Why? It sounds good to me.
Should teachers be judged on how a pleasant life they live, or how good they teach?
Focusing on children is the more pro-social preference, but children who attend schools famously don't have jobs in functioning societies.
More importantly, the teaching system is basically un-incentivized by incentives - teachers in the US (focusing just on the US for a sec) are incredibly underpaid, and basically rely on masters-degree teachers putting in effort completely disproportionate to the pay. Everyone accepts this state of affairs specifically because we're all ignoring market incentives in favor of the good of society (i.e. the quality of childrens' education).
So, let's suppose we judge teachers based on how well they appease politicians and parents who support their funding: they pass all students, regardless of how poorly they do on tests and how badly the children need to just repeat the year. This is a terrible outcome, and yet you're implicitly endorsing it.
Nobody gets into teaching for the money—and, for that matter, there’s not a clear connection between doing it well and any kind of rewards at all, as it stands.
However, if you're really good at teaching you can teach at a private school and reap a lot more rewards. Better pay, better recognition, a better work environment this list goes on and on.
/wife is a teacher and has taught in both public and private highschool
As a bonus, private schools are usually way more willing that public schools to tell annoying parents to get bent. Which is a pretty big perk on its own.