If you have watched The West Wing, you know (and love) Sam Seaborn. Played by Rob Lowe, Sam is the deputy White House communications director under President Josiah Bartlet. In one episode, Sam, an unflinching idealist, expresses his views on education:

Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes; we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

In an idealized world, this would be the case. Schools would offer wraparound services, giving children access to the personalized academic, social, and emotional help they need for success. Students would be prepared for and guided into postsecondary programs, including those in career and technical education, that best meet their talents and desires. Our teaching force would be elite and better respected, mentioned in the same breath as doctors and lawyers, and compensated accordingly. Inner-city schools would be among the best in the country and help break disadvantaged students, who are disproportionately black and Hispanic, out of the cycle of poverty. There wouldn’t be a “skills gap” in our economy while we have an unemployment rate that is over 5 percent, over 10 percent for blacks, and nearly 7 percent for Hispanics.

As Sam said, bringing about these sorts of changes would be expensive. Yet the United States is already near the top in terms of education spending. In 2008, we spent more than 7 percent of our gross domestic product on education. That rate was the fifth-highest among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, behind only Iceland, South Korea, Israel, and Norway. However, the federal government only accounts for 10 to 15 percent of that education spending, with the rest roughly split evenly between the state and local levels. In fact, in 2013, only 1 percent of our federal budget was reserved for education. And in President Barack Obama’s recent budget request for fiscal year 2016, which will find very little support in the Republican-controlled Congress, the U.S. Department of Education receives less than 1.8 percent of proposed funding. Out of a whopping $3.99 trillion, ED would only get $70.7 billion, and that’s in the idealized budget of a Democratic president. By comparison, the proposal would provide the U.S. Department of Defense with $585 billion.

So if we already spend so much on education, how can we start to make things better? One of the biggest reasons for funding disparities in our schools is the way that local education dollars are raised. Generally speaking, local funding comes from property taxes, meaning that higher-income areas with higher property values generate much more money for their schools. To address this difference, state education dollars, which come primarily from sales taxes and state-level income taxes, should be dedicated to at least equalizing funding levels for low-income urban and rural areas, if not providing them with even more funding than their wealthier counterparts. For its part, the federal government should focus on spurring large-scale, systemic improvements. Improving the talent pipeline for teachers and school leaders, offering strong incentives for working in disadvantaged schools, and funding research and pilot programs that find innovative solutions to tough problems are just a few examples. The federal budget should also reflect education as a greater priority in this country. That 1 percent should be 3 or even 5 percent, so that we can ensure that we have one of the best education systems in the world.

Unfortunately, this is not the type of system we have today. Poor schools don't have the most resources, many states aren't ensuring equitable funding, and the federal government tries to make up the difference with bulky formula funding programs. Rather than continuously trying to put federal Band-Aids on our gashed education system, we need to stitch it up with a new, holistic approach that will better align funding with our priorities. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, people ages 18 to 29 list our educational system as their top policy priority for President Obama and Congress, even above the nation’s economy, and for good reason. But it will be difficult to make significant changes without commitment and cooperation at all levels of government. So what are we to do? Like Sam Seaborn said, we haven’t figured it out yet. But we need to.

Phillip Burgoyne-Allen is a legislative assistant at an education law firm. Reach him via email or Twitter.

Evaluations are important for keeping tabs on teacher and school progress. In D.C. Public Schools, we are officially observed five times every calendar year under the district’s evaluation system called IMPACT. But we’re also observed unofficially by literacy consultants, instructional coaches for reading and math, mentor teachers (if we have them), and central office representatives—bringing the total observations up to 10 times or more, or about once a month.

All of this commotion begs the question: At what point do observations and evaluations become more disruptive than helpful? Do such frequent evaluations give teachers enough time to make appropriate changes to their practice? Or does it just create a more stressful environment for both teachers and students?

In my short time teaching, I have been observed more often than most, in part because I am part of a high-intensity teaching program. I am observed by my coach and sometimes our site director, in addition to my principal and master educator—and then some more from our school’s literacy coach and sometimes from the central office when they decide to visit. When observations occur, which are almost always unannounced, it’s almost impossible to predict how they will go. Teaching in a school with extreme behavior incidences, I am often worried about the behaviors students might exhibit during an observation. This year alone, I have been hit, cursed at, and had things thrown at me by students. Having to worry about egregious student behaviors, on top of a hovering evaluator, can be a rather nerve-wracking experience—especially since having students who are off-task can lower my evaluation score. (I have often heard of teachers bribing their students with treats, food, even parties, in order to get them to behave during evaluations or whenever any guest walks into the room. Others coach their students on how to respond to adults’ questions about their learning.)

But the one thing my teaching program gets right with evaluations is the advanced notice they give. Before I am evaluated by my coach or site director, I have to submit a lesson plan—complete with questioning, differentiation strategies, assessments, manipulatives, and anything else I will need that day. I believe that advanced notice allows me to be able to demonstrate my best and really show off my skills to the evaluator. However, evaluations done by the district are unannounced, and when master educators are in our building, you know it—because all teachers are on edge. With drop-in evaluations, it almost feels like evaluators are looking for reasons to mark you down. They rarely greet the teachers, never smile, and simply sit in a corner and write. My program, on the other hand, is hands-on and evaluators are interacting, assisting, and talking with students.

While D.C.’s IMPACT makes sense to evaluate teachers five times per year (roughly every two months), the district might consider allowing teachers to schedule their observations within a window of five to seven days. In this way, master educators have the opportunity to see all of the teachers at their best. Depending on the time of day or the time of the year for students (near holidays, on a Friday, after lunch, after recess, etc.), a teacher’s performance—and her students’—can vary drastically. And all of those informal visits? Consider making these ones that teachers can volunteer for, if they feel they need the extra help or simply want to know how they are doing before an official evaluation. Or perhaps an administrator can decide a teacher needs the extra support and should sign up for one. In this way, teachers take part more directly in their own self-growth and in their career trajectory.

As a newer teacher who is still learning the ins and outs of effective teaching, the IMPACT model seems more disruptive than beneficial. There are ways as demonstrated by my teaching program, that observations can be more helpful and less punitive. With more autonomy and fewer evaluations, teachers would have the time they need to experiment and make gains, creating a more positive experience overall.

Amara Pinnock is an elementary school teacher in DC. Reach her via email or Twitter.

We're just 15 minutes into a 90-minute class, and already the teacher is losing his patience.

"Why don't you know the answer? Why don't you know the answer? We studied this! I will hit you!" 

The teacher goes through the class calling on each student, none of whom can give a correct answer. It never occurs to him that if all of his students don’t know the answer, perhaps he hasn’t taught it well enough. Some students line up to receive their beating, others wait anxiously on their benches and the teacher has to hold them in place as he slaps their hands with the stick.  

My wife and I are in a middle school classroom in Togo, West Africa, observing teachers as part of our work here for a local development NGO. We’re English teachers back in D.C., and we’re here to teach English to students and train teachers on sound pedagogy practices, or the method and practice of teaching. Most teachers here simply study the subject they eventually teach but don’t study teaching itself. Togo is just one of many places where learning pedagogy isn’t part of becoming a classroom teacher. To raise the standards of the teaching profession, all educators need explicit training in pedagogy and the time and space to practice it. 

I have never felt more alone than when I was a teacher. Sure, there were tons of people around, but when I closed my classroom door, it was as if I was on an island with my students, attempting to lead them to academic success without help or support from anyone else. Meanwhile, on both sides of my classroom, and all throughout the school building, other teachers were on their side-by-side islands. Sinking or swimming. Alone. 

Teacher evaluation in its most authentic form connects these islands in school buildings so that teachers can share their successes and challenges, reflect on their practice, and support each other’s instruction. But for the most part, teacher evaluation has had no significance on teachers’ practice. That was until President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT) grant competition and waivers to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provided an opportunity for states and districts to develop strategies to move past outdated systems of teacher evaluation.

When measuring student success, parents and policymakers often look to test scores to see how students and schools are performing. But if schools are to develop well-rounded students, the focus should really extend beyond academic performance and include the quality of people that schools produce. And if we keep that bigger picture in mind, then we realize how important it is to address all the things that impact child development that occur outside of the school day, too — parental involvement, health, community safety, and more. Achieving this impact requires a coordinated care model in education.

To support holistic development for children all along the educational spectrum, we have to envision a system that takes on accountability for not only what happens in school buildings from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. but also what happens when students are home and when they are gone for three months in the summer. This means engaging parents, community organizations, after-school program coordinators, doctors, nurses, police, local government officials, and many more in the task of child development. To see a model that’s starting to figure out how to coordinate support, it is worth looking at the healthcare system.

In a competitive city like Washington, D.C., where it seems like everyone is out to climb the career ladder, getting your foot in the door and then securing a leadership role can sometimes feel out of reach. But at the bi-annual EduJobs event hosted by YEP-DC, young and aspiring professionals in the education sector were told by seasoned professionals that all you really need to do is focus on adding value to an organization.

Jason Weedon, senior vice president at Achieve who has been a major factor in the organization's doubling in size, kicked off the event by sharing the various roles he has held at his organization since 1999. Though his early career involved teaching and working abroad on higher education initiatives, his journey came to a turning point when he moved back to the United States and came to work for Achieve to help manage its education summits. (Achieve is a nonprofit that works with states to raise academic standards and graduation requirements). His position there evolved over the years as he moved up to play a critical role in maintaining relationships with foundations and corporations in support of Achieve's projects.