Pension Sustainability: Massachusetts

Retaining Effective Teachers Policy

Goal

The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to funding teachers' pension systems.

Meets a small part of goal
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Pension Sustainability: Massachusetts results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/MA-Pension-Sustainability-9

Analysis of Massachusetts's policies

As of January 1, 2010, the most recent date for which an actuarial valuation is available, Massachusetts's pension system for teachers is 63 percent funded and has an amortization period of 29 years. This means that if the plan earns its assumed rate of return and maintains current contribution rates, it would take the state 29 years to pay off its unfunded liabilities. While its amortization period meets regulatory benchmarks, Massachusetts's funding level is too low. The state's system is not financially sustainable according to actuarial benchmarks.

In addition, Massachusetts commits excessive resources toward its teachers' retirement system. The current employer contribution rate, which is paid by the state on behalf of local districts, of 22.6 percent is too high. The rate is set by law and is equivalent to the normal cost plus amortization payments, which must reduce the unfunded liability, to zero by June 30, 2040. The amortization payments increase by 4.5 percent a year. While this rate allows the state to pay off liabilities within the required 30-year period, it does so at great cost, precluding Massachusetts from spending those funds on other, more immediate means to retain talented teachers. The mandatory employee contribution rate of 11 percent is reasonable.

Citation

Recommendations for Massachusetts

Ensure that the pension system is financially sustainable.
The state would be better off if its system was over 95 percent funded to allow more protection during financial downturns. However, Massachusetts should consider ways to improve its funding level without raising the contributions of the state. In fact, the state should work to decrease employer contributions. Committing excessive resources to pension benefits can negatively affect teacher recruitment and retention. Improving funding levels necessitates, in part, systemic changes in the state's pension system. Goals 4-G and 4-I provide suggestions for pension system structures that are both sustainable and fair.

State response to our analysis

Massachusetts was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis. The state also noted that a pension reform bill is expected to be enacted in the fall of 2011.

Research rationale

NCTQ's analysis of the financial sustainability of state pension system is based on actuarial benchmarks promulgated by government and private accounting standards boards. For more information see U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2007, 30 and Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 25.

For an overview of the current state of teacher pensions, the various incentives they create, and suggested solutions, see Robert Costrell and Michael Podgursky. "Reforming K-12 Educator Pensions: A Labor Market Perspective." TIAA-CREF Institute (2011).

For evidence that retirement incentives do have a statistically significant effect on retirement decisions, see Joshua Furgeson, Robert P. Strauss, and William B. Vogt. "The Effects of Defined Benefit Pension Incentives and Working Conditions on Teacher Retirement Decisions", Education Finance and Policy (Summer, 2006).

For examples of how teacher pension systems inhibit teacher mobility, see Robert Costrell and Michael Podgursky, "Golden Handcuffs," Education Next, (Winter, 2010).

For additional information on state pension systems, see Susanna Loeb, and Luke Miller. "State Teacher Policies: What Are They, What Are Their Effects, and What Are Their Implications for School Finance?" Stanford University: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice (2006); and Janet Hansen, "Teacher Pensions: A Background Paper", published through the Committee for Economic Development (May, 2008).

For further evidence supporting NCTQ's teacher pension standards, see "Public Employees' Retirement System of the State of Nevada: Analysis and Comparison of Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Retirement Plans." The Segal Group (2010).