How well each state funds its teachers' pensions
Pensions: overview & search · every tracked plan
Nebraska Schools holds more than every dollar it owes. Illinois Universities holds less than half. Across the 43 US teacher retirement plans tracked here the gap is wide, and widest in the plans whose work is not covered by Social Security — 16 of these plans. Every figure below compares funding health, not how generous a pension is, and each plan carries its Social-Security status and the investment return it assumes, so nothing is compared apples to oranges.
Worst funded
47%
Illinois Universities · FY2025
Best funded
102%
Nebraska Schools · FY2025
No Social Security
16of 43
cover jobs not in Social Security
Median funded
77%
across 43 plans
The whole picture, one dot per plan
Each dot is one plan. Left is worse funded, right is better. Higher up means the plan assumes a bolder investment return — which flatters its funding. The plans to watch sit toward the upper-left and are red: worst funded, on the boldest assumption, and covering work that is outside Social Security. Reporting years differ by a plan or so; use the year buttons to see just one year for a like-for-like view.
Every plan, in a table
The full 43 plans, ranked best-funded first, with each plan's own reported year.
Open the full table of all 43 plans (rank 1 = best funded)
| # | Plan | State | Funded | Assumed | Social Security | Total assets | Members | Assets / member | As of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nebraska Schools | Nebraska | 102% | 7.0% | Yes | $18.5bn | 106,690 | $174k | FY2025 |
| 2 | New York State Teachers | New York | 99% | 7.0% | Yes | $154.2bn | 454,804 | $339k | FY2025 |
| 3 | Maine State and Teacher | Maine | 97% | 6.5% | No | $16.9bn | 130,197 | $130k | FY2025 |
| 3 | Washington Teachers Plan 2/3 | Washington | 97% | 7.0% | Yes | $30.1bn | 134,857 | $224k | FY2025 |
| 5 | DC Teachers | District of Columbia | 95% | 6.2% | No | $3.8bn | 14,304 | $262k | FY2025 |
| 6 | Denver (CO) Schools | Colorado | 89% | 7.2% | No | $5.3bn | 46,007 | $115k | FY2025 |
| 7 | Missouri Teachers | Missouri | 89% | 7.3% | No | $55.6bn | 172,202 | $323k | FY2025 |
| 8 | West Virginia Teachers | West Virginia | 86% | 7.2% | Yes | $10.8bn | 85,746 | $126k | FY2025 |
| 9 | New York City (NY)Teachers | New York | 85% | 7.0% | Yes | $82.1bn | 269,696 | $304k | FY2025 |
| 9 | University of California | California | 85% | 6.8% | Yes | $110.8bn | 378,231 | $293k | FY2025 |
| 11 | Arkansas Teachers | Arkansas | 84% | 7.2% | Yes | $23.7bn | 143,663 | $165k | FY2025 |
| 12 | Washington Teachers Plan 1 | Washington | 82% | 7.0% | Yes | $7.0bn | 27,754 | $254k | FY2025 |
| 13 | Minnesota Teachers | Minnesota | 82% | 7.0% | Yes | $31.3bn | 221,196 | $141k | FY2025 |
| 14 | Ohio Teachers | Ohio | 81% | 7.0% | No | $92.7bn | n/a | n/a | FY2025 |
| 15 | Indiana Teachers | Indiana | 80% | 6.2% | Yes | $19.3bn | 140,793 | $137k | FY2025 |
| 16 | Louisiana Teachers | Louisiana | 80% | 7.2% | No | $29.3bn | 221,684 | $132k | FY2025 |
| 17 | Oklahoma Teachers | Oklahoma | 80% | 7.0% | Yes | $24.7bn | 210,405 | $117k | FY2025 |
| 18 | Alaska Teachers | Alaska | 78% | 7.2% | No | $6.5bn | 19,041 | $340k | FY2025 |
| 18 | Georgia Teachers | Georgia | 78% | 6.9% | Yes | $116.8bn | 535,836 | $218k | FY2025 |
| 20 | Fairfax County (VA) Schools | Virginia | 78% | 7.0% | Yes | $3.4bn | 46,862 | $73k | FY2025 |
| 20 | Texas Teachers | Texas | 78% | 7.0% | No | $226.3bn | 2,102,992 | $108k | FY2025 |
| 22 | Maryland Teachers | Maryland | 77% | 6.8% | Yes | $44.2bn | 225,605 | $196k | FY2025 |
| 23 | California Teachers | California | 77% | 7.0% | No | $370.2bn | 1,040,301 | $356k | FY2025 |
| 24 | Michigan Public Schools | Michigan | 75% | 6.0% | Yes | $78.7bn | 401,481 | $196k | FY2025 |
| 25 | Knox County (TN) Teachers | Tennessee | 74% | 5.5% | Yes | $40m | 332 | $119k | FY2025 |
| 26 | Montana Teachers | Montana | 73% | 7.3% | Yes | $5.4bn | 46,743 | $116k | FY2025 |
| 26 | North Dakota Teachers | North Dakota | 73% | 7.2% | Yes | $3.6bn | 25,938 | $141k | FY2025 |
| 28 | St. Paul (MN) Teachers | Minnesota | 70% | 7.0% | Yes | $1.4bn | 13,695 | $105k | FY2025 |
| 29 | Kansas City (MO) Schools | Missouri | 68% | 7.2% | Yes | $663m | 12,465 | $53k | FY2024 |
| 29 | St. Louis (MO) School | Missouri | 68% | 7.0% | Yes | $877m | 14,309 | $61k | FY2024 |
| 31 | Alabama Teachers | Alabama | 68% | 7.4% | Yes | $34.6bn | 325,043 | $107k | FY2025 |
| 32 | New Mexico Educational | New Mexico | 68% | 7.0% | Yes | $19.0bn | 173,890 | $109k | FY2025 |
| 33 | Pennsylvania School Employees | Pennsylvania | 67% | 7.0% | Yes | $82.6bn | n/a | n/a | FY2025 |
| 34 | Colorado School | Colorado | 66% | 7.2% | No | $39.5bn | 415,002 | $95k | FY2025 |
| 35 | Connecticut Teachers | Connecticut | 64% | 6.9% | No | $29.3bn | 104,982 | $279k | FY2025 |
| 36 | Vermont Teachers | Vermont | 63% | 7.0% | Yes | $3.1bn | 25,967 | $121k | FY2025 |
| 37 | Massachusetts Teachers | Massachusetts | 63% | 7.0% | No | $44.3bn | 172,128 | $257k | FY2025 |
| 38 | Kentucky Teachers | Kentucky | 61% | 7.1% | No | $28.4bn | n/a | n/a | FY2025 |
| 39 | Omaha (NE) School | Nebraska | 60% | 7.2% | Yes | $1.7bn | 16,675 | $103k | FY2024 |
| 40 | New Jersey Teachers | New Jersey | 49% | 7.0% | Yes | $33.9bn | 278,297 | $122k | FY2025 |
| 41 | Chicago (IL) Teachers | Illinois | 48% | 6.5% | No | $13.7bn | 98,732 | $138k | FY2025 |
| 42 | Illinois Teachers | Illinois | 48% | 7.0% | No | $77.3bn | 461,174 | $168k | FY2025 |
| 43 | Illinois Universities | Illinois | 47% | 6.5% | No | $25.2bn | 256,110 | $98k | FY2025 |
The extremes
The 10 lowest-funded
The 5 best-funded
Compare any plans
Type two or three plans to see them side by side — each with its rank in this group and how it sits against the group's median.
In plain terms
How well funded are US teacher retirement plans?
Of the 43 largest US teacher retirement plans tracked here, the median holds 77% of what it has promised, and 16 are outside Social Security, so for those plans that pension carries more of the retirement load, though an individual's own Social Security from other work may differ. The weakest, Illinois Universities, holds 47%. There is no single safe number: what a ratio means depends on the trend, whether the sponsor pays in full, and the return the plan assumes.
Are these pensions defined benefit or defined contribution?
Defined benefit. The plan promises a set cheque for life, worked out from a member's salary and years of service, and the government carries the investment risk. That is why the funded ratio matters: the plan owes a fixed promise, so whether it holds enough to cover that promise is the whole question. A defined-contribution plan, like a 401(k), just holds an account balance and has no funded ratio.
What is a “funded ratio”?
The money a pension holds, divided by what it has promised to pay. 100% means it holds every dollar it owes. 50% means it holds half, and is counting on future contributions and investment growth to make up the rest. There is no magic number: the widely quoted 80% 'healthy' line has been rejected by the actuarial profession as a test of soundness — the trend, the sponsor's contributions and the assumed return matter more than any single threshold.
Are all these figures from the same year?
Not exactly. Each plan reports on its own timetable, and audited figures arrive a year or so late, so the plans here span FY2024 to FY2025. We include a plan only if its latest figure is within about three years of the freshest. A funded ratio can move from one year to the next, sometimes sharply, so each plan's own year is shown in the table, and where two plans sit close together it is worth checking their years before reading much into the difference.
What does “no Social Security” mean for these plans?
Most US workers pay into Social Security and get a federal cheque for life. In the 1950s some states were allowed to keep their public workers out of it, running a state pension instead. Where this work is not covered, a teacher pays no Social Security on it, so the state pension carries more of the retirement load. A given person may still have Social Security from other jobs, so an individual's own position can differ — this is a plan-level fact, not a personal one.
What is the “assumed return”, and why does it matter?
The investment return a plan assumes it will earn over the decades before it has to pay. Assume a high return and you can claim you need less money set aside today, which makes the plan look better funded now. So a plan that is “80% funded” on a 7.5% assumption is leaning harder on optimism than one that is 80% funded on 6.5%. It is the vertical axis on the chart above.