In a system in which learners could shop for the most suitable schools, the best teachers would make much more than $100K, while other current teachers would change careers, all to the good of learners.
I have definitely taken languages classes where I hated the teachers (the class was hard!) but I learned a great deal and actually have pretty good recall years later. If I had been able to bail out and go join my friends in the class taught by the easy teacher I would have, but I certainly would not have learned anything.
In fact, now that I think about it, I think such a system would probably encourage a trend toward treating schooling as a sort of nationalized childcare program, as the money and rewards would go to teachers (and schools) where students are allowed to float through. You can argue all you want about how much you enjoy learning, but I imagine that the vast majority of the people in my high school could have cared less. (There are similar arguments for why private schools do better than public schools: private schools are primarily composed of the kids/families that actually care about what said student is learning.)
You don't think that trend is already here? The parents I know who are shopping for more academics in their children's school programs have very limited scope of choice to look for something better, as something better has little incentive currently even to be offered.
This is commonly said by teachers, but there is not a research base to back up this statement. There is a considerable research base (especially from cross-national comparisons) to suggest that grouping students by readiness at a given time benefits all learners.
Fully agreed with the goal. And in fact the newly industrialized countries of east Asia (where I lived for many years) are conspicuous in reaching this goal. But they are also conspicuous in ability grouping of a certain kind (although with higher expectations for the below-average students than the United States has for above-average students) and for a substantial degree of family-chosen, privately funded supplemental education after school hours. My claim is that the instrumentality I propose, letting state funding follow the learner and letting the learner choose the provider of schooling with the program best suited for the learner, actually better achieves your commendable goal of providing all learners with a better education.
Americans are capitalists -- we only do things when we understand the investment and have confidence in the return. The more educated and successful the parents, the more credibility they have, and the more likely their kids are to work hard in school. Plus, the main effect is still emulation, which works in their favor. So the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
It would help if poor kids had some exposure to normal well-off people, but their only exposure is through television, and normal people are frickin' boring on TV and therefore invisible. People glamorous enough to shine on TV tend to be terrible role models.
That's the way it would be if all schooling were on online. Naturally, there would be no physical schools, but children not logging-in from home might use local commercial generic offices for internet access, just as some telecommuters do. From the local generic office, children could still log-in to the school of their choice. Since the school choices could be worldwide, the number of schools available to choose from might number in the millions.