Trina Prufer and a different way of looking at STRS that may open a few more eyes

From Trina Prufer

December 26, 2025

A Different Way of Looking at STRS 

Most of us (myself included) have been looking at STRS from the point of view of pre-2012 retirees not receiving the promised COLA and actives paying more into STRS (14%) than the benefit‘s normal cost (11%). But these are outcomes or symptoms, not the essential problem.

The essential problem is its funding model is not adequate to deliver what a public pension system is designed to do…provide retirement security. Although it is called a "retirement system”, it does not function as one, as the contribution rates plus investment income are not required to fund the benefits obligated. Instead, teachers absorb all the risk, as it is the benefit levers that absorb the shortfall and make the system look good on paper.

After all, the goal is 100% funding, not fulfilling promised benefits. That's why the BENEFIT levers change… I.e. years required to CONTRIBUTE and non or reduced payment of COLA.

When the State of Ohio and STRS uses the false goal of “sustainability”, teachers are tethered to a “retirement system”  that really isn’t one. It lacks the core requirement of the STATE underwriting the benefit promised by having a variable rate. The State does not care how much is WASTED, because it does not have to underwrite the system when it falls short. Underfunding is built into the model and is perverse incentive. The State creates the underfunding situation, then gets to diminish the benefit based on its own actions. Sounds like the house always wins.

We are fooled into thinking that STRS is a legitimate retirement system, when it is not. Its underlying funding structure is unlike any other non-Social Security teacher retirement system in the nation. In Ohio, using its police powers, the post-retirement benefit can be reduced by statute and the system is underfunded by design.

This is the battle that should be litigated. It is not a legitimate retirement system if there is no requirement that the benefit promised at the time of retirement be pre-funded and supported by an adequate funding structure. Otherwise, it is a retirement system in name only, and in reality, becomes another scheme targeting the elderly.