I think you’re still going to alienate teachers with that kind of shuffling. People form relationships with their colleagues. This is especially the case at universities where your coworker may be one of a handful of people on the planet who actually understands your research.

But also I think you may overrate the impact of teaching skill on student outcomes. Universities barely teach their students at all. Apart from lectures, they assign course work and conduct examinations. By far the majority of learning in university takes place alone, when the student engages with the course work. It’s often the case that students will pass a course with a decent grade having never attended a single lecture.

The truth of the matter is that most of the value of a highly selective university is the selectivity. There’s nothing that makes a teacher look brilliant more than having brilliant students. The top schools like Harvard could honestly eliminate lectures entirely, just keeping coursework and examinations, and their students would still be the most sought after.

Seems like a great recipes for more private schools. If a local public school isn’t any better than anyone else’s why would the wealthy send their kids there?

A variation of that is currently each community decides how much to spend on their future. Some people choose to live in communities that spend less, while others move to the best school district they can afford. Why would someone who cares about their kids’ education want anything to do with “mediocre “ schools

Here's your proposal in a nutshell. "Can we have the rich and powerful impose laws on the rich and powerful to reduce the benefits that will have for their children?" And even if we could do that, you completely ignore the option of them just hiring tutors to train their kids (which is already done by some).

Not saying your goals are bad, perhaps a little misguided, and rely on the people that would be negatively impacted (by their perception) to make it happen.

Have you attended university?