It seems like we have enough teachers at the wages we currently pay. Teachers are willing to go into the profession despite the low wages, probably because they want a satisfying job with good benefits. If we didn't have enough teachers...we'd have to raise wages. Supply and demand.
Others say we need to raise wages because our teachers aren't good enough and we need higher pay to attract better teachers.
It's kind of an interesting example of how two groups with basically opposite viewpoints can end up supporting the same policies.
If you treat teaching as a lowest-bidder-wins "supply and demand" field, you may get passionate teachers who don't mind the pay, teachers who don't need to earn more for whatever reasons, probably some teachers who do find the benefits attractive, and all sorts of other people. But distilling this all to "people do it, so the wages are fine" misses just about all of the central points.
Consider that teaching isn't working in a bookstore or packing shipments for Amazon. It's not just a lot of work; it's a vitally important role in our world's future. I for one would not call "supply and demand" at the lowest possible rate a good way to treat such a profession.
Teaching (in US/Canada at least) requires at least a bachelor's degree and some specific teaching training. It's reasonable to think people aren't forced into it due to inexperience/low skill the same way fast food workers are. They must have some reason for choosing to be teachers - and you're right, I was making an assumption based on the people I know personally, which may not extend to the whole population. But for whatever reason, lots and lots of people, armed with the knowledge of what the wage is, are choosing to be teachers. Indeed, in some areas in my province we have a glut of teachers applying for a few openings.
>>>it's a vitally important role in our world's future. I for one would not call "supply and demand" at the lowest possible rate a good way to treat such a profession.
What is the appropriate way to decide pay? We have a spectrum of possible wages we could set, from the lowest amount possible to ensure enough adequate teachers to the highest amount we could possibly afford (assuming teachers are public employees, this is related to how much we're willing to pay in taxes). Where should we land on that scale and why?
Maybe we'd get better teachers if we paid more?
It would also be a good introduction to the rationale behind secret ballots, and when it is actually appropriate to lie.
Still, I think there's several key differences:
1. Every school student would be rating their teachers, rather than just those that loved a professor, had an axe to grind, or were encouraged to by an entertaining personality.
2. The context would be "closed", with each teacher relative to their school, rather than open cross-institution competition with a front page of featured "rockstar" professors that make the rest seem inadequate.
3. The high schools officially sanctioning ratings with real results would give kids the feeling that they really do have a stake in the process, rather than simply being its victims.
4. High school is a more structured environment where the process details matter a lot more. So a teacher eg giving out an incomplete homework problem is actually a valid indictment rather than the stressed out nitpicking of a culture shocked freshman.
5. In college, there's a certain level of appreciation for the material that everyone should have but doesn't necessarily, causing them to get frustrated at a professor with a dry personality. Whereas with high school, the idea is that everybody should be learning a cursory understanding of all subjects.
6. In college, there's a huge variation in the level of courses. One specific professor I had for a seminar where it was basically his PhD research group and me, an undergrad who'd just started on a simultaneous master's. I learned a lot in that class, and really appreciated him. I then ended up in a grad-level "intro" course with him (which I knew was an utter waste going in, but it was the only thing that fit my schedule). Most of the students were rote-memorization paying-for-credential types, but his style certainly did them no favors either, and I can definitely see my recollection echoed in a few of his current reviews. I'd say that he's still a teaching asset, but not for intro lectures where most students aren't already committed to the subject.
Really, there just needs to be some extrinsic motivation/reward for teachers that are truly making a difference versus simply clock-punching, and that's not more top-down testing edicts that further shackle them. And sure, the immediate reaction shouldn't be to fire the lowest-reviewed, but neither should we pretend that they deserve similar compensation to the exceptional ones.
That's not to say that the people running schools and school districts don't want better teachers or to fire bad ones, but they (whether appointed or elected) aren't losing their jobs when that doesn't happen. And schools and districts aren't dissolved when that doesn't happen. Worst case scenario, they get rescued by the court system, which would be considered a bailout if it happened to a bank.
Just not very many good ones.