Teacher Pensions Blog

  • As we have written about before, female educators in Illinois earn on average $7,775 less than their male colleagues. This disparity in salary translates into average annual pensions that are $3,800 less valuable. In a recent blog post, I found that at least some of the salary and pension gap is derived from the fact that most female educators work in elementary schools, which have lower average salaries compared with high schools where most men work.

    In this post, we will look into whether different rates of educational attainment among men and women contribute to the salary gap. This is an important question since in most school districts teachers can earn a significant salary increase, the so-called “master’s bump,” once they earn their master’s degree.

    To do this, we looked at the rate of female and male educators who hold at least a master’s degree at each year of experience, and then we compared that trend to the salary data. In both cases, higher numbers correspond with a gap favoring male educators, while lower numbers represent a gap favoring female educators.

    As shown in the graph below, there’s a gender salary gap (the orange line) even among educators with one year of experience, and the gap steadily increases over time, and growing to $12,567 among those with exactly 30 years of experience. The pattern on educational attainment (blue line), on the other hand, shows a different trend: women tend to hold master’s degrees at slightly higher rates at most experience levels.

    Educational Attainment Rates do not appear to Influence the Gender-Based Salary Gap

    Source: Author’s analysis of data from Illinois Teacher Service Record (TRS) 2012. Data adjusted for cost of living using the Comparable Wage Index.

    These data show that men with six or fewer years of experience have slightly higher educational attainment, but after that the advantage goes to women. One might expect that with higher educational attainment, women’s salaries would be higher. But no, men have higher salaries at every experience level despite having worse educational credentials. The higher rate of educational attainment for women is insufficient to overcome other barriers to higher salaries, such as working disproportionately at the elementary level.

    In the end, educational attainment does not explain why there is a large and persistent pay gap between male and female educators in Illinois. We will further explore other features and potential explanations of the gender-pay gap in future posts.

     

     

  • Teacher pensions are complex. This post is a part of series to answer the most common questions we get. To submit yours, email us at teacherpensions@bellwethereducation.org -- we’ll try our best to answer.

     

    One of the most common teacher salary questions is whether or not teachers get paid over the summer months. So, do they? Not the most satisfying of answers but, it depends. Teacher payroll schedules vary district-to-district: some allow workers to spread their 10-month salary over 12 months, while others don’t give any paycheck during the summer months, requiring teachers to budget, or in some cases, get a second job.

     

    Below are the public teacher pay schedules for the nation’s 20 largest* districts (as of July 2018). To compile them, I checked state payroll offices for pay day calendars and information regarding summer pay. It was surprisingly challenging to pull some of this data, and I ended up having to call payroll offices to clarify in some cases. Some districts don’t make this information readily available until a teacher is officially in the hiring process, further demonstrating why this is such a common question.

     

    In general, most teachers are either automatically paid throughout the course of a year or have the ability to opt into a program that redistributes their pay for them. But a few districts, like Montgomery County, Maryland and Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, reported paying teachers on 10-month schedules.

     

    District

    Teacher Payroll Schedule

    The City School District of the City of New York (New York)

    Teachers are paid twice a month for 12 months.

    Los Angeles Unified School District (California)

    Teachers are paid once a month for 12 months.

    City of Chicago School District (Illinois)

    Some instructional roles are 10-month positions, others are 12-month. Twelve-month employees receive 26 checks a year, and 10-month employees receive 21 checks.

    Miami-Dade County Public Schools (Florida)

    Most teachers are paid on a 10-month schedule. A few specialized instructional roles work on a 12-month schedule and are compensated accordingly. Twelve-month employees receive 26 checks a year, and 10-month employees receive 21 checks. Ten-month employees may opt in to a deferred payment plan to distribute 10-month salary over 12 months.

    Clark County School District (Nevada)

    Teachers are paid twice a month for 12 months.

    Broward County Public Schools (Florida)

    Most teachers are paid bi-weekly on a 10-month schedule, but may opt into a Year Round Pay program to distribute 10-month salaries over 12 months. A few specialized instructional roles work on a 12-month schedule and are compensated accordingly.

    Houston Independent School District (Texas)

    Teachers are paid on a 12-month schedule. Twelve-month employees receive 26 checks a year.

    Hillsborough County Public Schools (Florida)

    Teachers are paid bi-weekly on a 10-month schedule, but may opt into an Extended Year Pay program to distribute 10-month salary over 12 months.

    Orange County Public Schools (Florida)

    Most teachers are paid bi-weekly (beginning on the third week of their work year) on a 10-month schedule. If requested on or before the last day of preplanning, 10-month teachers may opt in to a deferred payment plan. A few specialized instructional roles work on a 12-month schedule and are compensated accordingly.

    School District of Palm Beach County (Florida)

    Teachers are paid on a 12-month schedule. Twelve-month employees receive 26 checks a year.

    Fairfax County Public Schools (Virginia)

    Most teachers are paid once a month for 11 months out of the year -- a few specialized instructional roles work on a 12-month schedule and are compensated accordingly.

    Hawai’i State Department of Education

    Teachers are paid twice a month for 12 months.

    Gwinnett County Public Schools (Georgia)

    Teachers are paid on a monthly basis. The pay cycle begins in August and ends in July of the following year.

    Dallas Independent School District (Texas)

    Teachers are paid on a 12-month schedule. Twelve-month employees receive 26 checks a year.

    Wake County Public School System (North Carolina)

    Teachers are paid once a month for 10 months. Teachers may opt into a Summer Cash Savings Account program to redistribute their salary over 12 months.

    Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland)

    Most teachers are paid on a 10-month schedule. A few specialized instructional roles work on a 12-month schedule and are compensated accordingly.

    Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (North Carolina)

    Teachers are paid once a month for 10 months.

    The School District of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)

    Teachers are paid on a 12-month schedule. Twelve-month employees receive 26 checks a year.

    San Diego Unified School District (California)

    Teachers are paid twice a month for 12 months.

     

    Similar to teacher pension systems, teacher salary schedules and payroll calendars can vary dramatically across state and district lines. This variance, coupled with the level of opacity around district’s individual policies, can impede teachers from making informed decisions about their careers.

     

    *The Department of Education of Puerto Rico is the fourth largest school district. Teacher payroll calendars were not immediately available for the district at publication time.

     
  • How do teacher pension plans work?

    Teacher pension systems can be quite complex. There are specific rules that vary state-to-state that affect any given teachers’ annual pension benefit after retirement. There are wider contexts to consider as well. For example, in some states teachers are not covered by Social Security, unlike most employees who can count on Social Security on top of their 401k or pension once they retire. Add all this together, and it can be challenging for teachers to have an accurate sense of how their annual pension benefit is calculated and, in the end, determine the value of their yearly retirement.

    The first thing to know is that most states have a minimum number of years of service teachers must meet before they are even eligible for a pension, also known as a vesting period. As such, teachers must work a minimum number of years, often five or ten years, to actually qualify for a pension upon retirement.  If teachers leave before meeting that threshold, when they retire, they’ll only receive the money they’ve personally put in and, in some cases, a bit of interest on that investment. 

    For those educators who work beyond the vesting requirement, traditional pensions are based on the teacher's years of experience and a measure of "final average salary," usually the average of the teacher's salary in the last three or five years prior to retirement. In general, the longer a teacher has worked and the higher her salary, the higher her pension will be. There is one more factor: a state-set benefit "multiplier," typically around 2 percent, that literally multiplies all of these variables together to determine how much a teacher will receive yearly during retirement.

    The example below is a typical state pension structure and illustrates how teacher retirement benefits are typically calculated:

    That's not all. States also set a minimum retirement age, before which teachers can’t access their pension benefits, and years of service requirements that teachers must meet to receive full benefits. For example, some states employ the "Rule of 80," which sets the retirement age as the point when the sum of an educator’s age and years of service add up to at least 80. States also set early retirement ages, at which point workers can collect reduced benefits. How much early retirement affects benefits varies by state.

    Researchers have found that traditional teacher pension benefits are back-loaded in that most of their value comes as the teacher nears the normal retirement age. That happens because pension plans use the "final average salary" in the years they were earned; they do not adjust for inflation, and someone who leaves the profession years before collecting a benefit will see their pension gradually wear away to inflation. As a result, teacher pension plans typically provide generous retirement benefits only to those who teach for multiple decades. On the other hand, those with shorter careers receive scant, and in some cases, no pension benefit.

    Here are a few other things teachers should consider when thinking about their retirement:

    • What is the state’s vesting period? In other words, how long do you need to work before you will qualify for a pension?
    • How much are you contributing per month to your pension? How much does the state contribute on your behalf on top of that? 
    • Are you enrolled in Social Security, or are you solely dependent on your pension and your own personal savings?
    • If you’re a new teacher, does your state offer alternative retirement plans that might be more portable than the traditional pension plan?

    Generally speaking, due to how pension systems are designed, only about half of teachers ever earn a pension. Instead, they only receive their own contributions made to the pension fund. Among those who do earn a pension, only those teachers who spend most of their careers working in the same state are the true "pension winners." Current and prospective teachers, particularly those living in states with other retirement options, should think carefully about which retirement saving strategy works best for them. 

  • Even though most educators are women, their salaries nevertheless lag behind their male colleagues. In a recent report, I analyzed educator salary data in Illinois and found that women – at every experience level – earn lower salaries than men. On average, a female educator earns $7,775 less than her male colleagues. The problems don’t end there. These lower salaries translate to lower pensions as well. The typical female educator’s annual pension is valued at $3,800 less.

    Unfortunately, finding a gender pay gap isn’t altogether surprising. However, it does mean K-12 education isn’t inoculated to gender-based disparities by district salary schedules that regulate how much educators can earn based on tenure.

    So what might explain these gaps? Although there no perfect answers, through a series of posts I will look into potential causes. Today’s piece is about differences across grade levels.

    Aside from the “parenting penalty” that disproportionately and adversely impacts the earning potential for women, one reason women on average earn lower salaries and pensions is that they work overwhelmingly at the elementary level. The majority of men, on the other hand, work in high schools. As shown in the graph below, average salaries are significantly higher in high schools than in any other grade span.

    High School Educators Earn the Highest Salaries in Illinois

    Source: Author’s analysis of data from the Illinois Teacher Service Record (TSR), 2012. Data adjusted for cost of living using the Comparable Wage Index.

    Around three-quarters of all educators in Illinois are women. And among women, 42 percent work in elementary schools, while only 17 percent work in high school. Comparatively, 47 percent of men work in high schools. This distribution contributes to the gender-pay gap among educators in Illinois. This may be due to greater extra earning opportunities at the high school level through clubs and athletics. Or, there could be a higher concentration of advanced degree holders in the upper grades. Illinois also has the most single-school districts in the country, which have significantly higher costs. It is possible that a disproportionate number of these districts may be comprised of high schools.  

    We will further explore features and potential explanations of the gender-pay gap in future posts.

     

  • How much do teacher pension plans cost? How have those costs changed over time?

    Those may seem like simple questions, but there aren’t perfect data sources to answer these questions. At the national level, the U.S. Census Bureau tracks total benefit spending by states and school districts, which does include retirement costs but also includes healthcare and other employee benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks national figures but only reports the data in terms of percentages and a per-hour basis.

    Luckily, the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR) has done the yeoman’s work of collecting comparable data from state pension plan financial reports. The raw data still aren’t perfect to answer the questions I posed above—many states include teachers and other education workers alongside other public workers in the same plan—but with a little bit of work, I was able to narrow the data to look solely at teachers and other educators. (For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to use the term “teachers” throughout the remainder of the post, but the numbers also include other school support staff, principals, superintendents, and central office staff.)

    With that throat-clearing out of the way, what do the numbers say?

    Over the last 15 years, state and district spending on teacher pensions is up approximately 261 percent. Meanwhile, states have cut teacher retirement benefits and asked teachers to pay more for worse benefits. 

    I’ve written about these issues recently for particular states, but it’s also worth zooming out to look at the national picture. Nationwide, states and districts now spend about $40 billion on teacher pension costs, up from $15 billion 15 years ago.* Over a period where states struggled to invest in K-12 education, rising pension costs have meant even fewer dollars making it into classrooms. 

    Another way to look at pension costs is to look at contribution rates. As the next graph shows, mandatory member contributions have increased over time, from an average of 5.2 percent of salary up to 6.8 percent. Again, this has happened at the same time states have been cutting benefits for new teachers. Teachers are paying more for less.

    Worse, the employer actuarially required contribution rates, the rate that actuaries estimate will be needed to pay for all the future promised benefits, has doubled from 8.3 to 16.4 percent.

    These graphs don’t even include Social Security. If you factor in Social Security contributions, it would appear as if teachers have enormous pots of money being set aside for their retirements.

    I say “appear” because that’s not how teacher pension plans work. Unfortunately, the increase in pension contributions is entirely due to paying for past pension promises that have not been adequately saved for, not to pay for actual benefits for teachers. States break down their contributions into two rates, the “normal cost” of benefits, which is the actuaries’ estimate of how much the benefits are worth on average, and the cost of paying down any accumulated debt, known as the “amortization cost.” As the graph below shows, the average normal cost of teacher retirement benefits has fallen from about 6.2 percent of salary to slightly less than 5 percent. These are averages across all members in a given plan; as states have cut benefits for new teachers, the figures would be even lower if we had accurate data about how much each of these tiers are worth. 

    Meanwhile, the amortization costs, aka the debt cost, of teacher pension plans have risen from an average of 2 percent of teacher salaries to more than 11 percent. To put it crudely, it’s as if states failed to make sufficient payments on their credit cards or their home mortgage, and now their interest costs have ballooned. 

    These costs will not go away any time soon, and states will need to think differently if they want to see any future changes. Left unaddressed, the mountain of debt is likely to keep growing, and teachers will see more and more of their compensation going toward paying off past pension debts instead of going into their pockets.

    *Note: The numbers in this post are meant as estimates. They start with data from the Public Plans Database, with a few adjustments. About half the plans in the database include educators and non-educators alike, so in order to get a closer estimate of the education share, I applied weights used by the National Council on Teacher Quality which are based on the percentage of each plan’s membership who are educators. For most states, the data run from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2016, but data were not available for all states and all years. A few states were missing random years of data, in which case I used the average of the years before and after. I took out Kentucky entirely, since it was missing all years prior to 2014. And a couple states, notably New Hampshire and Oregon, were missing data for the earliest years in this time period. For those states, I simply applied the later rates going backwards.  

    Taxonomy: 
  • The state pension plan funding gap is well-documented -- according to Pew, the gap between the promises states have made for public employees’ retirement benefits and the money they have set aside to pay these bills was at least $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2016. For a blog dedicated to providing high-quality analysis and information on teacher pensions, it’s clear that there is a problem. 

    Let’s talk solutions.

    While traditional, back-loaded pension plans fall short of providing adequate retirement benefits to all members, there are better options. And, contrary to a public debate that often pits pensions against 401ks, there are other alternatives that would better balance the needs of employers and employees.

    As one alternative example, the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) is legally a defined benefit cash balance plan. As of December 2016, 872 Texas cities had opted into the plan, covering 108,500 active members and 59,000 retirees. Participating cities select an employee contribution rate (of 5, 6, or 7 percent), an employer match (1:1, 1.5:1, or 2:1), and the contributions go into a worker's account. The plan invests the money and guarantees a rate of return of at least 5 percent. This provides a more portable benefit with a steadier accumulation of assets than the typical defined benefit plan.

    The plan also helps employees once they retire. When the employee reaches retirement eligibility, the money in their account is annuitized into regular monthly paychecks. These paychecks allow for sustained monthly income, mirroring the benefits and stability of a traditional pension plan without the back-loaded accumulation under traditional pension plans. (See more details of how the plan works here.)

    No plan is perfect. Here, employees might be able to earn higher return in a defined contribution, 401k style plan, but to do that, they would have to sacrifice the guarantee. Employers still bear some risk, but it’s smaller than under a traditional defined benefit plan. Still, this system allows employers some level of customization, and the portability piece makes it appealing to employees. TMRS, a defined benefit cash balance plan, is just one of many retirement options that could better address the cost and portability problems that are prevalent in the plans offered to public school teachers.