Love:
šš¼š¹š¹š¼š ššµš² š š¼š»š²š
The district spends $š®š±š¬ šŗš¶š¹š¹š¶š¼š» š® šš²š®šæ on pensions and retiree health benefits. Every dollar goes to retired employees. Zero reaches a working teacher or a classroom. This spending spiral stems from a miscalculation the state was warned about two decades ago.
š¦š¼šŗš²š¼š»š² š§šæš¶š²š± šš¼ š¦šš¼š½ š§šµš¶š
Stanford lecturer David Crane sat on the State Teachers Retirement System board in 2006. He warned them their assumed 8% investment return was fantasy and said 6.2% was realistic. The state Senate kicked him off the board.
Why? Lower return assumptions mean higher pension contributions. Higher contributions mean less money for salary negotiations today. The teachers union had every incentive to keep the fantasy alive, and unions own the California legislature.
He was right. STRS and CalPERS have earned 6.45% and 7.2% since 1999. The gap between promised and actual returns forced taxpayers to cover $š±šµšÆ šÆš¶š¹š¹š¶š¼š» in shortfalls. Half a trillion dollars that could have funded salaries and classrooms instead went to covering a bet the pension board was warned it would lose.
āā
No one mentioned the real reason SFUSD doesnāt pay its teachers more. District spending on pensions and other retirement costs has grown at nearly five times the rate of school revenues, squeezing out funds needed for teachersā salaries.




