Solving the teacher shortage

“It gets pretty old after a while,” Chow acknowledges. “When we lose people, it’s usually due to the struggle to find reasonable housing in the area.”

In contrast, Lindsay Unified School District, a rural district in the Central Valley, historically had difficulty attracting and retaining teachers. Almost 60% of Lindsay’s students are economically disadvantaged, compared to just 7% of Palo Alto’s student body. Half of Lindsay’s students are English language learners, and about 95% of the student population is Hispanic/Latino.

Because it’s located in an economically depressed area, Lindsay Unified can’t offer salaries that are as high as, say, Palo Alto’s. It’s easier to obtain housing, but employment opportunities for other family members are limited, so the doesn’t attract many teachers from elsewhere.

Addressing factors that affect supply

Hiring more educators is not the solution, however. To most effectively meet student needs (and fill teacher vacancies), school districts must address and mitigate the factors that currently affect educator supply. That’s where things get tricky because although teacher shortages look the same on paper (fewer teachers than needed = teacher shortage), the root causes vary from district to district.

Palo Alto Unified School District doesn’t lack teacher applicants. “A lot of people want to be here,” says Carolyn Chow, the district’s chief business officer. “We attract good people.” But Silicon Valley’s high cost of living makes teacher retention a challenge. Though the district’s salaries are competitive – and seem quite high to teachers moving to the area from other parts of the country – teachers often must live far from school or with roommates in order to afford housing.

Understanding the why behind local teacher shortages can help districts implement effective interventions. Onesize-fits-all solutions – rarely effective for any problem – are likely to be particularly ineffective and costly in ameliorating educator staffing shortages.

“Without understanding the detailed nature of the problem, we may try to solve it with solutions that are inappropriate for the way that shortages are playing out,” Matthew Kraft, an associate professor of education and economics at Brown University, told Education Week.

Here’s a look at how a few California districts are growing and nurturing their teacher workforce:

Building teacher housing

The high cost of housing in California – coupled with the fact that average weekly wages for teachers have increased just $29 since 1996, after adjusting for inflation, according to U.S. Education

Secretary Miguel Cardona – limits the ability of many districts to attract and retain teachers who dream of their own home (perhaps with a yard).

In 2016, after realizing that the high cost of housing was a primary reason educators left Jefferson Union High School District, the school board decided to address the issue. Santa Clara Unified School District had constructed 40 residential units for district teachers in 2001 and 30 additional units in 2006. San Mateo Community College District had also built employee housing, using voterapproved bond funds to cover the cost of construction. Jefferson Union decided to explore that approach – and became the first K-12 school district in the country to ask voters to approve money to build employee housing.

In 2018, Jefferson Union passed a $33 million bond measure to construct educator housing. They broke ground in 2020 and the first tenants moved in on April 30, 2022.

Rents are approximately 58% of market value, and Tina Van Raaphorst, Jefferson Union’s deputy superintended of business services, believes the availability of housing has positively affected teacher staffing levels.

“Recruitment was definitely improved. We started the year completely staffed,” Van Raaphorst says. “We recruited people from across the country, and at least one employee who left us for more affordable housing came back.”

Palo Alto Unified School District is partnering with Santa Clara County,