Teacher pension enhancements and staffing in an urban school district

Many states enhanced benefits in teacher retirement plans during the 1990s. This paper examines the school staffing effects of one such enhancement in a major urban school district with mostly high poverty schools. Pension rule changes in 1999 for St. Louis public school teachers resulted in large increases in pension wealth for active teachers, as well as a powerful increase in ‘push’ incentives for earlier retirement. Simple descriptive statistics on retirement patterns before and after the enhancements suggest much earlier retirement resulted. Shorter teaching spells imply a steady state with more teacher turnover and a larger share of novice teachers in classrooms. To better understand the long-run effects of these changes and alternative policies, the authors estimate a structural model of teacher retirement. Simulations of retirement behavior for representative senior teachers point to shorter completed teaching spells and earlier retirement age as a result of the enhancements. By contrast, moving from the post-1999 to a DC-type plan would extend the teaching career of a representative senior teacher by roughly two years.

Rethinking the Structure of Teacher Retirement Benefits: Analyzing the Preferences of Entering Teachers

Most U.S. public school teachers participate in defined benefit retirement plans, which base benefits on years of service and their last few years of salary. These plans are often backloaded and include sharp economic incentives. We consider the implications of transitioning to a cost-equivalent defined benefit plan under which teachers would earn benefits more evenly across their careers. We show that new teachers who are risk averse would prefer the alternative plan. The magnitude is often substantial. For example, for an entering teacher the certainty equivalent for the CB plan is about 2.1 times the certainty equivalent for the respective FAS plan in New York City and 29 times larger than the respective heavily backloaded FAS plan in Philadelphia.

Who Benefits from Pension Enhancements?

During the late 1990s public pension funds across the United States accrued large actuarial surpluses. The seemingly flush conditions of the pension funds led legislators in most states to substantially improve retirement benefits for public workers, including teachers. In this study we examine the benefit enhancements to the teacher pension system in Missouri. The enhancements resulted in large windfall gains for teachers who were close to retirement when the legislation was enacted. By contrast, novice teachers, and teachers who had not yet entered the labor force, were made worse off. The reason is that front-end contribution rates have been raised for current teachers to offset past liabilities accrued from the enhancements. Total teacher retirement compensation, net of contribution costs, is lower for young teachers today as a result of the enhancement legislation. Given sharp increases in pension costs in other states, this finding may generalize to young teachers in many other plans.

“But the Pension Fund Was Just SITTING There …”: The Politics of Teacher Retirement Plans

The tension at the heart of pension politics is the incentive to satisfy today's claimants in the here and now at the expense of long-term concerns. Teacher pensions, in particular, pose two challenges. The first is that political incentives invite irresponsible fiscal stewardship, as public officials make outsized short-term commitments to employees. The second is that incentives hinder modernization, as policy makers avoid the politically perilous task of altering plans ill suited to attracting talent in the contemporary labor market. The alignment of the political stars has helped some states and localities to address the first challenge, but far too few have demonstrated a willingness to tackle the second. We illustrate the political dynamics through discussions of pension plans in New Jersey, Oregon, and San Diego, California, and suggest several political strategies that could make pension challenges more tractable and encourage public officials to be responsible fiscal stewards or to revisit anachronistic retirement systems.