We are almost at the end of the PSERS story. If you are new to the Blog, you should start at the beginning of the series, here.
We have previously established that, as of 2013, PSERS had a shortfall of $32.6B between benefits promised and funds in the plan. And, according to PSERS itself, the causes of this shortfall were:
- $14.0B – Employer Funding Deferrals
- $9.0B – Investment under-performance
- $8.9B – Unfunded Benefit Enhancements
- $0.8B – Divergence between experience and actuarial assumptions (demographics, salaries, etc)
There are really only two pockets from which the needed funds could come — from the plan participants, or from employers. How might we decide how much each party should contribute to the solution? How about in proportion to the funding gap each side caused? Thinking about it this way, I would assign $$ as follows:
On Thursday November 6, the Pocopson redistricting committee kicked off Phase 1 of the Redistricting Project. The Advisory Committee, meeting for the first time, spent 90 minutes reviewing the committee’s role, the reasons for embarking on the study, and the project timeline. Greg Lindner and I participated by phone, representing the School Board. Representatives from each elementary school were present, including parents, teachers, and/or principals.
This cover story on Time magazine has drawn a lot of attention in the last week, including plenty of fire from the national teachers union and many individual teachers. Defenders have included the current US Secretary of Education and many well-known education reformers.
Give it a read for yourself. My comments follow below.
Time.com “The War on Teacher Tenure”