Particularly, the biggest incentives are test scores and passing rates, which incentivize attention only to the bottom 50% and 20% of students (respectively). This means:

- You do not diversify classrooms by academic ability---the high-performing students can be free tutors to the low-performing students.

- You inflate the GPAs and implement no-zero policies.

- You teach to the standardized tests, and don't worry about the material.

- You make lessons "fun and engaging" because you need the attention of the students least likely to give you their attention.

- You eliminate gifted or honors programs, because that's wasted money not improving your bottom line (bottom students).

Needless to say, these are not effective ways of teaching remedial and underperforming students.

Those pupils will generally need very structured lessons that directly provide clear information (often in a form that can easily stick in memory and be repeated, even word for word), and straightforward instructions that can immediately inform their practice no matter what their level. I.e. the exact opposite of a so-called "fun and engaging" approach. (Which of course ignores the fact that such students tend to derive the most fun and engagement from being taught in a clear and effective way!)

The underlying issue is that the "progressive" educational strategy taught in Ed Schools is very explicitly a "sink or swim" approach where the student is supposed to be teaching themselves and the teacher isn't doing any real work. The hidden attitude here, coming directly from the "Progressive" era of the late 19th and early 20th century, is that many students will indeed fail but this is not an issue because clearly they were not worthy of entering the educated class with the very best.

(Special Ed is the one remaining niche that still teaches more effective educational methods, but obviously not every remedial student is a Special Ed student, and we should not expect them to be.)