DISD is promoting a rigorous curriculum that prepares students for college. Pay attention poster, the days of simply preparing students for TAKs is over. Unfortunately, the misinformation continues.

I also disagree that good teachers don't have time to prepare students.I witness the opposite daily. Great teachers make a difference regardless of the obstacles.

Yet, it's time for my daughter to enter middle school and I'm concerned. I'm tempted to send her to her home school, but hear horror stories about the discipline. I'm considering the magnet schools, but haven't decided. Travis has a new reputation of treating their parents and students badly, so I'm rethinking my options. How about you Allen, will you send your child(ren) to DISD?

[Ed Note: My kids do go (and have gone) to DISD.]

Don't know where this poster got this idea from but we couldn't be happier with Travis. The teaching is dynamic and kids are exposed to some great things. This person needs to show up for Fabulous Fridays to see just how well it works. My only complaint is that we are packed in that building.

[Ed Note: I've always been impressed with Travis.]

Okay, The post by another person hit you on two comments, I will again make the observation of the fallacy of comparing SIMILAR kids.

Let me make it real simple, in a vernacular that even a college educated (or ex-military person) could understand:

SIMILAR STUDENTS: AIN'T NO SUCH THING!

Two black girls in 10th grade. In 9th grade, both scored in the 55 percentile in Reading.

DISD's "projection" of how much the girls should learn is "X amount."

One girl is pregnant by Feb of her 9th grade year, misses 6 weeks in November and December after giving birth. Comes back in mid-January. Are they the same? Nope.

Say her absences count her out of the CEI, does it really? She was supposed to be getting "CEHI, homebound education." Will she perform that well on any test? Will she be behind next year, too? And won't she count on the teacher's--all of her core teachers' TAKS, even though she was absent for 6 weeks?

Two Hispanic boys. Both immigrants, LEP kids. One has to work, the other doesn't. Same amount of learning going on?

I could go on and on. YOU CANNOT COMPARE KIDS ACROSS THE DISTRICT.

If you want to test the students on Day 1, then again on Day 90, then again on Day 187, maybe then you have a system. Compare the kid to himself.

Allen--ask for teachers to show you their CEI's and TAKS results. Ask them if they are willing to take the "reluctant learners" next year. Ask them how they could have a 1 or a 2 on a CEI when their subject in TAKS had overwhelming passing rates.

Oh, wait a minute. You CANNOT have that info. The DISD said so. If it is public, then they will quit using the CEI.

And I will tell you something else. There is RISK in this system. Otherwise, the top brass would be paid this way already. I noticed in the paper that Dr H's pay is only *partially* based on targets. Why not ALL of it? Doesn't he have faith in the staff?

He even had to admit today that expecting a 90% passing rate was unattainable. FINALLY! Uh, we knew that 2 years ago.

Only one teacher union opposed this pilot project, NEA-Dallas. They are sticking to their guns on this one, even though they were side-slammed by at least two members of the board at the last meeting. Snide comments about some who oppose moving forward, that kind of thing. There is moving forward, and there is moving off a cliff.

The other teacher group is now doing damage control as their members HOWL about being betrayed.

And I hope that DISD sends a better rep than they did to the briefing at Bryan Adams last Monday. Word is, they were very much insulted by the woman in the blue suit who kept talking about "how much money" the bonus was. They are not hookers. Money is not why they teach, and you know that.

When someone has to offer that much money as bait, what does that tell you about the plan? It also did not help that the woman in the blue suit threatened their employment, making it sound as if SHE could fire teachers. And she also said that it was the CEI's that WOULD be used at reconstituted campuses. Anything below a 50, she said, and you are gone.

Is THAT how you build morale? Tell people to trust a CEI for a bonus, then 20 minutes later, tell them it can be used to fire them?

And who said she has the power to fire people? She made no friends that night. She did NOT show leadership at all, and she showed no concern for the distress being shown to her by teachers who bothered to show up on their own time. She has no public school experience. She has no clue. She kept talking about the real world, but her previous profession was not the real world, either. She better back off on that one, or job background comparisons could backfire for her.

[Ed Note: The bottom line is to educate kids. If the metrics improve, then they're doing something right. If the scores/attendance slides, then they're doing something wrong. I think we're dealing with a "classical versus keynesian economics" style debate with CEIs. I don't know how many times I can say it: if it doesn't work, then we'll raise bloody heck and get it changed. Get me facts--not opinions!]

This person is right on the money when stating that "you cannot compare kids across the district."

The developers of the CEI's harp incessantly about the great pains that they've gone through to "level the playing field" by comparing the progress of a student to the progress of a corresponding subpopulation of students from across the district just like him or her, i.e., African-American, low-socioeconomic, at-risk, limited-English proficient, or some similar profile.

What the CEI's fail to account for are the differences in the nature of instruction that kids fitting these various profiles receive from one school to the next or from one part of town to the next.

For example, it's much easier to effect improvement in individuals and groups of students in schools where the population is homogeneous, especially if the variable is ethnicity.

That's why schools that are predominantly African-American, or predominantly Hispanic are less likely to have lower SEI's or to be on the TEA low performing list than schools that are more heterogeneous, i.e., that have significant numbers of students from two or more groups.

The only exception to this would be the magnet schools where high achieving students from all groups are selected for admission, thereby guaranteeing glowing scores for those schools.

Is it no wonder why magnet schools get consistently higher SEI's? If SEI's and CEI's are a valid reflection of effectiveness, why not tranfer magnet principals and teachers to neighborhood schools and let them work their magic?

Why is it easier to help students succeed academically in schools where the students are similar to each other? Kids from simiar cultures and ethnicities also tend to have similar learning styles.

A teacher with a classroom full of immigrant Hispanic kids in North Oak Cliff or a classroom full of African-American kids in South Dallas can present instruction utilizing methods that simultaneously address the learning modalities of all the students in one fell swoop.

On the other hand, a teacher in a school located in a transitional neighborhood, such as ones you will find in the Pleasant Grove and Far East sections of Dallas, will have to address the learning modalities of two or more different types of students in the same classroom.

Thus, at any give time in the instructional day at schools with diverse populations, the teacher will probably be using a teaching method that in all likelihood will miss the target with one or more subbroups in his or her class.

If the teacher chooses to divide the day or period by reteaching with methods that are appropriate to each subgroup, then all groups will be deprived of a full allotment of instructional time necessary for the lesson to be taught properly.

Rather than labeling schools with large numbers of African-American, Hispanic, and Anglo students who also happen to be classified as at-risk and low-socioecomic as ineffective and unacceptable, the state and the District should acknowledge their failure to provide the necessary resources for addressing the root causes.

Hopefully, this explanation has shown how the CEI's and SEI's fail to level the playing field because this whole process is based on a false assumption regarding the validity of measuring one student's progress or lack of progress by comparing it to that of students with similar characteristics across the district.

This whole program does a great dis-service to the students and teachers, who, through no fault of their own, happen to be at a school that is populated by two or more significantly large subgroups of the community.

They have been stigmatized and made to feel as is they were failures. They no more deserve these labels than farmers plagued by a short-term drought being classified as inferior to farmers from an area where rain is plentiful.

The developers of the CEI's do not have a background in instruction, nor any public school teaching experience. They have no more business determining who is or isn't a good teacher than Howard Cosell had trying to lecture Muhammad Ali about boxing.

[Ed Note: Good post. Can you cite your sources for these conclusions?]

What a Christmas present this homogeneity idea is.

I am laughing so hard, I almost fell out of my chair. Sorry, but I taught for 20 years, and the variability within any group based on ethnicity, social class, gender, or age is much greater than the variability between groups.

Learning styles aren't based on any of these factors.

DISD magnet schools are not homogeneous except for the fact that students or their parents were motivated enough to fill out an application.

Looking at the list of low-performing schools yesterday, it is an indicator of intelligence that they were trying to escape the majority of DISD schools, but other than that they resemble a melting pot of every kind of American child.

Why don't we have a contest for the most creative idea of why teaching kids is not possible? I vote for this idea simply because it calls for the biggest stretch of imagination possible.

You mention intelligence to choose a school that offers a pre-law program over one that DOESN'T? Actually, that is what we call a "no-brainer."

Imagine if ALL DISD high schools had the same APPLICATION and RESTRICTIONS of the magnet schools.

Let's see, well, there would be no "unschooled immigrants" or kids who can't speak fluent English, the trouble makers would be forever gone, the kids who fail would be gone, the kids with Down's syndrome would be gone, shall I go on?

Many of us who teach in DISD are products of DISD schools. Many remember when W T White was a premier class school, Skyline was THE school to get into, etc... Now, many of our own children go to Townview or Booker T, or we teach there.

Imagine if South Oak Cliff got rid of the second time ninth graders? Imagine if North Dallas HS refused to take kids who could not speak fluent English? Imagine if all the kids at Roosevelt had to take pre-law, pre-med or engineering, and they failed? Would they stay?

Any school that has a screening process will eliminate kids by design. The sad part is, when you have 22 or so high schools who do not have that priviledge, it is unfair to compare them.

And I don't know where you got your teaching credentials from, but ---uh, when many of us got ours, we were told that black kids do learn differently from others. "They work better in groups." We were told that most middle class children of any race will handle independent work more easily, because they have been taught basic skills at home, whereas many poor children were not. We were taught that children of Native Americans and even in some immigrant Hispanic families will have a lower word count vocabulary because their parents do not talk to them as much or as often....

Are their exceptions? Yes. Are there differences? Yes. That is the whole point. Education as a pedagogy has for the last 25 years been emphasizing the DIFFERNECES in kids, both between and within groups. Teachers are told to "individualize" instruction.

But we will be graded in a CEI as if they were interchangeable cogs in a machine.

Would you please expand on these ideas taught by your education professors? I am very curious as to which schools of education are transmitting this information. Were these professors master teachers in urban districts, or were they simply relaying interpretations of research? Your understanding of individualizing instruction is based on individualizing it based on ethnicity or class status?

If you will look at the Science and Engineering Magnet's TEA accountability page, you will see that about 50% of those students were economically disadvantaged, and the school population can further be segmented on race. Your assumptions would lead to dividing the students by race and class and then instructing them. Somehow, I don't believe the outstanding record of this school, which would stand up against any school in this state or nation, has any basis in any of these interpretations of individualized instruction.

And yes, this school has more students applying than it can serve. And yes, if other high schools in DISD had top rate programs, they too might have some outstanding products. What is keeping teachers in other schools from developing programs?

[Ed Note: Gee, I wish someone from admin would weigh in here. Dr. H? You listening?]

"And better yet, there is really no risk to the program.

For teachers who get CEIs, you will receive your CEI whether you join this program or not and for those who join, there is no punishment if you don’t qualify for the money."

You could not be more wrong about these statements. Dr. Blackburn said it perfectly--the CEI's will be used to reward you and to terminate you.

The CEI's are used to reassign teachers and in non-renewals. Just ask the ones who were moved out of the reconstituted schools, including a teacher who was voted Teacher of the Year.

Ask the district how the grievances are going for some of these employees. At this point the CEI's are not fair. Read my earlier post. The data used to calculate is often incorrect and no matter how wonderful the formula may be, if incorrect data is used, a flawed CEI will always be calculated.

Who will fix that? No one has stepped up, admitted the problems, and proposed solutions. No one.

This program favors core teachers. In order for non-core teachers to get money, the whole school has to have good school-wide SEI's. I can promise you a school with a low performance rating is not going to have SEI's that will get non-core teachers money. But you're right--the core teacher still has a shot using their CEI's. That's not fair.

My biggest concern of all is that this is all based on test scores--one test, one day, one shot. What do you think a teacher will do to get a good CEI? Teach to the test. And she/he won't take time to collaborate or help anyone else if a big chunk of money or their job is on the line. It will be everyone for him or herself.

And what about our Pre-K and Kinder teachers? Where is their recognition for teaching our children to read? The ability to read is considered by some to be the most important thing you can teach. They get nothing or a mere $2000 if the whole school does well. How sad.

I could go on and on. This district could head in the right direction with this if they slowed down and took the time and effort to invlove a very large number of committed teachers to creating a fairer plan. It could be done and then we could truly be a model of reform for the nation.

The CEI/SEI as it is currently calculated and used is just not fair.

[Ed Note: As I've said, before saying it isn't fair, please understand how it is calculated. I'm also, again, stating that if this is used for "evil purposes," we'll be right there to expose it.]

I read the reply back about my first post and you do raise some good points, but now all are 100% accurate.

First of all, one of the biggest misconceptions is the whole deal about CEIs and reconstituted schools.

I have to even admit that some of the top administration officials have misspoken on how the reconstituted teachers were removed from the schools.

If you completely removed CEIs from the equation of which teachers got removed from reconstituted schools, then guess what, the same or most likely more teachers would have been removed.

The teachers who were removed had their percent passing TAKS analyzed BUT once we added CEIs to the mix, it pretty much said that even though some teachers had low percent passing of TAKS, the CEI could be used to "save" them from being removed.

Otherwise, they were already put on the list to be removed in the first place.

Having a low CEI didn't put anyone on the list because teachers with a low CEI could still stay at the campus if their TAKS passing was good.

It's sort of a confusing explanation that often gets misunderstood, but I say again, the CEI didn't remove anyone from the reconstituted schools but rather just gave a new way for them to get off the list.

As for the other uses of CEI, hey you are right on some of those. I'm sure some principals have been using CEIs for other purposes, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the performance pay plan because that was being done before this whole performance pay began.

That's another big issue that I admit does need to be addressed.

Another point brought up was "The data used to calculate is often incorrect and no matter how wonderful the formula may be, if incorrect data is used, a flawed CEI will always be calculated."

Yes true, there are times that some wrong information may be used in the CEI and most of that has to do with the wrong kids being included in the calculation.

There is a grievance process for teachers on their CEI score and work is being done to verify rosters more throughout the year to lower this problem.

It is my understanding that teachers are suppose to verify their rosters periodically, so part of the issue is to communicate that teachers make sure they verify the right kids, but I do admit there are mistakes made and every effort to my knowledge is being done to fix those mistakes when they happen.

I still don't believe those few mistakes are enough to warrant scraping the whole program.

Another point made is that "This program favors core teachers." Well so do many of the extra stipends in place now.

Why aren't you advocating getting rid of the many thousands of dollars extra that core teachers receive for teaching hard-to-staff subjects like math and science?

Also, core teachers are the ones being reconstituted, core teachers are more at risk, core teachers are the ones who MOST affect the state and federal accountability rating, so yes, with more risk there comes more reward. But with the advise of the various unions and other stakeholders, a specific effort was made to make sure that everyone in the campus, even including support staff, was eligible for funds.

It's not a perfect system and no, it's not a completely fair system, but it is what we have come up with so far, and this pilot year will be evaluated and adjustments will be made.

We have to start somewhere.

There were some other issues brought up, but I'll just address this last one (in an effort to keep this post shorter than my previous).

An important comment was made "what about our Pre-K and Kinder teachers? Where is their recognition for teaching our children to read?" Yes, yes and yes. I couldn't agree more. This is where we need YOUR HELP!!

With the current system of accountability, it is very hard to measure teachers who teach subjects with no standardized test. That's what it really comes down to.

Remember, this is only a portion of a 5-component performance pay system, and for this portion that specifically measures student performance, we need a measurement of student performance.

It may just so happen that teachers that aren't able to largely benefit from this portion of the performance pay plan will benefit largely from other portions or vice versa. That doesn't mean the district is not open to suggestions and I'm confident that if teachers give suggestions and recommend new and better ways to include more people in the rewards of being great educators, then your efforts would be greatly appreciated.

I do thank you (whoever posted the reply) for your feedback and think it is good to have a healthy discussion over these topics. I'm not here to fight over whose right and wrong, but to only help clarify what is going on and better yet, to get honest, constructive feedback on the many concerns about the program. Thanks!

[Ed Note: I like the point you raise. There are folks demonizing pay-for-performance, yet accepting stipends for teaching certain subjects. See the trick is just to be a science teacher with a top 20% CEI!]

I am not demonizing pay for performance although I will never support it.

I don't have a CEI at the moment and pray that I never will--the thought of standardized tests for my subjects is too depressing to imagine.

I have never really been in favor of stipends because when you look at the overall picture, they can be divisive, too. But let's be careful, some stipends are given for job duties beyond the clock hours that people like coaches and club sponsors do so they do need to be paid for all that work they do at nights and weekends somehow.

One radical idea is to take stipends away and give all educators a pay raise with the money. But these aren't easy questions to answer and there are no quick solutions.

This is an enormous district with a large and complicated compensation plan. At the moment I do receive a small stipend for my duties as the campus technologist.

I would be willing to give it up if it went into a larger pot that resulted in a substantial raise for everyone. But I'm fairly sure a lot of my colleagues would so disagree with that.

That's okay--it's my thought. I want healthy discussions to continue around the issue of compensation and pay for performance and I will continue to be a part of them.

[Ed Note: Of course! And we're here to promote healthy discussion! But at some point, we're going to need to find metrics by which to measure performance. I'm freely willing to accept that CEIs may not be the way to do this.

So come up with something better. How do we get the teachers who can't graduate kids out of the District while attracting those who can? Simply throwing money, and paying everybody more (even the incompetents) doesn't seem like the solution to me.]

The idea that a teacher alone guarantees success or failure of a child in a classroom is incomplete.

Why not pay the students? If the theory that additional pay would produce a better teacher, why not pay the students to learn? Seriously! Many urban kids simply do not have the intrinsic value of learning for learning's sake. They do not equate current behavior with long-term consequences.

Why not pay them from a grant---see if they are willing to do more if they see a monetary reward up front?

To assume that it is solely the domain of a teacher to insure learning takes place negates the parents and the community. It also gives too much power/repsonsibility to one person.

Start with an evaluation of where the kid is---pay him based on how much he gets right. Then, pay him at the end of the year to see how much he improves.

Wouldn't it be fun to see that? It already happens with no pass/no play. When they want to play, students step up and pass. When their season ends, they go back to not doing homework and all that.

[Ed Note: And who says our posters don't come up with unique ideas on Dallas.Org!]

That isn't a completely unique idea. At my school, we are paid $100 for each AP test we pass in English, Math, or Science. This money is coming through a partnership with TI. This is fairly effective in giving students both a reason to take the test, as well as a reason to spend extra time studying. I have heard of several other schools that are also doing something similar.

This works very well in generating interest for the tests. However, it might be a bit harder working a system like that for other grades, because you need to find a uniform scale to compare everyone to so you can determine how much money they will receive. But if a grant can be made, it would be effective in making people care about their grades, because most students care much more about money than something as intangible as academic grades.

Because of this system and the effort I had to put into studying, I certainly know that I am going to be enjoying spending the $300 that I earned.

Yep, AP money is paid to teachers--but did you ever notice that they don't pay those $100 bits to the SOCIAL STUDIES teachers? Uh, why not? For some reason, nobody thinks that is an important subject, even in AP!

That IS ironic, since history covers every other subject, the inventions, the wars, the math, the science.

However, when I posted the previous comment above yours, I meant pay the KIDS--the REGULAR KIDS. PAY them to pass the classes, or to not get pregnant. Seriously, paying girls to NOT get pregnant is cheaper than paying for the kids they keep having. Paying the kids to PASS is cheaper than paying for the summer school or the second or third times they take the same exact classes....

So, if your logic holds, if ALL the kids pass a class, then the teacher is great, fantastic, wonderful? If ALL the kids pass, then they ALL learned something?

High failure rates may indicate they are a group of kids who REFUSE to do work, and hence, FAIL. It may mean that the teacher failed to properly teach the concepts tested.

Unless you see the gradebook, you don't know.

You might be right about one thing, though: a LOT of people will either retire or leave DISD for another district.

However, many will stay out of loyalty to a principal or the students. Please do not call them all "dregs." Many great things go on in DISD schools every day. Do not confuse that with the school board or the "ridonkulous" ideas of the top tier of administrators.

[Ed Note: High failure rates may, indeed, indicate there are a group of kids who fail to do work. However you, as a teacher, have options--and you know it. Also, the likelihood that the entire group of students who "fail to work" end up in your single class is rather low--don't you think?]

Allen, you are so naive!

YES!!! If a principal wants to get rid of you, they lump all the failing kids in your class, knowing full well your CEI will be affected. And remember, they have been using these CEI's for years, but only NOW are telling teachers about them.

I personally experienced this for several years! You see, some of us get a reputation for either: a) being a troublemaker, or b) "works really well with troubled kids."

No joke! A teacher is PUNISHED by the CEI's for attempting to work with a class of low level students.

And now, under federal law, "inclusion" is the order of the day with special-ed students.

SO, you could try to teach kids at a 9th grade level, and you could have 5-7 in the class who have special needs, read at a 3rd grade level or can't pay attention and follow the class. In addition, you could also have in that class, two kids on probation. They just show up to keep their P.O. happy. Then you could have 4 kids who try, but they work in the family businesses, so they don't do their homework or fall asleep in class.

Shall I go on?

You see, UNLIKE Townview or Booker T, WE cannot choose our kids, screen them, have them apply to get in.

CEI's are patently unfair, and THAT is what teachers object to. We are all for accountability, but when you ask if theirs is a peer-reviewed study that shows incentive-pay works in advancing student achievement, you hear crickets. Nothing. Nada. Not one.

Be in favor a system that is fair. In another editorial comment, you said that CEI's are used "voluntarily." NO, they are not. They have been used for terminations. They have been used for reassigning teachers. They are used for seating them for staff development.

The pay provision is part of a PILOT program. What does that mean in government speak? "We are going to use it for all when we work it all out."

Look up Denver, Colorado's pay plan. THAT is where DISD is headed.

How about we grade your kids on what they teacher thinks they should have learned, and not what they actually did?

You see, if they had a REAL test at the start of the class: What do my new students know about IPC or Algebra I? Then test them at the end of the year and see what progress is made, maybe that would work. But to base them on what they did in ANOTHER subject last year, or what they SHOULD have learned, uh-uh.

[Ed Note: I've been accused of being naive before! But I know we need to do "something," and "something" always wins out over "nothing." It's how we got "tort reform" in Texas, and many other laws. If/when CEIs don't work, then come up with "something" that does.]

As long as special education parents continue to go to due process to get there kids in the LRE, teachers will find more and more resource kids in their classes.

And, since all resource/mainstream Sp. Ed. kids must take TAKS now, there is more liability on the gen. ed. teacher, sp. ed. staff, and principals.

[Ed Note: Sorry. Not following. I think you're trying to make a point about CEIs, but I'm not sure.]

God Bless Them.

Everyone, but Special Ed kids--especially ones in high school NOW, have been given a pass through school their entire time. Now, the TAKS and NCLB (No Child...)have deemed that ALL kids who are for some reason---SPECIAL ED qualified---will NONETHELESS take the TAKS test! Yep, only 1%--one percent--of your SPED kids can be exempt.

So, if you have a SPED population of 65 at your school, and 5 are severely handicapped (Down's, Fragile X, etc...) then they are exempt. That leaves you with only 2 of the remaining 60 kids to exempt. As a parent, as a citizen, do you really think--logically think--that 99% of any SPED population can take a test on level with their peers?

Now, the conflict there is: if the kid has a disability that means they can't learn the same, why are we testing the same as regular kids?

You might want to start a new thread on this one....

But, I digress.

SPED kids count on your TAKS and CEI. They take up more time and resources. As a group in high school, they have been conditioned to do little or nothing to pass....

And who gets it on the chin? The teacher.

[Ed Note: I've asked the administration to respond to this. Can we get more documentation? The first thing that comes to mind is that Special Education students still progress. There are ways to reach even the most severly handicapped kids and make a difference in their lives. The teachers who do so effectively are gems for tough-to-reach kids. I don't think you're suggesting that DISD not teach special ed students, but I can't figure out what your point is--completely. Even our recognized and exemplary schools have special ed and special needs kids.]

My point is if you teach 10th graders, they have just now started to be included in regular classes. Great for them! I mean that. THEY will improve, because they are exposed to a higher level of work---for them.

But if you put a kid with an IQ of 68--reading at a 2nd grade level---in a REGULAR ALGEBRA I class, oh, come on!

And it gets better. In their IEP's, they give a magic number of percentage of concepts they need to know... which makes no sense. If they only have to "master" 70% of the concepts, in Social Studies and English, which 30% of history or a book analysis would you like to omit?

As it is, the kids know they get a fewer number problems, written at a lower level--with more time given to complete-- and that seems fair.... UNTIL they have to take the TAKS.

So, does that doom them? Nope. Some will achieve, some even pass. But what about the ones who just ---cannot---do--it?

That is the problem. Teachers want to help them, but why punish them if the kid does not pass an on level test?

Don't even get me started about the *unschooled kids*, the ones who --again, bless their hearts---come to America never having stepped one foot in a school. So at age 14, they are given about 2 years to master 9-10 YEARS of learning, culture, language and thinking skills or again, the TEACHER is seen as failing.

I also had the same problem happen to me in the mid-90's in a DISD school. The class also happened to be Chemistry AP.

Most of the students failed to or didn't want to understand the subject matter and were failing.

But I do not think it was due to the inability of this teacher.

Numerous steps were taken including other students helping, on a one on one basis, those that did not understand.

It was because those students did not belong in this class but somehow made it. I suspect a teacher from a prerequisite course gave them an easy passing grade.

I suspect this has happened many times over and do not think that this situation is that rare.