reality, however, value-added models are not categorically beneficial and should be incorporated with caution. The key reason that value-added models can be ineffective is that their standard errors can be worryingly high due to the low sample size involved. In fact, in discussing the instability of the distribution of students' test scores over the course of several grades, researchers at the Value-Added Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote, "the bottom line is that there is substantial inconsistency across grades, years, and cohorts in the means and standard deviations of Wisconsin test scores." For this reason, policymakers who employ value-added models should exercise an awareness of the potential problems involved and proceed with corresponding caution.

In addition to the currently excessive focus on the inputs of education, teacher evaluations (involving qualitative assessments by school principals) are also often flawed. In Georgia public schools, for instance, less than 1 percent of teachers are rated as performing their jobs in an unsatisfactory manner, although the true figure of unsatisfactory teachers who ought to be developed or replaced is significantly higher. Principal evaluations may be flawed because they have personal connections with the teachers, because they have no control over the teacher's salary or assignment, or because they are afraid of a potential lawsuit in the event that they do fire a teacher. In any case, principals appear unwilling to give teachers accurate qualitative evaluations, and this inhibits the school system's ability to deal with teachers effectively.

To solve this problem of poor qualitative evaluations by principals, I have suggested that the Georgia General Assembly use a portion of its allotted Race to the Top grant funding to create an independent body of teacher evaluators to provide unbiased qualitative assessments of teachers. This body of evaluators would be part of the Georgia Department of Education, and it would begin as a small pilot group to evaluate teachers using established principles of high quality teaching. The evaluators' methods would involve classroom observation, informal student interviews, and possibly more. The evaluators themselves would ideally be former teachers with many years of experience and who demonstrate high teaching ability. Each evaluator would only assess and provide comprehensive feedback to teachers in his or her area of expertise; former music teachers would evaluate music teachers, former middle school science teachers would evaluate middle school science teachers, and so on. Importantly, the body of evaluators would also have the funds and wherewithal to deal with potential lawsuits brought by teachers who are fired or replaced.

By incorporating the assessments of this independent body of evaluators into each teacher's assessment, Georgia public schools will be able to make more informed decisions regarding the compensation and development of teachers. This policy could also act as a middle road between the reformers who want to evaluate teachers with value-added models and the educators who feel that their work cannot be described by a standardized test administered to their students. By proceeding cautiously and evaluating teachers fairly, we ensure that our schools' most important resource is utilized properly.

Seth Taylor is a member of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's chapter at the University of Georgia, where he is studying history and political science.

As part of the 10 Ideas: New Ideas for a New Economy series, a tax break plan for Michiganders burdened by student debt that would stop the state's brain drain and give a much needed boost to its economy.

Michigan lawmakers are failing the state's college students. Once a strong supporter of public universities, Michigan is now one of four states that allocate more money for corrections than to higher education. This decline in support for state universities stems from multiple years of poor choices made by lawmakers in Lansing. Faced with yearly fiscal shortfalls, state legislators were forced to cut the budget to make up for the deficit. Higher education suffered the most, as its budget was repeatedly slashed, ultimately losing nearly 30 percent of its funding in the past decade. Faced with difficult choices, legislators took the path that was politically easy, but it was a path that has and will continue to be detrimental for students and the state of Michigan.

While most other sectors of the budget are funded mainly through taxpayers, state universities are fortunate to have other significant revenue sources, making it relatively easy for the state government to relinquish the burden of funding these important institutions. The unintentional result of shifting the cost has been a drastic increase in tuition levels, causing the burden to fall to the students. As the state reduces funding for higher education, universities raise tuition to maintain the quality of education. In raw numbers the current average cost of in-state tuition is $10,416, more than 28 percent higher than just five years ago.

There are several apparent ways the higher tuition is affecting students. The most obvious is in the rising levels of student debt in the state. The average student graduates with $25,000 in debt. Other students are choosing not to go to college at all because of the expense. Public education is suddenly becoming out of reach. Both lawmakers and university officials are in agreement: the rising cost of a college education is detrimental and unfair to students. Politics, however, continues to prevent progress.

The state of the tuition debate has devolved into a blame game between legislators and the universities. University officials say that as long as the state keeps reducing funds, tuition must increase in order for the institution to continue to educate at its full potential. Legislators say that universities should focus on reducing costs and use higher education funding reductions as a way to pressure universities to be more efficient. To the universities' credit, efforts have been made to keep costs under control. The University of Michigan, for example, has eliminated over $200 million from its expenses by reducing energy costs and student services. Michigan State University has cut academic programs, and Eastern Michigan University recently cut 70 staff positions and froze wages. Cost cutting measures are at the point where universities are forced to choose between quality and affordability. Budget constrained lawmakers, however, continue to cite inefficiencies to justify cuts, and the finger-pointing continues as students are caught in a situation that only continues to worsen.

Another bystander that is negatively affected by the rising cost of college is the state of Michigan. Still recovering from a nearly decade-long recession, Michigan is struggling to diversify and enhance its economy. Meanwhile, students are leaving the state in droves, creating a vacuum of human capital. With few economic opportunities and high levels of debt, students have no incentive to remain in the state and are instead seeking employment opportunities elsewhere. Nearly 50 percent of students leave the state after graduation, giving Michigan one of the highest migration rates for young adults. Michigan is caught in a vicious cycle where highly educated graduates leave the state to find jobs, and in turn businesses decide not to invest in Michigan because of lack of human capital. The state cannot expect a powerful economic recovery without high-skilled labor.

Buy a copy of The Unfinished Revolution: Voices from the Global Fight for Women's Rights, featuring a chapter by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Ellen Chesler.

The issue of the "brain drain" and the rising cost of college, as suggested already, are linked. High levels of debt and the poor economy have created conditions where students are forced to leave the state, subsequently hampering Michigan's recovery. Frustrated with the political bickering and lack of innovation among lawmakers, I, along with other members of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's Economic Center at the University of Michigan, sought to create a policy that would provide a solution to these two important issues.

In our initial research, we came across a program called Opportunity Maine. This program, implemented by the Maine legislature in 2008, involves providing a tax credit for students who graduate from Maine universities and remain in the state after college. Businesses that take on the payments for employees' student loans would also qualify for the tax credit. The goal of Opportunity Maine was to address the issue of the "brain drain" affecting Maine at that time. The program was passed in the state legislature with broad bipartisan support.

With Michigan suffering from the same issues, we took the central principles of the program and created a policy proposal arguing for a tax credit incentivizing any student graduating from Michigan universities to stay in the state. With high levels of student debt, the tax credit not only motivates students to stay in Michigan, but would also help those who are suffering the most from the cost of college. The tax credit would make college more affordable for students from low and middle-income backgrounds, and thus significantly reduce the cost barrier to a good education. More graduates remaining in the state would raise the supply of human capital in Michigan, attracting businesses to the concentration of a highly qualified workforce. The additional provision allowing businesses to qualify for the tax credit if they take on employees' student loans is a further advantage for both students and businesses. The provision represents a strong incentive businesses can use to attract qualified workers. Implementing this tax credit program would represent a milestone for the state's effort to rebuild the economy. The incentives of the tax credit will create an environment favorable to attracting new business. Most importantly, students will receive guaranteed long-term financial support to tackle student loans.

Another positive feature of the tax credit is that it will pay for itself in the long run. As more graduates stay in the state and businesses expand their operations in Michigan, the income from the expanded tax base will cover the cost of the tax credit. These revenues will ensure the continued use and success of the tax credit program.

Recognizing the economic implications of this solution and the immense benefit students and the state of Michigan would receive if the tax credit would be implemented, we have taken action to make our idea heard. We have made two trips to speak with legislators in Lansing and received positive responses about our proposal. We are currently working with supportive legislators to have our policy drafted as a bill. In addition, we plan on reaching out to the Business Leaders for Michigan, which is an organization composed of major executives of Michigan's top businesses and universities. The organization has recently expressed concerns about the state's divestment in higher education and pressed the need for a highly educated workforce in the next decade. We feel that our policy will provide the solution that the Business Leaders for Michigan desire.

Michigan can no longer sustain this lack of funding for higher education. Students continue to suffer and the economy continues to be stifled as a result of the cuts to state universities. But a solution does exist to solve these issues -- one that is cost effective, innovative, and simple. One that will help the students that need the most support and help Michigan in its economic recovery. We will continue to press Michigan legislators to support our proposal -- a proposal that will ensure a brighter future for students and the state of Michigan.

Adam Watkins is the director of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's Economic Center at the University of Michigan.

By disparaging public education and increased access to college, Rick Santorum is overlooking one of America's greatest historical achievements.

Rick Santorum has found a new populist voice in criticizing Obama's "theology." He claims he does not mean Obama is not a Christian, but apparently his belief in a number of progressive policies, including formal schooling for Americans, violates Santorum's deeply held theological views. Pandering to ignorance is not new with Santorum. But surely the candidate determined to be the candidate of the working class has reached a new low. And he has given those who are sincerely religious a bad name. His misunderstanding of American history and how the economy grew is more than stunning.

In recent remarks, Santorum praises home schooling, claiming that with the rise of factories, Americans had to go to formal schools that were like factories. Public school is an anachronism, he says. But formal schooling is about as American a virtue as there is. Has Santorum read any American history?

In selling federal land to farmers, Thomas Jefferson and others insisted that some be set aside for a school house. In the Northeast, free and mandatory public schooling in the primary years was a singular and early achievement, and it occurred before the age of big factories. Perhaps nothing is as singular in American history is its development of a free primary school system that exceeded even Prussia's in terms of the proportion of school age attendance by roughly the mid-1800s. The U.S. rate of enrollment was well ahead of France and England by then.

In a world in which computation and literacy were requirements for a modern economy -- I am talking about the 19th century economy here -- America was a leader. Santorum prefers some romantic view of farmers educating their children. But if homeschooling had dominated into the 20th century, America would not have become the world's leading nation.

By the late 1800s, high schools were needed to hone skills still further as an industrial revolution of giant industrial, retailing, and services companies made America's economy the largest in the world. Even factory work became more demanding. Educated Americans manned the factories and the bureaucracies of giant business institutions. In the early 1900s, women made rapid strides in getting their high school diplomas.

Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

America was the world's education leader, and that went hand in hand with spreading economic opportunity. As far back as the late 1800s, the U.S. subsidized the important land-grant colleges. And after World War II, the U.S. also subsidized college attendance with the G.I. Bill and students loans.

Educational attainment kept increasing in America. More young people went to college. The proportion of those aged 25-34 with a four-year degree was the highest in the world. But in the last few decades, many European nations have caught up to or have exceeded educational attainment in the U.S. A higher proportion of their youth now go to college.

Does Rick Santorum think that is good? He calls Obama a "snob" for wanting to ease access to college for more Americans. He says people are different and not everyone should go to college. That is probably true and the nation should have a robust debate about it. Yes, some classrooms are too rigid. Education, like everything, always needs shaking up.

But Santorum should also point out that the average wage for a person with four years of college is about twice that of someone with no college at all. Average wages for those with only a high school diploma have fallen sharply adjusted for inflation since the late 1960s. He should point out that work is getting more sophisticated and those who get less schooling will likely feel themselves increasingly left out. Maybe he should realize that if America continues to fall behind, others won't, and the competition for future markets will be intense.

Every rich nation in the world has a thriving formal education apparatus. None depended on home schooling to develop a productive work force.

Santorum's pandering is a tragic joke. If his knowledge of American history is reflected in his beliefs about the importance of education in the U.S., he is a sadly uneducated man. Education has been one of America's three or four greatest achievements. Has the Republican Party really come to this?

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the author of Age of Greed.

At a time when government support for education is under attack, a reminder in FDR's own words that the progress of our nation depends on a well-educated citizenry.

Today, many argue that the government can't afford some of its most fundamental tasks, including support for education. Some politicians have even gone so far as to question the very idea of public education. But President Franklin Roosevelt knew that mass education requires government support and that cutting such support in times of economic need is penny wise and pound foolish, since a prosperous economy and decent society require widespread education.

On February 22, 1936, President Roosevelt traveled to Philadelphia, PA, where he received an honorary degree from Temple University. Roosevelt used the occasion to emphasize the critical role of government in advancing education. He pointed out that it was altogether fitting that the day was George Washington's birthday, since "What President Washington pointed out on many occasions and in many practical ways was that a broad and cosmopolitan education in every stratum of society is a necessary factor in any free Nation governed through a democratic system."

Roosevelt went on to add that the progress of a nation cannot and should not be measured solely in material terms. Instead, a nation must also look to progress in "the things of the mind." He pointed to the great advances in education over the previous 50 years and how his administration had worked to ensure that the burden of the Great Depression "should not include the denial of educational opportunities for those who were willing and ready to use them to advantage."

Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

Increasing levels of education, according to Roosevelt, "has given to this country a population more literate, more cultured, in the best sense of the word, more aware of the complexities of modern civilized life than ever before in our history."

Roosevelt then described the timeless qualities of a true education. First is "a sense of fair play among men. As education grows, men come to recognize their essential dependence one upon the other." Second, true education instills "a sense of equality among men when they are dealing with the things of the mind. Inequality may linger in the world of material things, but great music, great literature, great art and the wonders of science are, and should be, open to all."

Finally, and most importantly, true education requires the unfettered pursuit of knowledge and the truth. At a time when Nazi storm troopers burned books and banned "degenerate" art, and Stalinist commissars sought to bend biology to the will of the state, Roosevelt declared, "No group and no Government can properly prescribe precisely what should constitute the body of knowledge with which true education is concerned. The truth is found when men are free to pursue it."

Though spoken over 75 years ago, Roosevelt's words still hold true. Today we must also confront challenges to sound education, as some still seek to impose their own agendas on the pursuit of knowledge. Most importantly, Roosevelt understood that the essence of democracy is a free people engaged in the search for truth and understanding in an effort to make a better world for themselves and their children. As Roosevelt said, quoting Kipling, "On your own heads, in your own hands, the sin and the saving lies!"

Philip Klinkner is the James S. Sherman Professor of Government at Hamilton College. He is the author (with Rogers Smith) of The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America and he is currently writing a book on the 1936 election.