I never ‘get’ this argument. For a lot of reasons... but mainly because it’s like saying ‘I could really be a better teacher if you gave me more money.’
It’s sort of an individual breach of agreement with your employer ... ‘I am much better at this than I am demonstrating and I am withholding effort and resources JUST to convince you that I am not being compensated enough’!!
Is THAT ethical? Were they hired with the understanding that they’d deliver 50% of effort and would work at their optimum capabilities LATER once they are given raises?
It is an argument that has worked for close to a century. That is why it is used. Try that argument with a private sector employer and see how quick you end up on the unemployment lines.
I think the argument is that higher salaries would attract better candidates into the field. The thing is, they assume higher salaries should include them...while they’re basically admitting that they’re not the brightest.
Teachers are, of course, very important. I know a number of them (friends/family), all good people, but few have any idea what private industry is really like. I hear them complain all the time. Yet they get “snow days”, the entire summer, along with many other holidays. Their benefits are very good. They assume the workload is “really tough” without having anything to compare against. By the time it is all weighed up, their salaries are actually very good.
One of them, not that bright, is now considering getting a “masters” degree. If “successful” I’ll lose all faith in standards.
I respect their importance and most are very passionate about teaching, it’s just that the respect is often not mutual. The number of times I’ve had a teacher talk down to me (as “just” a parent)...very annoying.