GEORGE Bernard Shaw wrote: He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches. For many this disparaging idiom still rings true, but the reality is much worse; we now have many who cannot teach populating schools and driving down academic standards.

The OECD’s latest Program for International Student Assessment shows that Australia is falling further behind the top performing nations in key areas including mathematics, science and reading.

Simply pouring more money into the sector is clearly not the answer. According to OECD figures, between 2000 and 2009 Australia was one of four countries whose reading results deteriorated significantly — despite spending growing over the period by a whopping 44 per cent in real terms.

Since then, spending has continued to increase while results have continued to decrease.

Labor’s much vaunted “education revolution” has failed to reverse the decline and our children are being outperformed by students from an ever increasing number of countries, particularly from South East Asia.

There is one overriding factor that sets apart the best education systems in the world — teacher quality.

One look at the top performing nations shows that, while they have vastly different learning philosophies and practises, the common denominator is that their teachers are sourced from their best students.

The teaching unions would say “pay more and attract better candidates” but that is an outright fallacy. Despite their ever persistent whinging and striking, Australian teachers are among some of the best paid in the world.

Arguably the best and most qualified educators are from Finland, where every teacher is required to have a master’s degree, and yet Finnish teachers earn less than the OECD average and significantly less than in Australia. That is despite Finland being the eurozone’s most expensive country, with a cost of living that is well above the European average.

The simple-minded notion that increased wages will attract better candidates is disproved by any analysis of teachers’ salaries throughout the world.

South Korea, along with Finland, consistently outperforms other nations and has an education system that is rightly envied around the world. While Finland favours small classes, minimal testing and homework, the South Koreans have large class sizes with an emphasis on long hours, rote learning and frequent exams.

Where these two disparate yet equally successful systems come together is in the strict selection process that only allows the best and brightest to become teachers. The belief that teacher quality is the greatest determinant of academic success sees only one in 10 teaching applicants accepted in Finland.

In South Korea teachers are recruited from the top 5 per cent of school leavers.

Compare that with Australia, where standards have dropped so low that, in 2011, teaching accounted for the highest proportion of university offers for students with an Australian tertiary admission rank of less than 50. Those academic failures, who could not get into any other course but teaching, will be graduating soon and coming to a school near you.

What will be the ramifications of having the next generation of teachers coming from a substandard pool of graduates who themselves struggled at school?

Will these teachers pass on their own academic deficiencies to their students? It is perhaps with this in mind that the Federal Government is putting in place measures to boost teacher quality, particularly in the areas of literacy and numeracy.

Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, recognises the importance of attracting the best candidates: “This Government knows there is nothing more important to a child’s education than having great teachers.”

The Victorian Government is also implementing a new performance and development system for teachers that will put an end to the ludicrous notion that teachers are somehow above scrutiny and assessment.

The simplistic arguments against linking performance to pay are as deeply flawed as they are self-serving; there is no suggestion that a teacher’s performance would be based solely on their students’ NAPLAN scores.

A variety of factors would be assessed and of course those teaching in areas with significant socio-economic issues would not be expected to achieve the same outcomes as a teacher in leafy Canterbury.

Under the new system there is a target that only 60 to 80 per cent of teachers would move up the pay scale each year.

That seems like an exceedingly generous figure but it is an improvement on the system we’ve had thus far, where almost every teacher automatically moves up the pay scale regardless of their ability, effort or suitability.

We are blessed to have a multitude of talented, dedicated teachers but there is simply no place in our classrooms for uninterested, incompetent or jaded educators.

A poor teacher is a destructive force who can inflict significant damage to a child’s long-term learning outcomes.

It is time to restore pride into the teaching profession and reward the best and most committed educators while weeding out the chronic underperformers.

Teaching should be a profession that is held in the highest esteem, not a last resort option for those who can’t gain entry into any other course.

Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist. twitter @Ritapanahi