Search nctq.org

Or search by choosing a tag
Training and Recruitment

Teacher Prep, Licensure, Student Teaching

Staffing

Hiring and Assignment, Supply and Demand, Teacher Diversity, Work Day

Evaluation and Support

Evaluation, Professional Development, Retention and Tenure

Compensation

Pay, Benefits

Pension Sustainability: Utah

Retaining Effective Teachers Policy

Look at National Findings
Goal

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

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

Analysis of Utah's policies

As of January 1, 2010, the most recent date for which an actuarial valuation is available, Utah's teacher defined benefit pension plan is 85.7 percent funded and has an amortization period of 24 years. This means that if the plan earns its assumed rate of return and maintains current contribution rates, it would take the state 24 years to pay off its unfunded liabilities. While not ideal, both levels are better than regulatory recommendations, and Utah's system is financially sustainable according to actuarial benchmarks.

However, Utah commits excessive resources toward its teachers' retirement system. The current employer contribution rate to the defined benefit plan of 16.32 percent is too high, in light of the fact that local districts must also contribute 6.2 percent to Social Security. While this rate allows the state to pay off liabilities relatively quickly, it does so at great cost, precluding Utah from spending those funds on other, more immediate means to retain talented teachers. Teachers are not required to contribute to the pension system.

Utah closed its defined benefit plan to new employees as of July 1, 2011. All employees hired after this date will have a choice between a defined contribution plan or a hybrid plan. As set by statute, the employer contribution to both of these plans is 10 percent, plus the employer must contribute toward the amortization of the old plan. Any additional costs of the new plan that are beyond 10 percent will be paid by the employee. This employer rate is still too high, in light of the fact that local districts must also contribute 6.2 percent to Social Security. 

Citation

Recommendations for Utah

Avoid committing excessive resources to the pension system.
The state is commended for maintaining a system that is financially sustainable. However, Utah should consider decreasing employer contributions to allow local districts to spend those funds on more immediate recruitment and retention strategies. In addition, Utah should ensure that its new system is financially sustainable without demanding excessive contributions from employers. 

State response to our analysis

Utah recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.

    • Best practice
    • Meets goal
    • Nearly Meets goal
    • Meets goal in part
    • Meets a small part of goal
    • Does not meet goal

  • Utah

    Utah map
Pension Neutrality
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
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).

We use cookies

We use cookies to recognize your repeat visits and preferences, as well as to measure the effectiveness of campaigns and analyze traffic. To learn more about cookies, including how to disable them, view our Privacy and Cookie Policy. By clicking "Accept" or by continuing in the site you consent to the use of cookies unless you have disabled them.

Dismiss Accept