The author is right nowadays, but he would not have been right only four years ago because something has changed in the way the OECD calculates purchasing price parity.

Using US dollars and purchasing price parity, a teacher in a junior secondary school in Finland was paid $34,707 in the first year, $44,294 in the 15th year and $54,181 at the top of the scale (OECD Education at a Glance 2011). According to more recent figures (D3, p 389), the pay rates are $33,034 in the first year, $40,917 in the 15th year and $43,372 at the top of the scale (OECD Education at a Glance 2013). That suggests a huge real cut, some 20 per cent, in the pay at the top of the scale in Finland.

The same teacher in Australia was paid $34,664, then $48,233 and then $48,233 (OECD Education at a Glance 2011). According to more recent figures, the pay rates are $34,746, $49,144 and $49,144 (OECD Education at a Glance 2013). This is a modest and believable increase.

The explanation for the discrepancy is given elsewhere (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teachers-salaries_teachsal-table-en) as “Due to a change in the methodology used to convert teachers’ salaries into USD, data are not directly comparable with the figures published in previous editions of Education at a Glance.” It gives a link to sources, methods and technical notes, but the link does not go to them, and I have no idea how to pursue the matter. It thus remains a mystery to me how such huge changes can occur in so short a period.

Yes but, the more socially minded Fins are not trying to run education as a exportable commodity, just best practice service!
And then rolled out as the, evidence based, best possible practice.

[This is the evidence based use of public funds that created the hugely successful Celtic Tiger!

Then allowed individualistic personal greed, political incompetence and massive record foreign debt (the Emperor's new clothes) to wipe it out!]

Conversely, the American user pays system has it greatest success to date, in the sheer number of dropouts and overwhelming personal debt; and routinely wasted lives it produces/creates!

You don't have to be brain dead or living as a permanent resident in a dream castle in the clouds, to want to ape the latter, but it surely has to help?
Rhrosty.

To jump from teacher salaries to this claim "It appears that education cannot be improved with financial investment alone" is rather dangerous.

The differences of relative public expenditure percentage per student of GDP per capita between finland and Australia are pretty stark.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SE.XPD.SECO.PC.ZS/compare?country=fi#country=au:fi

Have you ever read anything so dishonest in your life? Well, yes - many times. But still.

* Finnish teachers have masters degrees, not bachelor's degrees
* after factoring this in, Aussie teachers are paid more.

And how is this "factoring in" done? Do they simply multiply the Australian salaries by three because that's what they *would* be getting *if* they had master's degrees? These figures are altered, and the reader is not told how. The claims are based on some nonsense "factored-in" number.

I was not intending to be dishonest. I am more than willing to be proven incorrect on this matter.

For the sake of transparency the sources links are provided below:

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teachers-salaries_teachsal-table-en

https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/teachers-salaries.htm

I simply used the figures provided in these sources.

Thanks "SteeleRedux"for the GDP per capita information. I hadn't considered this and I've bookmarked the hyper link.