From the Statehouse

PERA woes loom large for education

The state budget and school finance aren’t going to be the only big-money headaches facing legislators and education interests in 2010.

StockPERALogo102109The recently announced “rescue” proposal for the 438,000-member Public Employees’ Retirement Association carries a big price tag for school districts and colleges, and could affect the retirement incomes and retirement plans for thousands of past and current school and college employees. The plan also could leave some school districts with little flexibility for teacher raises.

Even though various interest groups in the discussion say they agree there has to be some shared sacrifice to bolster the financially battered pension system, questions and qualms already are surfacing over the plan approved by the PERA board on Oct. 16.

PERA was under a legislative deadline to present a reform plan by Nov. 1. The whole issue will be in squarely the lap of lawmakers in 2010, because only the legislature can change PERA benefits or contributions.

PERA’s challenge – and the proposed solution

Its investments hollowed out by the recession, PERA’s net assets available for benefits dropped from $43.1 billion at the end of 2007 to $30.8 billion at the end of 2008, a loss of more than 25 percent. The system pays about $3.1 billion in benefits a year and receives about $1.7 billion in contributions from covered employees and their employers. PERA overall is about 70 percent funded.

“Projections show that the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) cannot invest its way out of the situation created by the worst economic downturn since the 1930s,” according to an agency statement last week.

Source: Public Employees' Retirement Association
Source: Public Employees' Retirement Association

Agency leaders have tried to craft a solution that would share responsibility (translation – “pain”) between members, employers and retirees; provide equity among different age groups; be sustainable long term; preserve PERA as a defined-benefits plan; maintain the same benefits across all agency divisions, and minimize impact on short-term member behavior.

If you think school finance is the most complicated issue in state government, you haven’t delved into public employee pensions. Below is a simplified summary of what the rescue plan, dubbed “2+2+2 Plus” by PERA, would do.

• The good news for employees is that their direct contribution of 8 percent of salary would remain the same. It’s been at 8 percent since 1982. (There is bad news in that employers are being asked to increase their contributions from funds that might otherwise go to employee salaries – that’s explained below.)

• The bad news for retirees is that annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) would be capped at 2 percent until the system recovers its financial health. No COLAs would be paid until one year after retirement.

• The bad news for employers (school districts, in this case) is more complicated.

The overall employer contribution for PERA’s school division fluctuated between 12 percent of payroll and 12.5 percent from 1976 to 2008. But, under a previous legislative rescue plan, that rose to 12.95 percent this year, will be 13.85 percent next year and will go to 16.55 percent at the beginning of 2013.

The new rescue plan would extend increases to 2017, topping out at 20.55 percent. (The employer contribution has three parts, a base and two “equalization” contributions. One of those, known in PERA-speak as the SAED, is supposed to come from employer funds that otherwise would have gone to wage increases. The SAED is proposed to total 5 percent of payroll in 2017.)

• Under the plan, the COLA freeze and the increased employer contributions could be reduced once PERA reaches 110 percent funding but would be reimposed if funding dropped below 90 percent.

Those aren’t the only elements of the rescue plan. Other important features include:

  • Calculating an employee’s highest average salary on five years of pay, not the three currently used. This would have the effect of reducing pension payouts. (If approved, this would apply to non-vested employees – those with less than five years of service.)
  • Changing the rules for when an employee can retire with full benefits. The proposed rule for employees not yet vested would require 30 years of service and age 60 for full retirement, a so-called “rule of 90.” (People hired since 2007 are covered by a rule of 85, with a minimum retirement age of 55. Workers hired before 2007 are under a rule of 80 with a minimum age of 50.)
  • Tightening the rules for early retirement.
  • Eliminating the 50 percent match paid to non-vested (fewer than five years of service) employees who leave service and request a withdrawal of their PERA contributions.
  • Requiring contributions from retirees who return to work in a PERA covered job. (Such post-retirement work currently is limited to 110 days a year without affecting pension benefits. But, this change would have the effect of reducing a person’s pay from a post-retirement job.)

The proposed rescue plan would not apply to the new division for Denver Public Schools employees, who join PERA next Jan. 1.)

“We all want to save PERA, but …”

As Dan Daly, chief lobbyist for the Colorado Education Association notes, “Everybody understands we’ve got to do something to fix the system.”

But, the CEA and other groups already have concerns about the PERA plan.

“We would support the ‘2+2+2’ plan, but it’s the ‘Plus” that PERA has proposed that creates problems,” Daly said.

He’s concerned about the shift from three to five-year salary averaging and fears that some provisions proposed could create incentives for people to retire early. “You could sort of get a run-on-the-bank kind of thing.”

The CEA and other groups also support the idea of setting triggers for ending or easing the COLA freeze and employer contributions but aren’t sure 90 percent and 110 percent are the correct levels.

Daly noted that if PERA ever achieves a surplus, its funds could become a target for cash-hungry legislators, as has happened with Pinnacol Assurance, the state-affiliated workers’ compensation insurer.

Ken DeLay, executive director of the Colorado Association of School Boards, said, “Assuming they (PERA) have done their homework, the concept they’ve come up with seems pretty sound.”

But, “We are worried about the employer contributions … that’s a concern for our members,” DeLay said. “I think we’re going to want to see the whole bill.”

Last year employers paid $430 million into the school division trust fund.

DeLay said school boards also are worried about possible “incentives for mass early retirements. … We don’t want a rush for the door.”

He also alluded to the fact that increased PERA contributions by districts could squeeze the amount of money available for salary increases. Higher contributions would “continue to exacerbate those kinds of conversations” between school boards and teacher unions.

Bruce Caughey, deputy executive director of the Colorado Association of School Executives, wrote this to his members in a recent newsletter: “While the coalition applauds all of the long hours and effort PERA has put into this process and agrees with the guiding principles that were used, we are concerned that the [PERA] board has gone beyond what it may need to accomplish.”

The coalition Caughey referred to is the Colorado Coalition for Retirement Security, a group of nine employee-oriented groups that is monitoring the issue. Education-related members include the American Federation of Teachers/Colorado, CASE and CASB.

A coalition statement said, “We are concerned that the [PERA] board is forgetting the additional framework we find ourselves working in and that is a down economy – we are facing budget cuts at the city and state and school level, employees are being furloughed and health care costs are sky rocketing.”

Let the games begin

Given the amounts of money and numbers of people involved, the PERA reform plan is shaping up as a major fight in the 2010 legislature.

Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, predicts a “knock down, drag out” battle that “will make for some interesting bedfellows.” (Local governments have a smaller stake in the battle, since some larger cities and many counties aren’t in PERA. Still, local governments will be watching closely, Mamet said, noting that the recession has hit cities and county revenues hard because of their reliance on sales taxes. School districts get their money from state aid and local property taxes.)

PERA is “obviously gearing up for some heavy-duty lobbying,” one observer noted. The agency has hired two lobbyists from the firm Colorado Communique, Collon Kennedy and Steve Adams, former president of the Colorado AFL-CIO.

The pension system also has hired Mary Alice Mandarich, a well-connected Democratic lobbyist who formerly was chief of staff for Senate Democrats and who worked on campaigns for former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, former Gov. Roy Romer and gubernatorial candidate Gail Schoettler.

Coalition members have their own lobbyists, and the well-staffed higher education lobby is sure to be involved in this issue as well.

While many interests will want legislators to tinker with parts of the plan, PERA is expected to argue that it’s a seamless whole and shouldn’t be cut up.

All that lobbying power will be focused on 100 legislators who will also be wrestling with massive budget cuts and, in many cases, calculating their re-election chances in November 2010.

PERA at a glance

The plan has four divisions with separate trust funds – school, state (including some higher ed employees), local government and judicial. DPS employees will be in a separate, fifth division. PERA-covered employees aren’t eligible for Social Security.

Overall, the system has 190,684 active members, 81,248 benefit recipients and 143,619 inactive members (people with eligibility but no longer working in PERA-covered jobs.)

While often thought of as the state pension system, PERA membership is dominated by employees of schools and colleges. Of PERA’s 190,684 active members, 118,547 are in the school division, which includes all districts in the state except Denver. Some 44,806 people receive benefits from the school division.

In 2008 employers paid more than $430 million into the school division trust fund while employees contributed about $304 million. There were about $1.4 billion in benefit payments. Because of the hit taken in PERA’s investments, in 2008 the net assets of the school division trust fund dropped from about $23 billion at the beginning of the year to about $16 billion at year’s end.

The state division includes employees of 28 colleges, universities and other education agencies, with 11,679 members (about 20 percent) accounted for just by the University of Colorado, Colorado State, Metro State and Front Range Community College. Some higher ed employees have access to other retirement plans.

For the overall PERA system, the average age at retirement was 58 with about 23 years of service, the average age of current retirees is 69 and the average monthly benefit is $2,772.

(Statistical information in this article was taken from PERA documents.)

Do your homework

(Note: You’ll need the latest version of Adobe Reader to open PDF documents from the PERA website.)

More grades?

Schools with lots of transfer students say A-F labels don’t fit

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

Schools with large numbers of kids who transfer in or out should get an extra grade from Indiana’s A-F system, a legislative committee said Thursday.

The proposal, backed by both Democrats and Republicans on the House Education Committee, would give schools a second A-F grade based just on the scores of students who have attended for at least a year.

The goal is to account for schools with “high mobility,” common in poor neighborhoods where families move frequently and kids sometimes change schools several times in a single school year. When kids change schools, their test scores often sink. Lawmakers argued the schools where they end up on test day can be unfairly saddled with a low grade that doesn’t necessarily reflect the quality of teaching at the school.

Even so, the schools will still be judged the same as all schools in Indiana on their first A-F grade.

The proposal was added as an amendment to House Bill 1384, which is mostly aimed at clarifying how high school graduation rate is calculated. The bill passed out of committee today, 8-4. It next heads to the full House for a vote, likely later this week.

The amended bill would require the Indiana State Board of Education to first define a “high-mobility” school. Then, starting in the 2018-19 school year, the board would assign those schools both the typical grade based primarily on state tests and a second grade that only considers the test and other academic data of students who have attended the school for one year or more.

The second grade could not be used by the state board to make decisions about state sanctions, the bill says. But it would help parents and others better understand the circumstances at the school, said Rep. Bob Behning, the bill’s author and chairman of the education committee.

“Especially in our urban centers, there are several schools … that have very high mobility rates,” Behning said. “We could all recognize that if you’re being moved from school A to school B to school C to school D in a year, it’s going to be very difficult for your performance to be where it needs to be.”

The bill also makes a similar change to high school graduation rates, which would help Indiana better comply with new federal law, Behning said. The bill would alter the graduation rate calculation so that students who drop out would only count in a school’s rate if they attended that school for at least 90 percent of the school year. Otherwise, their graduation data gets counted at the previous school they attended for the longest time.

Melissa Brown, head of Indiana Connections Academy, one of the largest online schools in the state, testified in support of the bill. She said the graduation rate change and second letter grade better reflect the work they’re doing with students.

“We really believe that if we can keep a student, we can help them,” Brown said.

Virtual schools have performed poorly on state tests, which some school leaders argue is because they serve a challenging population of students, including those who frequently move and switch schools, come to school far behind grade level and have other learning difficulties that make them more difficult to educate.

Read: The broken promise of Indiana’s online schools

Indiana Connections Academy sees about 20 to 25 percent of students come and go each year, Brown said. Other virtual schools, such as Hoosier Academies, have reported more than double that rate.

Although the rates for individual schools could vary widely, Beech Grove schools had the highest district mobility rate in 2015 in Marion County, where 20.1 percent of students left a Beech Grove school to go outside the district, according to state data. Franklin Township had the lowest, with 8.5 percent. Generally, transfer within districts was much lower.

In IPS, the rate was 18.4 percent for students leaving to attend a school in another district, and 8.2 percent of students left their home school to attend another in IPS.

Brown said she thinks the second school grade could help all schools that see high turnover, but it also could dispel some misinformation about what virtual schools are for — it’s not a “magic pill” for kids who are far behind, she said, a scenario she encounters frequently.

“At the end of the day, it’s really about what’s best for the kid,” Brown said. “And it’s not best to send a student to another school with two weeks left in the semester expecting a miracle to happen.”

new plan

Lawmakers want to allow appeals before low-rated private schools lose vouchers

PHOTO: Shaina Cavazos
Rep. Bob Behning, chairman of the House Education Committee, authored HB 1384, in which voucher language was added late last week.

Indiana House lawmakers signaled support today for a plan to loosen restrictions for private schools accepting state voucher dollars.

Two proposal were amended into the existing House Bill 1384, which is mostly aimed at clarifying how high school graduation rate is calculated. One would allow private schools to appeal to the Indiana State Board of Education to keep receiving vouchers even if they are repeatedly graded an F. The other would allow new “freeway” private schools the chance to begin receiving vouchers more quickly.

Indiana, already a state with one of the most robust taxpayer-funded voucher programs in the country, has made small steps toward broadening the program since the original voucher law passed in 2011 — and today’s amendments could represent two more if they become law. Vouchers shift state money from public schools to pay private school tuition for poor and middle class children.

Under current state law, private schools cannot accept new voucher students for one year after the school is graded a D or F for two straight years. If a school reaches a third year with low grades, it can’t accept new voucher students until it raises its grade to a C or higher for two consecutive years.

Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, the bill’s author, said private schools should have the right to appeal those consequences to the state board.

Right now, he said, they “have no redress.”  But public schools, he said, can appeal to the state board.

Behning said the innovation schools and transformation zones in Indianapolis Public Schools were a “perfect example” for why schools need an appeal process because schools that otherwise would face state takeover or other sanctions can instead get a reprieve to start over with a new management approach.

In the case of troubled private schools receiving vouchers, Behning said, there should be an equal opportunity for the state board to allow them time to improve.

”There are tools already available for traditional public schools and for charters that are not available for vouchers,” he said.

But Democrats on the House Education Committee opposed both proposals, arguing they provided more leeway to private schools than traditional public schools have.

“Vouchers are supposed to be the answer, the cure-all, the panacea for what’s going on in traditional schools,” said Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary. “If you gave an amendment that said this would be possible for both of them, leveling the playing field, then I would support it.”

The second measure would allow the Indiana State Board of Education to consider a private school accredited and allow it to immediately begin receiving vouchers once it has entered into a contract to become a “freeway school” — a type of state accreditation that has few regulations and requirements compared to full accreditation.Typically, it might take a year or so to become officially accredited.

Indiana’s voucher program is projected to grow over the next two years to more than 38,000 students, at an anticipated cost — according to a House budget draft — of about $160 million in 2019. Currently in Indiana, there are 316 private schools that can accept vouchers.

The voucher amendments passed along party lines last week, and the entire bill passed out of committee today, 8-4. It next heads to the full House for a vote, likely later this week.