1) This would severely impair the earning potential of SpEd teachers; many SpEd students either don't work after high school, or get jobs doing dishes (or simil

1) This would severely impair the earning potential of SpEd teachers; many SpEd students either don't work after high school, or get jobs doing dishes (or similar work). My high school (I went to a school for the Deaf) had 100% of its students on IEPs (Deaf persons are generally underemployed by a pretty decent margin), and about 1/5 of the students there had multiple disabilities. 2) This would encourage teachers to go after those students whose future earning potentials seem highest. I'm a good teacher, but there's only so much I can do with 180 hours over the course of the year, particularly when that 180 hours is split up among 25 students. This isn't excuse making (there have been a few students for whom I've made a substantial difference), but rather an illustration of the pragmatic difficulty of providing 1-on-1 attention to every student, or even to most students. 3) We already do this, at least somewhat. Here in the US, most public schools are paid for by way of property taxes. In more affluent areas (read: where people earn more money, or at least are able to spend more money), the schools tend to be better, as they have nicer facilities, more resources, and better-paid teachers. More importantly, their students are accustomed to a higher SES, and so see that as the default position (not many people want to downgrade). The biggest predictor of a child's future earnings is how much his or her parents make.