Don't Touch My IPERS

Not going to lie… the news about Iowa’s DOGE task force recommendations is hanging heavy on my mind and heart today… it’s hard to think and participate in learning when you just feel punched in the gut… as I have done in the past, when frustrated I try to write and share my concern… here’s the first (of many that will likely come) on what I feel the impacts could be… feel free to share or publish this wherever you feel will help get the message out!

To: Those Concerned About Iowa

Don’t Break What Works: IPERS is a Lifeline for Rural Iowa—and Beyond

As a rural school superintendent, I’ve seen firsthand how hard it is to recruit and retain teachers in Iowa’s small communities. Our applicant pools are shrinking, experienced educators are walking away, and rising expectations are met with flat funding. Now, Iowa’s DOGE task force is proposing a move that would make it even harder to staff our schools: ending IPERS for new public employees and replacing it with a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan.

This isn’t just an education issue—it’s an attack on public service across Iowa.

IPERS is the backbone of retirement security not just for teachers, but for thousands of city employees, county workers, DOT crews, law enforcement officers, and emergency responders. These are the people who plow your roads, protect your communities, maintain your infrastructure, and educate your children. They aren’t in it for the pay. They stay because their years of service are honored with a stable, modest pension they can count on.

Replacing IPERS with a 401(k)-style individual account would shift the burden entirely onto workers. And it would come at a cost few schools or cities can afford.

⸻

What It Would Really Cost to Replace IPERS

Take Iowa’s starting teacher salary: $50,000.

Under IPERS:

• The teacher contributes 6.29% ($3,145/year)

• The employer (district) contributes 9.44% ($4,720/year)

• This 15.73% total contribution rate creates a pension that guarantees income for life.

To match that retirement value in a 401(k)-style system, teachers would need to save 15–20% of their income annually, and the district would have to match at least half of that to reach a sustainable retirement outcome—every year, without fail.

But here’s the problem:

• Teachers can’t afford to give up 15–20% of their income when starting pay is $50,000.

• Districts can’t afford 10%+ employer matches without massive increases in state aid.

• Without either, the 401(k)-style system becomes a guaranteed cut to retirement security.

To put it plainly: a teacher would need to earn $10,000–$15,000 more per year to maintain the same level of retirement stability IPERS provides—just to make up the difference in required savings and risk. And that’s not even accounting for inflation or market downturns.

Where would that money come from? Certainly not from Iowa’s current school funding formula, where per-pupil spending is already ~$2,400 below the national average, and State Supplemental Aid has failed to keep pace with inflation for years. Districts are cutting budgets or making plans for increased monitoring and spending constraints just to stay afloat—we don’t have extra dollars lying around to fund higher salaries and large employer matches.

⸻

A Broader Threat to Public Service

In education alone, the damage would be significant. But the impact would be felt across every public service sector in Iowa:

• Law enforcement officers who rely on pension security to balance the risk of their profession.

• Snowplow drivers and public works employees whose physical jobs don’t always allow for extended careers into their 60s.

• City clerks and emergency responders who serve faithfully but never draw large salaries.

If Iowa eliminates IPERS for new hires, we’re not just cutting a benefit—we’re creating a two-tiered workforce where new public servants have fewer protections, less financial stability, and more reason to leave the profession altogether.

Just look at Alaska, which ended pensions and saw its teacher workforce erode to crisis levels. Or Michigan, which saw retirement insecurity climb as fewer workers could save enough in defined contribution accounts. Many of these states are now trying to reverse course—but the damage is already done.

⸻

Bottom Line

Rural Iowa already fights for every teacher, every police officer, every city worker willing to make a life here. Take away IPERS, and we strip away the one long-term incentive we have to offer. What other profession expects you to commit decades of service to a community while offering no guarantee of stability in return?

Our state’s future depends on people who are willing to serve. Teachers. Plow drivers. First responders. Municipal clerks. Let’s not drive them away by dismantling a system that has worked—for generations.

Lawmakers: don’t follow this misguided recommendation. Keep IPERS intact. Honor our public servants. And invest in Iowa’s future.

Sincerely,

Caleb Bonjour

Lifelong Iowan, Father that wants his kids to be lifelong Iowans, and Concerned Rural School Superintendent