No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Teacher pension enhancements and staffing in an urban school district
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2021
Abstract
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.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Börsch-Supan, A and Hajivassiliou, VA (1993) Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models. Journal of Econometrics 58, 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, KM (2013) The link between pensions and retirement timing: lessons from California teachers. Journal of Public Economics 98, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butrica, B, Iams, H, Smith, K and Toder, E (2009) The disappearing defined benefit pension and its potential impact on the retirement incomes of baby boomers. Social Security Bulletin 69, 1–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Clotfelter, C, Ladd, H and Vigdor, J (2006) Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources 41, 778–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costrell, RM and McGee, JB (2010) Teacher pension incentives, retirement behavior, and potential for reform in Arkansas. Education Finance and Policy 5, 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costrell, RM and Podgursky, M (2009) Peaks, cliffs, and valleys: the peculiar incentives in teacher retirement systems and their consequences for school staffing. Education Finance and Policy 4, 175–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeArmond, M and Goldhaber, D (2010) Scrambling the nest egg: how well do teachers understand their pensions and what do they think of alternatives? Education Finance and Policy 5, 558–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M and Lovenheim, M (2014) Early retirement incentives and student achievement. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 6, 129–154.Google ScholarPubMed
Friedberg, L and Webb, A (2005) Retirement and the evolution of pension structure. Journal of Human Resources 40, 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furgeson, J, Strauss, RP and Vogt, WB (2006) The effects of defined benefit pension incentives and working conditions on teacher retirement decisions. Education Finance and Policy 1, 316–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhaber, D and Grout, C (2016) Which plan to choose? The determinants of pension system choice for public school teachers. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 15, 30–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, DN and Adams, SJ (2007) Understanding the level and causes of teacher turnover: a comparison with other professions. Economics of Education Review 26, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, JJ (1981) The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time process. In Manski, CF and McFadden, D (eds), The Structural Analysis of Discrete Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 179–195.Google Scholar
Knapp, D, Brown, K, Hosek, J, Mattock, MG and Asch, BJ (2016) Retirement Benefits and Teacher Retention. Santa Monica, California, USA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Koedel, C and Xiang, B (2017) Pension enhancements and the retention of public employees. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 70, 519–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koedel, C, Ni, S and Podgursky, M (2014) Who benefits from pension enhancements? Education Finance and Policy 9, 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monahan, A (2010) Public pension plan reform: the legal framework. Education Finance and Policy 8, 617–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, J and Randazzo, A (2020) Hidden education funding cuts: How growing teacher pension debt is eating into k-12 education budgets. Technical report, Equable Institute.Google Scholar
Ni, S and Podgursky, M (2016) How teachers respond to pension system incentives: new estimates and policy applications. Journal of Labor Economics 34, 1075–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, S, Podgursky, M and Wang, X (2020) Teacher pension plan incentives, retirement decisions, and workforce quality. Journal of Human Resources, published ahead of print, doi:10.3368/jhr.57.1.1218-9912R2.Google Scholar
Stock, JH and Wise, DA (1990) Pensions, the option value of work, and retirement. Econometrica 58, 1151–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiswall, M (2013) The dynamics of teacher quality. Journal of Public Economics 100, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, JM (2005) Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics 20, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar