Chapter 5: Competitive and Equitable Compensation
Chapter Summary
All else being equal, teachers are more likely to leave their position—either for another district or another profession—when wages are low. Increasing compensation is key to both attracting more individuals to the profession and retaining teachers. First and foremost, that means providing teachers with a competitive and equitable salary that aligns with the cost of living and teacher salaries in a region and is comparable to the salaries of professionals with similar education levels in the area. In addition to salary increases, local and state policymakers have explored other compensation strategies, including bonuses and stipends, such as for increased responsibility and leadership or advanced skills, or different types of economic support, such as housing subsidies, that improve teachers’ overall standard of living.
In 2018 and 2019, teacher strikes across the country called attention to the low and stagnating wages earned by k–12 teachers. From the blazing hot sidewalks of Arizona to the rain-drenched streets of Los Angeles and Oakland (teachers met with inclement weather during both strikes), teachers, often with students and community members at their side, donned “Red for Ed” gear to demand salaries that match the level of education and professionalism that is expected of classroom teachers.
Teacher salaries vary considerably across the United States and, in most states, are closely related to per-pupil spending. According to the National Education Association, in the 2018–19 school year, average teacher salaries ranged from $85,889 in New York to $45,105 in Mississippi. The wave of strikes, accompanied by news stories of teachers working multiple jobs to pay the bills and spending personal funds on supplies for classrooms and students, raised public awareness and built political will in many states for pay increases for teachers. In May 2018, 71% of respondents to a national New York Times survey “considered [public school] teacher pay too low,” with two thirds supporting increases, even if it meant raising taxes.
Policymakers, too, are increasingly recognizing the need to improve teacher compensation, including taking steps to equalize salaries across districts and increasing salaries to be more comparable to that of other professions requiring similar education and preparation. Compelled to act by both public will and persistent teacher shortages throughout the country, 20 governors included teacher pay raises as part of their legislative and budget packages in 2019. In 2020, at least 13 governors did the same. While not all of these states wound up increasing teacher pay, governors’ actions on the issue demonstrate a growing awareness of the critical role that compensation plays in recruiting and retaining teachers.
In West Virginia, as a teachers strike forced schools to close for 9 days, state legislators unanimously approved a 5% raise for all teachers—the first increase in 4 years. In 2016, West Virginia’s average teacher salary was $45,555, 47th among the 50 states, according to the National Education Association. “We are fed up. Enough is enough,” Jamie Heflin, a teacher in Williamson, WV, told NBC News. “We’re tired of the disrespect.”
In Arizona, teachers received a 20% raise in 2018. In Oklahoma, policymakers approved a 19% increase in the funding formula, amounting to an average teacher salary increase of $6,100. Responding to the growing number of teachers leaving the islands for the continental United States, the Hawaii Board of Education passed an unprecedented midyear teacher salary increase in December 2019. In addition to pay raises of $3,000–$8,000, the plan included an annual “differential” for special education and language immersion teachers and teachers working in remote areas. Despite budget shortfalls due to COVID-19, the increase remained intact in July 2020.
Local and state policymakers and the public are increasingly understanding what the research makes clear: When it comes to recruiting and retaining teachers, compensation matters. All else being equal, teachers are more likely to leave their position—either for another district or another profession—when wages are low.[164] Given that teacher attrition accounts for 90% of the demand for teachers each year, policymakers at every level are wise to explore strategies that improve teacher compensation. Besides salary increases, these strategies can include bonuses and stipends, such as for increased responsibility and leadership or advanced skills, or other types of economic support, such as housing subsidies that improve teachers’ overall standard of living.
History of Low Pay Compared to Other Professionals
Although salaries vary considerably across the country (and even within a single region), U.S. teacher salaries, on average, lag behind their peers in other countries and behind similarly educated professionals in the United States. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), there is a teacher “wage penalty”—that is, the gap between teachers’ weekly wages in the United States and the earnings of other professionals with similar educational backgrounds—in every state and the District of Columbia.
EPI has analyzed the teacher wage penalty since 2004. The picture is one of a steady erosion of teacher wages relative to other comparably educated adults. Consider a few statistics: In 1993, teachers earned about 5% less than other similarly educated professionals; the gap grew to 13.5% in 2010 and, in 2019, was just over 19%.
In the last 4 decades, women teachers (roughly 76% of the U.S. teaching profession in 2017–18) have seen their wage premium (that is, they earned more than other comparably educated women) turn into a wage penalty of roughly 13% in 2019. The wage penalty is highest for male teachers, whose weekly earnings are approximately 30% less than comparably educated men. Although benefits, such as health insurance and pensions, offset some of the weekly wage penalty, their value is not enough to compensate for teachers’ comparatively low salaries, even after accounting for teachers’ shorter work year. According to a 2019 EPI report, when looking at total compensation packages (including salary and benefits), teachers were still earning roughly 10% less than comparably educated adults. And as the report authors note, “only wages can be spent or saved.”
An analysis of 2018–19 salary data by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) demonstrates the impact of the comparatively low wages in absolute terms. According to the SREB analysis:
“Based on eight nationally calculable government benefits, including food and housing assistance programs and health insurance assistance, 38 states have average teacher salaries low enough that mid-career teachers who are the head of household for a family of four qualify for two or more government benefits. Four states—Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, and West Virginia—have average teacher salaries so low that a mid-career teacher as a head of household for a family of four qualifies for five or more government benefits.”[165]
These statistics have real and profound implications for who decides to enter the teaching profession and whether and how long individuals choose to continue teaching. From a strictly financial perspective, the decision to become or stay a teacher carries potentially higher financial consequences for individuals with academic degrees in high-earnings fields, such as math, science, and engineering. The country’s soaring student loan debt, totaling $1.6 trillion in 2020, also makes the comparatively low pay of teaching (combined with other factors, such as job insecurity) less attractive. Here, entry barriers are particularly steep for potential teachers of color, who amass more student loan debt than their White and Asian counterparts.
As noted in Chapter 1, service scholarships and forgivable loans offset the cost of teacher preparation programs in exchange for 3–5 years of service (typically in a hard-to-staff school or subject). When they are of sufficient size, they can remove one of the key barriers to entry into teaching. However, they do not address the long-term financial impact of the comparatively low wages that are typical in the profession, which force even mid-career teachers to depend on government assistance or work second jobs to make ends meet.
Besides the 53 hours teachers, on average, work each week (a number that appears to have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic), 59% of teachers surveyed in 2015–16 took on added work—both inside and outside their schools or districts—to pay the bills. While some of this work, such as coaching colleagues or leading staff development or other initiatives, leverages their expertise and builds their professional capacity, a full 18% of teachers moonlight in fields and jobs outside of the school system.[166] A separate analysis of outside jobs among U.S. public school teachers in the 2017–18 school year again found that 18% of teachers held second jobs outside of the school system. The number was highest among art and music teachers, 31% of whom had a second job outside the school system.[167]
Second jobs are not a systemic solution to low pay, and the resulting burnout and turnover among teachers undermine student success. Local, state, and federal policymakers all have a role in investing in compensation strategies that ensure teachers are paid a competitive salary commensurate with other professionals. In this chapter, we discuss three compensation strategies that effectively recruit and retain teachers and provide examples of district- and state-level initiatives and programs.
Strategies That Work
While a competitive and living wage provides teachers with the greatest flexibility—enabling them to work one job and get paid fairly for it—districts and states have also looked to other strategies to increase teachers’ overall compensation, from bonuses and stipends in recognition of additional work or expertise to strategies that offset the cost of housing or child care.
Additionally, the overall economic security of new teachers is improved by reducing the amount of debt they acquire, such as by offering service scholarships and forgivable loans as well as teacher residencies and GYO programs that pay teachers in training (as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, respectively). Regardless of the mix of strategies that districts and states employ, adequate compensation will be most effective at retaining teachers when paired with investment in the working conditions that are associated with higher teacher retention: healthy and safe buildings, supportive principals, collaborative work environments, opportunities for leadership, and investments in the resources and supports students and teachers need to be successful.
This chapter examines three compensation strategies: (1) competitive and equitable salaries; (2) recognition for expertise and leadership, such as bonuses and stipends; and (3) housing supports.
Competitive and Equitable Salaries
Research shows that investments in competitive and equitable teacher salaries, particularly when part of a broader effort to support teachers, can improve teacher recruitment and retention. When paired with a broader set of reforms, they have also contributed to better outcomes for students.
For example, in the late 1980s, Connecticut and North Carolina invested in raising and equalizing salaries across their states. Over 5 years, Connecticut teachers received a 30% increase in their annual salary. In addition to across-the-board salary increases, North Carolina offered a 12% pay increase for teachers who received National Board Certification—the first state to incentivize the rigorous process with increased pay.
In both states, the salary increases were part of larger efforts to strengthen the profession. In Connecticut, policymakers offered service scholarships and forgivable loans for teachers, introduced licensure reciprocity, and invested in mentoring and professional development for beginning teachers. North Carolina, for its part, improved teacher education, introduced mentoring, and beefed up its professional development infrastructure and offerings. Both states saw reductions in shortages and gains in student achievement as a result of these comprehensive efforts.[168]
Unfortunately, neither sustained its efforts over time. As investments waned, teacher salary gaps between more and less affluent districts grew, achievement gains were lost, and teachers began leaving the state in the case of North Carolina. The lessons from these two states underscore the importance of sustained investments, such as the Massachusetts example, following.
Salary equalization is also critical given the significant variations that can exist, even within a single labor market. Large inequities in teacher salaries among districts within the same labor market can put under-resourced districts—typically serving a high percentage of students of color and students from low-income families—at a strong disadvantage in hiring. For example, one study analyzing funding and salary disparities in California and New York documented significant differences in school funding within both of these states and corresponding inequities in teacher salaries, teacher qualifications, and student achievement.[169]
Where states are slow to invest in compensation adjustments to help high-need districts attract and retain high-quality teachers, individual districts can take matters into their own hands. For example, in 2008, San Francisco passed the Quality Teacher and Education Act, an innovative local parcel tax focused on investing in teachers, with widespread support from the local teachers union, the business community, parents, and grassroots community organizations.[170]
The additional revenues—about $500 per student per year—allowed for salary increases and bonuses. The district was able to implement an overall salary increase, varying by placement on the salary schedule but targeting newer teachers. It also gave bonuses for teaching in hard-to-staff schools or hard-to-staff subject areas, retention bonuses after the 4th and 8th years of teaching, and stipends for mentor teachers working with novices.
The overall salary increase was much larger than surrounding districts during the same time and helped make San Francisco’s salaries more competitive with neighboring districts in Silicon Valley. A 2013 study found that the compensation reforms improved the district’s attractiveness within its local teacher labor market and increased the teacher applicant pool’s size and quality, leading to an increase in the quality of new hires.[171]
State-Level Efforts to Increase Teacher Salaries
Maryland
In February 2021, legislators overturned a veto by Governor Larry Hogan to pass the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, a comprehensive plan to improve pre-k–12 educational opportunities developed by the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education (known as the Kirwan Commission). The 230-page bill included funding for a Comprehensive Teacher Recruitment and Outreach Program and plans for expansion of pre-k, investments in career technical education, and a new funding formula that includes the concentration-of-poverty grants that provide funding for community school infrastructure and staffing. The Blueprint also includes a requirement that by July 1, 2024, salaries for all teachers be increased by at least 10% over the negotiated schedule of salary increases between 2019 and 2024. and a requirement that all teachers must receive a salary of at least $60,000 by 2026. The package also establishes a career ladder framework for teachers and school leaders, including National Board Certification incentives.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts is an example of a state that made a long-term sustainable investment in education that increased teacher compensation. In 1993, Massachusetts adopted a new funding system referred to as Chapter 70.[172] The state adopted this new funding system to address a court ruling—McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education. In the McDuffy case, the court ruled that the state needed to fund schools in a more adequate and equitable manner.[173] Massachusetts’s new funding system not only increased the level of state dollars in education, but also resulted in the state providing for greater equalization of funds between districts in the state. Over the past 3 decades, Massachusetts’s investments have resulted in increased resources for its students and consistently higher pay for its teachers. In the 2018–19 school year, the average compensation for a public school teacher in the state was just over $82,000, which is almost $20,000 above the national average.[174] These reforms have also contributed to dramatically improved overall achievement, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and a reduction in achievement gaps.[175]
Washington
In 2017, Washington state raised teacher salaries as part of a more comprehensive bill to increase education funding and address teacher shortages. The bill responded to a 2012 state supreme court ruling on a school funding lawsuit, McCleary v. Washington State. Key elements of the package (Senate Bill 6455) included establishing a base salary of $40,000, an average salary of $64,000, and a maximum salary of $90,000. Teachers with 5 years’ experience, under the statute, must make 10% more than the minimum salary. In hard-to-staff subjects—STEM, bilingual education, and special education—districts are authorized to exceed the cap. The bill also includes a regional salary adjustment based on an analysis of the median residential value in each school district and surrounding districts. Also of note, the bill included a hold harmless provision so districts did not receive less funding as a result of the regional adjustments. The state must review the minimum salary allocation and regionalization factors every 6 years to ensure they provide market-rate salaries and align with actual staffing costs.[176]
Recognition and Incentives for Expertise
Creating opportunities for experienced teachers to exercise their leadership leverage and expertise—and compensating them for their contributions—is a win for teachers, districts, and the students they serve. Tapping in-house talent sends a message to veteran teachers that their knowledge and skills are recognized and valued—factors that contribute to teachers’ willingness to stay at a school or in a district. Experienced teachers also provide valuable coaching and mentoring support to beginning or struggling colleagues, strengthening the teaching force in a school or district. District and state programs that incentivize teachers’ ongoing learning and leadership reinforce the essential role a strong and stable teaching profession plays in advancing equity and excellence in our schools. While bonuses are not a replacement for providing teachers with a competitive base salary, they can be a valuable strategy for local or state policymakers who are looking to increase overall compensation but do not have the resources or political will for across-the-board raises.
Since 1987, the National Board Certification process has provided a framework for more than 125,000 teachers to pursue greater recognition, career and leadership opportunities, and increased compensation while remaining in the classroom. Several studies have found that National Board–certified teachers (NBCTs) are, on average, more effective teachers (as measured by their students’ standardized test score gains) than non-NBCTs with similar experience when controlling for student and classroom characteristics.[177] Studies have also found that the educational benefits of having an NBCT are even greater for students from low-income families than for their more affluent peers.[178] National Board Certification also supports the growth and effectiveness of other teachers, with recent research demonstrating that NBCT mentors accelerated the student learning gains of mentees’ students by over 6 months compared to students of novice teachers mentored by non-NBCTs.
Twenty-six states currently compensate teachers who have passed the rigorous certification process, either through annual stipends or salary increases. Twenty-two states provide some sort of financial support for teachers participating in the process, which includes assessing content knowledge; portfolio projects that require reflections on instructional choices to advance student growth and achievement; and video recording of teaching, accompanied by a commentary on practice. Among the leadership roles that NBCTs are being tapped to take on are serving as mentors to new and struggling teachers, experts in curriculum design and support, and instructional leaders in their schools.
Figure 2. Map of State Financial Incentives for National Board Certification
Source: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2020). State Financial Incentives for National Board Certification.
Many districts and states have also instituted career ladder models, which provide additional compensation for increased responsibility and leadership. For example, the Rochester, NY, and Cincinnati, OH, school districts have developed career ladders using the peer assistance and review (PAR) model in which accomplished teachers serve as mentors for beginning and struggling teachers. As detailed in the following sections, Iowa has a long-standing statewide career ladder programs to acknowledge, tap into, and incentivize teacher expertise and leadership.
Opportunities for teachers to participate in career ladders, take on leadership roles, and share expertise with their colleagues appear to be associated with teachers’ desire to continue teaching. One national survey of 1,210 teachers in pre-k through 12th grade, for example, found that being responsible for multiple leadership roles was associated with increased intentions to continue teaching for the next 3 years.[179]
A study of Missouri’s 25-year-old career ladder program found that after controlling for district characteristics—such as wealth, size, and level of urbanization—teachers whose districts had career ladder programs were less likely to leave their districts than those in non–career ladder districts. This was especially true for mid-career teachers.[180] Teachers in districts with career ladders were less likely to leave the profession overall. They also reported increased job satisfaction as a result of their participation in the program.
Federal funds under Title II, Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) can be used to support career ladder models. Federal grant funding is also authorized through ESSA’s Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program and the STEM Master Teacher Corps program. Career ladder strategies could be paired with a research agenda to examine the extent to which these models are effective at increasing teacher effectiveness, satisfaction, and retention.
Washington’s National Board Certification Bonus
Since 2000, Washington state has provided an annual bonus to all eligible k–12 public school teachers who earn and maintain National Board Certification. The Washington State National Board Certified Teacher Bonus initiative was initially funded through philanthropic support but is now directly financed through state appropriations. For fiscal year 2019, state support for the program totaled approximately $61.5 million. Importantly, the bonus is adjusted annually for inflation, and teachers who hold a valid National Board Certification for the entire 2020–21 school year are set to receive a bonus of $5,593.
In addition to the base bonus, teachers are incentivized to teach in high-poverty schools through an additional bonus of up to $5,000, based on the teacher’s percentage of time spent at a qualifying high-poverty school. Research from 2018 found that the incentive resulted in higher retention rates for NBCTs in high-poverty schools and led to more teachers pursuing National Board Certification. The incentive also increased the recruitment of NBCTs to high-poverty schools.
The design of Washington’s National Board Certification incentives appears to be paying off. The state regularly ranks in the top five states with the highest number of new NBCTs, and nearly 20% of the overall teacher workforce is National Board certified.
Iowa
Iowa established its Teacher Leadership and Compensation (TLC) system to recruit and retain a strong educator workforce by constructing five tiers of a career continuum. Districts around the state can opt to participate in the program, agreeing to the specific standards for the use of funds and support of teachers. Each tier (initial, career, model, mentor, and lead teacher) corresponds to increased responsibilities, days worked, and salary stipends. Program goals include rewarding effective teachers with leadership opportunities and higher pay, attracting promising new teachers with competitive starting salaries and more support, and fostering greater collaboration for all teachers to learn from each other. In 2020, every school district in Iowa had implemented a TLC plan, with 10,000 teachers in leadership roles, such as instructional coaches and mentors.
For the 2018–19 school year, the state allocated $160 million for TLC implementation. Allocation of the TLC funds and their uses differ from district to district based on their needs. Possible uses of TLC funds are divided into six categories, such as raising the minimum salary of teachers, providing compensation, providing professional development for teacher leaders, and paying for other costs, such as books, resources, and technology.
The system has shown positive results in student achievement, recruitment and retention, and the professional working climate. Compared to 50% of districts meeting their local achievement goals in the 2016–17 year, 56% met their goals in the 2017–18 year and 58% in the 2018–19 year. Furthermore, the program has effectively retained teachers, as “89% of districts reported that they mostly or fully met their recruiting and retention goals.”
TLC has also been effective in improving instruction and building a positive professional work climate, according to an evaluation by the American Institutes of Research and a 2019 TLC Statewide Report. For example, Center Point Urbana reported that the district’s mentors and induction coaches improved the entry skills of novice teachers, “increasing the success and sustainability of the new teachers”; teachers in Hampton Dumont reported that teachers wanted to stay in the district despite having to commute because they felt “supported in their district through TLC”; and many districts shared that TLC created “a school culture where people want to work.”[181]
Housing Supports
Although housing incentives have not been used or studied as broadly as other forms of compensation discussed in this chapter, they continue to be explored by school districts. Most districts offer housing incentives in response to the lack of affordable options for teachers and other staff. Educator housing has also been used as part of broader revitalization and development efforts, such as the McDowell County, WV, example discussed subsequently, or a complex called Teachers Village in Newark, NJ. Teachers Village was developed alongside the construction of new charter schools (though the facility is home to in-district and charter school teachers). Despite the interest in housing supports in some regions, they are not a replacement for providing teachers with competitive and equitable compensation that enables them to live in the communities in which they teach.
In a survey of teachers who had left the profession after the 2011–12 school year, nearly one quarter of respondents said housing incentives would be extremely important or very important to decide to return to the classroom.[182] Data like this, along with stories of teachers who commute long hours, move in with their parents, or live with multiple roommates, keeps housing supports among the options districts explore to improve teacher recruitment and retention. Examples below include districts in cities with a high cost of living, such as those in the San Francisco Bay Area and rural communities.[183]
Source: Renaissance Village, Reconnecting McDowell from American Federation of Teachers, 2021.
McDowell County, West Virginia
Improving teacher recruitment and retention and economic growth were two key reasons for the development of the Renaissance Village project, which includes 16 apartments for teachers and other area residents and retail, commercial, and community space. Located in McDowell County, WV, the mixed-use development is part of a sweeping revitalization effort called Reconnecting McDowell. The multiyear initiative includes investments in full-service community schools, early childhood education, and technology infrastructure. Building local infrastructure and increasing the supply of affordable and high-quality housing options are central to the local effort to attract and retain a cadre of prepared teachers. Partners include the school district and other local public and private entities and both the American Federation of Teachers and its West Virginia affiliate. Public–private partnerships, including a $1 million grant from the state of West Virginia, funded the $8 million project.
Palmetto Heroes, South Carolina
Palmetto Heroes is a housing initiative operated by the South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority to assist South Carolina residents who are k–12 public school teachers, law enforcement officers, nurses, firefighters, and others in becoming homeowners. The program is open to full-time certificated classroom teachers or individuals who will begin teaching within 60 days of their home loan closing.
The program provides a fixed, low-interest mortgage and forgivable down payment assistance (DPA) to support homeownership among eligible individuals. In 2013, the state invested $7.7 million in the initiative, which offers reduced fixed-rate interest rate and up to $12,000 in DPA (in 2021). Loans can be for up to 30 years; some applicants may qualify for additional DPA on newly constructed homes (up to $6,000 in 2020). Limits for assistance can vary from region to region, based on local teacher salaries and the cost of living.
To assist program participants in finding their homes, the program partners with more than 100 real estate professionals, banks, and mortgage brokers certified by the South Carolina State Housing Finance & Development Authority. In 2019, just over 30% of program participants were teachers.
Lightening the Housing Burden for California Teachers
While California is among the top states for teacher salaries, it also has one of the highest costs of living, with housing costs increasing every year. Statewide, the median home price in 2015 was $437,000—nearly twice as much as the median home price nationally of $179,000. The high housing costs are particularly challenging for teachers in the San Francisco Bay Area. According to a 2019 EdSource analysis of the 680 Bay Area school districts that had reported salary data to the state, nearly 40% of first-year teachers did not earn enough to rent an “affordable” one-room apartment. High housing costs also impact veteran teachers. According to the same analysis, even the highest-paid teachers in more than one quarter of Bay Area school districts could not afford to purchase a three-bedroom house.
As California school districts continue to grapple with persistent teacher shortages, several school districts—with support from city, county, and state policymakers—are building affordable housing developments in the hopes of recruiting and retaining teachers. In 2001, the Santa Clara Unified School District, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, partnered with a local developer to create Casa del Maestro, California’s first subsidized teacher housing development. The complex was built on a former school site and now includes 70 affordable units for district teachers. Rent is kept to about 30% of the average teacher salary in the district. Casa del Maestro limits teachers’ residency to 7 years—one of the few district-owned teacher housing developments with this type of restriction.
In 2016, with the supply of teachers at a 12-year low, the California legislature adopted Senate Bill 1413, the Teacher Housing Act of 2016, which grants authority to school districts to provide housing exclusively for their employees, such as by building rental units and offering them to staff at a below-market rate. The districts can also take advantage of state and federal low-income housing tax credits to develop these projects. Two additional bills, Senate Bill 2 and Assembly Bill 1157, support this effort by (1) establishing a permanent, ongoing funding source for affordable housing and (2) making it easier for school districts to use their property for employee rental housing. Several school districts have leveraged these provisions to develop affordable housing for teachers and other district staff.
In Daly City, the Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) is building the Serramonte Del Rey faculty and staff housing project as one strategy for addressing its high turnover rate. The 122-unit complex will offer a combination of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units for JUHSD teachers and employees. Rents are expected to be about one half of the market rate in the area. Of the $61 million price tag for construction, $33 million came from a general obligation bond, and the remainder will be borrowed by the district and paid back over time through rents collected.
Similarly, Chula Vista Elementary School District in southern San Diego County passed Measure M in 2020, which will, in part, be used to build affordable teacher housing units. The school district will spend approximately $65 million of the revenue from the ballot measure to build 100 apartment units for school employees.
In San Francisco, a city that ranks as the most unaffordable rental market for teachers in the United States, 64% of the teachers spend more than one third of their incomes on rent, and an additional 15% spend more than half of their incomes on rent each month. To address the housing needs of their educators—and in the process, increase teacher retention and satisfaction—the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has collaborated with a variety of partners to increase the supply of affordable housing for its teaching workforce:
In November 2019, voters in San Francisco passed two propositions, Proposition A and Proposition E, which raised $20 million through bonds to develop educator housing and allow below-market-rate developments to be built on publicly owned land. As a result, SFUSD is in the process of constructing Francis Scott Key Annex Educator Housing, a 130-unit complex.
In addition to developing its own units, SFUSD has also partnered with the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) on local implementation of the Teacher Next Door (TND) program, a national program to support teacher housing access. Through this partnership, educators in SFUSD can receive a forgivable loan to support the purchase of their first home. If additional funding is needed, individuals can also utilize other MOHCD loan programs, such as the Educators Down Payment Assistance Program or City Second, both of which provide silent second mortgages. The program is open to district employees who are first-time homebuyers in San Francisco and whose household income does not exceed 200% of the area median income, which is $246,300 for a family of four.
The city’s 2015 Affordable Housing General Obligation Bond has allocated $1.3 million for down payment assistance for San Francisco educators. This money includes forgivable loans and down payment assistance up to $375,000, averaging $328,000 of support per educator.