Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The Tier 2 difference

Posted in:

Illinois

* Illinois Issues takes a look at the difference between Tier One and Tier Two teacher pensions. Keep in mind here that Tier Two kicked in on January 1, 2011…

The National Council on Teacher Quality reviewed the state of teacher pensions across the country in a 2015 report, highlighting Illinois as one of the most egregious examples of states combating a crisis on the backs of new teachers. Starring in the hypothetical scenario are two teachers in the Springfield Public School District — both have similar credentials and start and stop teaching at the same ages, 25 and 55. Amy started in November 2010, Allison just two months later, in January 2011.

Based on the school district’s salary schedule and the NCTQ’s calculations, Allison will end her 30-year teaching career with barely more than $243,000 in pension wealth. Amy’s pension, on the other hand, will be valued at nearly $550,000. Both women contributed the same portion of their pay toward retirement, and they were on identical salary schedules throughout their careers. That means they both had about $200,000 automatically deducted from their paychecks and funneled to the retirement system while they were teachers. But Amy will have a much more comfortable retirement.

Allison, hired in 2011, joined a second tier of public sector employees who are still required to pay the same portion of their salary toward retirement but who get a substantially lesser benefit from the system. In fact, their benefit might be so little as to be illegal under federal law.

* While we’re talking about Illinois Issues, I received this e-mail from Executive Editor Jamey Dunn-Thomason today…

We plan to post a new Illinois Issues in-depth piece (with accompanying radio component) every Thursday and send out an email alert in the morning. I don’t know if you are on our mailing list. We are still kind of working on compiling/merging that info. Thought you might like to get the alerts. You can subscribe at the bottom.

You really should click here to subscribe. It’s free and they do great work over there.

Plus, Jamey’s a friend and a big fan of this site. So help them out!

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:05 am

Comments

Are Tier 2 teachers eligible for Social Security?

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:10 am
===Are Tier 2 teachers eligible for Social Security? ===

No.

And that will likely be the core of the upcoming debate.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:13 am
No, Tier 2 teachers are not eligible for SS. Big problem down the road. Big. And the Guv wants a Tier 3…

Comment by Corporate Thug Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:14 am
Just get out of the pension business for good and offer 5% 401K matches + Social Security. Will require full upfront matching contributions as happens in the private sector.

Comment by Very Fed Up Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:15 am
Tier 2 was the solution to the pension crise. It’s also a difficult fact to deal with for those who are convinced that teacher and government employee benefits are too generous. When those same public employee critics learn that Tier 2 was largely done by Democrats, I’m guessing some reach for Tylenol, and others for Jack Daniels.

Comment by AC Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:18 am
What will be Amy’s monthly pension at 55? What will be Allison’s monthly pension at 55? What would either ladies social security payment be at 55???

Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:23 am
Without social security I have to believe this does not meet the guidelines to the Safe Harbor Rule. Which basically means under Tier 2 they are receiving less than the minimum amount an individual would receive from Social Security.

Does anybody know consequences if these guidelines aren’t met?

Comment by Almost the Weekend Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:24 am
Those who lecture us that raising taxes will incentivize people to leave Illinois (you know…how all the McDonalds will move to Indiana), wont offering teachers a much lessor pension plan incentivize the best to go elsewhere ? I recall one of the largest Illinois pensions was to a professor of Heart Surgery. Don’t we want high quality ?

Comment by Anotherretiree Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:26 am
Every year, I give tours of my program for adults with developmental disabilities to college students majoring in Special Education. I tell them that it is a rewarding field of endeavor. Then, I tell them to get jobs anywhere but Illinois.

Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:27 am
“Just get out of the pension business for good and offer 5% 401K matches + Social Security. Will require full upfront matching contributions as happens in the private sector.”

Yeah right, it’s just that easy. Teachers, whether Tier 1 or Tier 2 cannot collect social security.

Comment by East Central Illinois Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:28 am
Very Fed Up, that would cost the State more money than what we already face. On the one hand, you’re increasing benefits higher than tier 2. On the other, you’re taking cash, and the interest earned on that cash out of the DB system which would then have to be made up by taxpayers.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:30 am
@11:23

Social security at 55=0.0 for anyone.

Social security for Amy and Allison=0.0 at any age.

Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:30 am
Notice the careful phrasing…”stop teaching at 55″. Not “retired at 55″ or “start collecting retirement benefits at 55″.

Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:32 am
As to joining Social Security, do you think school districts want to pay the 6.2% employer contribution? That is a pretty big roadblock. Transition is possible. State employees used to not get Social Security, but they opted to join in the mid 80’s I believe. When the State opted in, it only applied to new employees gong forward. I would imagine a “forced” transition if the plan does violate federal law would be messier.

Comment by Salty Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:33 am
I can’t say enough good things about the team at Illinois Issues.

Comment by The Captain Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:36 am
. . . Without social security I have to believe this does not meet the guidelines to the Safe Harbor Rule. Which basically means under Tier 2 they are receiving less than the minimum amount an individual would receive from Social Security. Does anybody know consequences if these guidelines aren’t met? . . .

I believe the employer would owe retroactive FICA contributions. Which means: Holy Budget Explosion, Batman

Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:36 am
==Just get out of the pension business for good and offer 5% 401K matches + Social Security.==

Theoretically, for 11.2% of retirement cost today in exchange for none of the risk to provide extra funding after retirement would be an excellent deal for the taxpayers for Tier 1. Tier 2, maybe. Keep in mind, normal costs to support pensions

Folks seem to devalue the risks involved in funding pensions. Currently, taxpayers assume all the risk, yet don’t charge a premium for that risk like any other investment vehicle would.

Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:41 am
If one looks at inflation over the last 30 years, Social Security’ COLAs, and the State pension systems’ COMPOUNDED 3% AAI have kept pace with inflation at about the same pace.

“The Consumer Price Index has gone from 97.6 in 1982 to 229.6 in 2012. The cost of living has more than doubled over this 30-year period. In other words, a person receiving a pension of $9,760 in 1982 would need a pension of $22,960 in 2012 to maintain the same purchasing power.

Over this same 30-year period, a person in the State University Retirement System earning a $10,000 pension is receiving $24,272.62 in 2012 under the current AAI system — a 3-percent compounded annual increase.

If a person is part of the current U.S. Social Security system and receiving a $10,000 pension in 1982, he would receive $24,175.23 in 2012, reflecting the Social Security system COLA.

On the other hand, using the Tier 2 SIMPLE interest rate of 3%, a person with a $10,000 pension in 1982, would only be receiving $19,000 in 2012, and would not have kept up with inflation.

Comment by Joe M Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:41 am
I got some of those figures (SS and Tier 1) from an article citing Robert Rich, retired U of I professor. For the Tier 2 figures, I uses a simple interest calculator I found online.

Comment by Joe M Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:43 am
One problem with this is the state actually will have to pay the employer contribution to Social Security with no pension holidays. So they have to put in real money not promises.

Comment by illinifan Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:43 am
Tier 2 pushed the envelope as far as it could be done. It substantially solves the fiscal problem 30 years out. It doesn’t help for much of the intervening period.

Comment by walker Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:44 am
sorry…normal costs to support pensions can vary from 8-10% yearly for TRS.

Folks keep saying how expensive the SS contribution would be but, over the long-term, it is way cheaper. As a taxpayer, I would take that trade in a heartbeat. As a teacher, I would run away as fast as I could from any SS conversation.

Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:45 am
DuPage, it was somewhat of a trick question.

But, nobody has listed the monthly pensions at 55 for Amy or Allison.

Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:46 am
==Just get out of the pension business for good and offer 5% 401K matches + Social Security. Will require full upfront matching contributions as happens in the private sector.==

The employer (state or school district) contributing 6.2% plus 4-5% matching 403b contributions would be more expensive than the employer contribution cost of funding their half of the pensions. If the state had even consistently made 6.2% contributions towards the pensions they were saving by being exempt from social security, we would be in a much better funding position now.

Comment by Concerned Educator Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:46 am
==It substantially solves the fiscal problem 30 years out. ==

It only solves the problem if it’s legal. For comparison, see SB1.

Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:46 am
My wife is a Tier 2 teacher. I wish she could opt-out.

Comment by Pothole Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:57 am
From the IT article:

“Teachers hired after 2011, however, have a different benefit structure. In fact, pension contributions from new teachers, like the fictional Allison from the NCTQ report, end up subsidizing the benefits of teachers, like her colleague Amy.”

“For many of those teachers, pensions will never become real. It takes 10 years of service for Illinois teachers in Tier II to “vest” in their plan. In most states, vesting in a pension plan marks the point at which employees become eligible to collect employer contributions to their retirement. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality’s pension report, Illinois teachers are some of the only ones nationwide who must vest before they are even able to recover all of their own contributions. And most teachers don’t even stay in the field that long. Money they never become eligible to collect simply stays with the system.”

https://trs.illinois.gov/members/pubs/tier2guide/Refunds.pdf

Question- how much of the overall pension plan was predicated on teachers actually getting 30 years in? Many get burned out and cash out because they have other economic obligations that need to be met, even if that means sacrificing earnings on pension contributions.

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:57 am
Name Withheld, it’s been on the books for five years now. How do you suppose an Illinois court is going to find it unconstitutional?

And on safe harbor, I thought the systems came to the conclusion that those minimum provisions were met.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 11:57 am
Bernie Madoff didn’t come close to this ponzu scheme. They have transferred the cost of making TRS tier one solvent thru the future contributions of the Tier two participants. As the years go by the tier two contributions will essential float the cost of tier one

Comment by Sue Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:00 pm
I wonder how the legislators who voted for tier 2 would like their pensions to cost so much but pay back so little? A lousy pension is certainly not likely to attract the best and the brightest into the classroom.

Comment by nona Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:04 pm
Juice - it hasn’t been challenged yet. It would take someone actually in Tier II to challenge it. My guess is that many of them are younger people. You will likely see a challenge as more investigations of the rammifications of Tier II become known.

Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:08 pm
If a State Won’t make required pension contributions to a Defined Benefit Plan, what evidence is there they would pay the matching contributions to a Defined Contribution Plan??????????

Comment by Ben Franklin Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:09 pm
Juice: Mostly right. Except what analysis showed was that almost 100 percent Tier 2 would not cause SSN problems– if only we knew what SSN rules would be 30 plus years out. Net: fiscally handled under any likely scenario. Legal issues probably out of the barn by now.

Comment by walker Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:09 pm
Over a expected life span to 80 years and retiring at age 60 a tier one teacher will make around a quarter million dollars more than the tier 2 teacher all things being equal. The tier 2 plan is quite a bit more than what social security pays. Most people that retire at 62 make less that 2k per month.

Comment by Nieva Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:09 pm
RNUG, of course, is the resident authority. Hopefully, I haven’t spoken out of school on matters which are not my area of expertise.

Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:10 pm
Basically tier 2 workers are being forced to subsidize the unfunded liability for tier I. I wonder if it would be legal for someone in the private sector to sell an annuity that collected twice as much as the value of the coverage?

Comment by nona Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:14 pm
The idea of course of slightly shaving those Tier 1 pensions to help provide a better retirement and benefits for the Tier 2 hires, is off the table thanks to the IL Constitution.

Comment by ZC Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:16 pm
Tiers are constitutional and not in violation of Article 13, Section 5. At least not yet.
Just wait until Tier 3 hits (but Social Security will probably kick in for this group if the benefits get much lower).

Comment by Jake From Elwood Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:19 pm
==On the other hand, using the Tier 2 SIMPLE interest rate of 3%, a person with a $10,000 pension in 1982, would only be receiving $19,000 in 2012, and would not have kept up with inflation. ==

I think I made a mistake on the Tier2 simple interest scenario. With 3% simple interest, for each of the 20 years - and for 2012 - and every year of their retirement, their original $10,000 pension would be $10,300.00 - definitely not keeping up with inflation or social security.

Many someone with more math and statistics skills than I have, can say if this is correct?

Comment by Joe M Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:19 pm
Excuse me while I try to work up some sympathy for those able to retire with a pension at 55. The vast majority of Illinois residents are only able to retire at 66 with social security.

I’m tired of hearing that government employees don’t get social security. If you are able to retire on a pension in your 40’s (a few), or 50’s (virtually all) you have plenty of time to qualify for social security (or another government pension) in addition.

Comment by tberry Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:19 pm
So a Tier II teacher at 55 would make more than a person making a similar wage in the private sector who has to wait until 66 or 67 to retire???

Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:20 pm
It has been stated over and over again in this blog and elsewhere that a defined benefit plan when actually funded correctly, as IMRF has been, is the lowest cost way to fund public pensions for taxpayers. That’d be a real hoot to see the Social Security funds have to be paid—-no holidays, no excuses! Would there ever be whining then!!!

Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:21 pm
There is a formula for defining your benefit at certain ages with certain years of service. If one “takes” retirement at 55 you pay a penalty to do so and take a reduced benefit, at least as a teacher. Before making statements about how virtually all can retire in their 50’s, you really should educate yourself. Anyone in any job in any sector can retire at any age. How you pay your expenses is a different matter. Military can retire in their 40’s. Complaints?

Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:25 pm
anon, Tier II employees can’t retire at 55.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:28 pm
==Currently, taxpayers assume all the risk, yet don’t charge a premium for that risk like any other investment vehicle would.==

The taxpayers also get the benefits when a retiree dies early or if investment of the funds exceeds projections. And it does happen. One of the things that helped kill defined benefit plans in the private sector was the fact that, when investment returns exceeded projections, the companies would close the plans in order to grab the excess value in the pension fund.

Comment by Anon. Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:34 pm
First of all, therry, there aren’t many teachers or state workers in TRS/SURS (the plans w/o SS coverage) lamenting about not receiving SS. That’s because of the Federal law that knocks off as much as 75% of any SS benefit they may earn. (See GPO/WEP in the Google.)

Secondly, for you 401k fans, as you’re calculating “costs” and “savings” don’t forget you can only do it going forward (maybe) and you still have $111 billion in unfunded to pay off.

Finally, I don’t think the systems ever issued formal statements on Tier 2 and Safe Harbor.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:36 pm
Well ok, but how much of the money from those pension plans went into Rauner’s pocket for “fees”?

/snark

Comment by Ghostbusters Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:40 pm
Juice, if tier II can’t retire until 67, the article should have figured out how much she will have at age 67.

Comment by Southwest Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:43 pm
Southwest is correct if in fact Tier 2 employees can’t retire until 67

Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:46 pm
@Southwest The Tier II employee would still only have the same amount. The benefit is (x% per years of service * Final Average Compensation). Once you stop working the money you get per month doesn’t change hence Defined Benefit as opposed to Defined Contribution.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:49 pm
Tier 2 for TRS does not pay 3% simple annual increases. It pays 1/2 the rate of inflation or 3%, whichever is less, non- compounded. The normal cost to the employer is less than zero, since the 9.4% paid by the employee more than fully funds the pension. So, the salary cap increases at 1/2 the rate of inflation. This, as well as the annu increase rate, will lead to an actuarial value less than social security for higher wage earners. Once this happens the Safe Harbor provision longer applies for those wage earners

Comment by Archimedes Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:50 pm
Defined contribution plans are paid in full every pay period and are under control of the employee not politicians. Of a great benefit to the public no longer can political cronies bounce around state agencies retiring with 3 pensions by age 60. You get out what you put in and have to live by the same rules as the rest of us regarding retirement.

Comment by Very Fed Up Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 12:53 pm
If you work for a public school district and pay into TRS, move to a university and pay into SURS, and move to a state agency and pay into SERS and Social Security, you will get 1 state pension, not 3. And under federal law your Social Security will be reduced based on the number of years you paid into TRS and SURS, systems which are not coordinated with Social Security. Obviously, a lot of misinformation out there.

Comment by Retiree Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:14 pm
Rich–regarding teacher shortages….seeing some of that now. It’s great to be in a teacher education program with high hopes of making a difference until those grads see just how little people (taxpayers) think of their high hopes and training. Several recent grads my daughter’s age have opted out for “better pay and respect” after a year or so in teaching. If we do in fact have critical shortages in the near future, what do people think they’ll have to pay teachers then?

Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:15 pm
When will people ever understand that 401k’s and Social Security were NEVER intended to be the sole source of retirement income and are extremely different in nature and purpose from a PENSION !? 401k’s (and Social Security supplements for that matter) shouldn’t even be involved in the same discussion with pensions.

Comment by forwhatitsworth Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:19 pm
forwhatitsworth there is no doubt about it. People should also regularly set aside savings to supplement a 401K and social security.

Comment by Very Fed Up Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:21 pm
==what do people think they’ll have to pay teachers then?==

Following up on my comment it occured to me that since people who don’t have any children in school anymore think just anyone can teach, maybe we’ll see standards lowered to a GED or high school diploma to qualify for a teaching job. Of course, when their own children are involved, a PhD and 20 years experience isn’t good enough. But they want them to work for 30K too. With no pensions.

Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:23 pm
The word pension has become a bad word. The politicians and press have whipped the haters into a frenzy thinking everyone is getting some kind of 6 figure pension after working 20 years. You think that the reality of those tier 2 numbers would have silenced that drumbeat yet it only grows stronger. Though there may be some bad teachers, teachers are not the bad guys here. Disturbing times indeed.

Comment by Beatgrunt Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:25 pm
Smells like a Ponzi Scheme.

Comment by Speaking the Truth Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:39 pm
== Just get out of the pension business for good and offer 5% 401K matches + Social Security. Will require full upfront matching contributions as happens in the private sector. ==

Which will be more costly than the current system(s) … since the State will not be able to skip or defer those payments.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:40 pm
== Tier 2 was the solution to the pension crise. ==

Tier 2 was ONE HALF of the pension solution. The OTHER HALF was a PERMANENT tax increase.

For examples where this worked, see California, etc.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:42 pm
== State employees used to not get Social Security, but they opted to join in the mid 80’s I believe. When the State opted in, it only applied to new employees gong forward. ==

It occurred in the 1970 - 1972 time frame. And all employees got a choice on remaining uncoordinated (no SS) or coordinated (state pension + SS) going forward.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:46 pm
== And on safe harbor, I thought the systems came to the conclusion that those minimum provisions were met. ==

Currently yes, in the future, probably not, depending on the assumptions you use

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:49 pm
The state should never have been able to skip or defer payments. Public unions would gain a lot more credibility with the public if they railed against the politicians who lied to them. It’s beyond comprehensions that it’s not a mandatory part of anyone accepting their campaign contribution that they not vote for Madigan to retain his speakership.

Comment by Very Fed Up Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:51 pm
== Tier 2 for TRS does not pay 3% simple annual increases. It pays 1/2 the rate of inflation or 3%, whichever is less, non- compounded.==

Thanks Archimedes for the information! Fortunately, Robert Rich had provided a comparison for that correct Tier 2 scenario also:

“However, if this same person was limited to one half of the consumer price index (the current IGPA proposal), he would be receiving a pension of $15,687.31 in 2012 and would have lost about $8,500 in purchasing power.”

So to summarize, if one was receiving $10,000 in retirement in 1980, they would be receiving the following in 2012:

Social Security: $24,175.23
Tier 1: $24,272.62
Tier 2: $15,687.31

And to keep up with the cost of inflation since 1980, they would need to be receiving $22,960 in 2012

Comment by Joe M Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 1:53 pm
== The state should never have been able to skip or defer payments. ==

While I agree, the IL SC in IFT v Lindberg (and subsequent rulings) said the GA could do whatever they wanted to on funding.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 2:01 pm
From the TRS website - Tier 1 can retire at age 55 but there is a 6% per year penalty for each year under age 60 unless they have 35 years service. Tier II must wait until age 67 to retire with no penalty or they cab retire at age 62 with a 6% per year penalty for each year less than 67. I’m no expert but with this drastic difference in eligibility requirements the comparison is lacking (IMHO).

Comment by sonny chiss Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 2:39 pm
RNUG, correct on the safe harbor. And the issue is related mostly to the Tier II Wage cap vs the SS wage cap. So even tho the extent the state would be out of compliance (likely a long time in the future) it is a fairly easy and cheap fix.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 2:42 pm
The rumors of teacher shortages have been greatly exaggerated for decades now:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/04/30/study-new-teacher-attrition-is-lower-than-previously-thought/

The only consistent skill set shortage across the country is special-ed teachers. Perhaps if they formed their own union, they could receive better pay considering their specialty and demand for their services over their coworkers, and the shortage would be resolved.

And IL currently has a huge oversupply of elementary teachers to fill whatever openings exist:

http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/50supplyDemand_473205

And US and IL births have been in steady decline since 2007 (probably due to the recession). Unless those births are replaced by immigration, the demand for teachers as these kids age will decline as well. And considering the population outflow here lately, I don’t foresee significant population gains here.

Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 2:45 pm
So, after 30 years in retirement tier 1 for teachers = social security. Why are people continually saying teachers make this great pension and how unfair it is? And based on the above teir 2 numbers, whos’ going gyo able to afford to teach long enough to earn a pension, when they won’t even make social security figures? Remember social security by itself isn’t enough to live on. That’s why the 401k and pension came into play.

Comment by Thoughts Matter Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 2:53 pm
=The rumors of teacher shortages have been greatly exaggerated for decades now:=

Except we are not hiring teachers in Washington DC.

Just curious how many teachers/administrators have you hired to be an authority?

Teacher availability is heavily dependent on geography. True, no shortage of primary teachers. Try hiring a business teacher these days or an upper level science teacher.

The real issue is the rapid decline in education program enrollments in just a few short years. Those still in the job pool that have been out of the classroom for a few years may not be all that desirable as skills diminish without practice, sometimes.

Either way, thanks for sharing your extensive experience. /s

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jul 2, 15 @ 3:47 pm