Pension Sustainability: Oklahoma
Pensions Policy
Analysis of Oklahoma's policies
As of June 30, 2015, the most recent date for which an actuarial valuation is available, Oklahoma's pension system for teachers is 66.6 percent funded, an increase of 9.4 percentage points since NCTQ's last report. Its current pension debt exceeds $10,000 per pupil throughout the state. It also has an amortization period of 16 years. This means that if the plan earns its assumed rate of return of 8 percent and makes its full actuarially determined contribution payments, it would take the state 16 years to pay off its unfunded liabilities. While its amortization period meets regulatory benchmarks, Oklahoma's funding level is below the conventionally recommended minimum. Thus, although commended for making contributions that exceed the actuarially required amount, the state's system is not financially sustainable according to actuarial benchmarks.
In addition, Oklahoma commits excessive resources toward its teachers' retirement system. The current employer contribution rate of 17.2 percent is very high, in light of the fact that districts must also contribute 6.2 percent to Social Security. The 17.2 percent is split with the local districts paying 9.3 percent and the state paying about 7.9 percent. While this is rate is intended to allow the state to pay off liabilities, it does so at a high cost, precluding Oklahoma from spending those funds on other, more immediate means to retain talented teachers. The mandatory employee contribution rate to the defined benefit plan of 7 percent is reasonable, although close to what is considered excessive, in light of the fact that teachers must also contribute 6.2 percent to Social Security.
Recommendations for Oklahoma
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. Oklahoma, however, should consider ways to improve its funding level without raising the contributions of school districts and teachers. In fact, the state should work to decrease employer contributions. Committing excessive resources to pension benefits can negatively affect teacher recruitment and retention and crowd out funding for other areas in education. Improving funding levels necessitates, in part, systemic changes in the state's pension system. The goals on pension flexibility and pension neutrality provide suggestions for pension system structures that are both sustainable and fair.
State response to our analysis
Oklahoma declined to respond to NCTQ's analyses.
-
Oklahoma
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Teacher salaries are just one part of the compensation package that teachers receive. Virtually all teachers are also entitled to a pension, which, upon vesting, provides compensation for the rest of their lives after retirement. In an era when retirement benefits have been shrinking across industries and professions, teachers' generous pensions remain fixed. In fact, nearly all states continue to provide teachers with a defined-benefit pension system, an expensive and inflexible model that neither reflects the realities of the modern workforce nor provides equitable benefits to all teachers.
Under defined benefit systems, states have made an obligation to fund fixed benefits for teachers at retirement. However, the financial health and sustainability of many states' systems are questionable at best. Some systems carry high levels of unfunded liabilities, with no strategy to pay these liabilities down in a reasonable period, as defined by standard accounting practices. Without reform, these systems are a house of cards, vulnerable to collapse as funding cannot keep up with promised benefits. And it is taxpayers who will have to pay if it all tumbles down.
Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in their careers by overcommitting employer resources to retirement benefits.
Pension Sustainability: Supporting Research
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.