Another thing to consider is that the quality of the teacher might not map to improved results in the same way it does in tech. A programmer tends to have a lot more choice in how they go about solving the problem, whereas teachers tend to have very little leeway. Furthermore, it's very difficult to quantify how well a teacher is doing as well.

>>Tech companies have to use a relatively high bar, because bad developers will drive them out of business

Most work in Tech companies even the top FAANG ones these days is crud work.

These people can only afford to pay well, because they make their money through advertising scale. Companies which depend on paying users, can't afford to pay that kind of salaries, nor waste their time interviewing people on rounds and rounds for proxy skills which have nothing to do with the job on hand.

In short only VC companies without profit pressure or web advertising companies pay well. Others don't have this luxury.

> ...you probably wouldn't be able to hire enough teachers at existing teacher salaries if you significantly raised your standards for what counts as "qualified".

Anecdata: Schools that won't hire more qualified candidates (e.g. graduate degrees complete) instead preferring more green applicants because the latter are contractually cheaper.

That is, in some instances schools could hire better for the same money but cannot because of labor contracts.

Or you happen to be in middle of nowhere, or there are other incentives like equity that you can use to make up for the subpar base salary.