you make almost everything sound much simpler then it really is (except for #5). i've experienced all of it much differently.1. the only time i'm aware of goernment interating with cheating teachers is when they got caught cheating and were subsequently fired.
2. college professors often teach to classes of 200 people. i somehow doubt that a highschool teacher will suffer mental overload and death if he is forced to lecture a class of 35 rather than 30. the "crowded classroom" thing is a canard, anyway; used by teachers unions to get more funding.
3. longer hours? longer hours? teachers work - what - 7 hours a day? 8? from one public employee to another, they can suck that one up.
4. there is nothing wrong with teachers being used to monitor lunchrooms, there is nothing remotely abusive about that whatsoever, and the fact that you think it is, is hilarious.
5. the dangerous work conditions i will buy. which is why i would pay more to teachers willing to work in dangerous schools (the teachers unions, of course, shoot down the idea of paying teachers extra for behavioral incentives). however, i will only be willing to do this if they can be fired should they fail to perform there. which brings us to point #...
6. if you are fired for arbitrary reasons, usually you can sue and make quite a chunk of change. but public teachers can hardly be fired at all. the cost and trouble for firing a public teachers is legendary.
oh, and getting fired? that's not abuse. that's the entity that hired you deciding it had made a mistake, and correcting that mistake. out in the real world private workers recognize that if they don't perform, that's the result. only in the public sector is getting fired "just" because you suck at your job "abuse".