Staffed Up is a monthly series examining school staffing best practices and solutions for teacher recruitment and retention.
As some teachers struggle to afford housing in their school communities, a growing number of districts are taking the matter into their own hands by offering affordable housing for their staff.
An analysis published last year by the National Council on Teacher Quality found that nationwide housing costs rose on average 47% to 51% between 2019 and 2025, while average beginning teacher salaries grew at a much slower rate — 24%.
The need for affordable solutions for educators has become more acute given skyrocketing housing costs, said Meredith Coffey, senior policy and operations associate at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education reform think tank.
To that end, programs designed to provide affordable living options for school staff are becoming more commonplace in districts across states like Arkansas, California, Colorado and Texas.
The strategy can vary by district.
For instance, in partnership with a local nonprofit affordable housing developer, teachers and staff at Arkansas’ Bentonville Schools could pay about $750 per month for a two-bedroom apartment or roughly $1,000 month for a two-bedroom, two-bath single family “cottage.”
Some 120 apartments and 40 cottages are to be available, with eligibility following guidelines under the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. Cottages, for example, will be available to those with household incomes of up to 100% of the area median income.
In addition, Bentonville educators can opt to pay more rent and walk away with money toward the purchase of a home after leaving the rental program. A $1,500 monthly rental payment on a cottage for up to five years could yield them an estimated $50,000 for a down payment or other home purchase expenses, according to a program factsheet.
“There’s an end point in mind,” Coffey said. “It’s not just like, ‘Oh, we’ll get some young people out here, and then they’ll live here as long as they feel like it, and hopefully it won’t crumble.’”
The Bentonville housing is to open at the end of 2026. The $35 million program is being funded through philanthropic grants, public donations, and federal and state government money, including through federal low-income housing tax credits.
The challenge of affording housing doesn’t only apply to early career teachers at the lower end of the salary scale.
NCTQ found that home purchase prices jumped by 44% from 2019 to 2024. In that same period, salaries rose an average 34% to 35% for teachers with five years of experience. “Despite this growth, it still failed to keep pace with the housing market,” the NCTQ analysis said.
Here are some standout figures on housing affordability for teachers from the National Council on Teacher Quality’s 2025 analysis.
In Texas’ Austin Independent School District, a district property is being repurposed into 674 affordable apartments open to the public, but with priority given to teachers and staff in the school system. By opening the property to the public, too, the district hopes to help address enrollment challenges for families who leave Austin because they are priced out. The apartments are expected to open in 2028.
The Austin ISD Board of Trustees approved the initiative in 2023 as a way to retain and recruit professionals at a time when the cost of living in Austin has “risen dramatically,” according to an FAQ posted on the district’s website. Austin ISD also said it’s exploring other opportunities to help teachers and staff buy a home.
The repurposing project will not cost Austin ISD anything, as it is leasing the district-owned land to a housing development partner, NRP Group. That way, the developer can build the housing, cover construction costs and serve as landlord and property manager.
How districts can finance housing programs
Every district-operated housing development, to some degree, uses rental income to cover any mortgage and other ongoing costs, said Sara Hinkley, California program manager at the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools. The center tracks and analyzes the impact on teacher turnover from education workforce housing programs in the state.
Still, when districts are involved, they'll face gaps between the rental income they take in and the mortgage and other costs, Hinkley said. To fill that gap, districts can issue a general obligation bond, which is often used to pay for school facility projects, for voter approval since the bond is then repaid through a property tax levy.
Districts can also tap into affordable federal and state housing initiatives, Hinkley said. One key example is through the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, which is administered by state and local housing finance agencies. But these tax credits can be very competitive and come with income limits for those eligible to live in district housing, she said. Regardless, the tax credits can be braided with other funding streams.
Some districts in California have used green energy incentives to help with building affordable teacher housing, Hinkley said. Additionally, districts can partner with nonprofit organizations, like Habitat for Humanity or even for-profit affordable housing developers. Hinkley added that because these developers are familiar with affordable housing tax credits, it can be helpful for districts using the tax credits to work with them.
Meanwhile, as declining enrollment leads to school closures in some areas, Hinkley said that can bring an opportunity for districts to repurpose their property for teacher and staff housing. Hinkley said she’s noticed this has become a growing trend in California, which is struggling with enrollment declines statewide.
“There’s a lot of perception that, ‘Oh we’re going to close schools and then you’re going to give it all to charter schools or you’re going to sell it,’” Hinkley said. “And so for a lot of districts, it's important to kind of have an alternative vision of how to use the properties and maintain district ownership.”
“So it can be challenging to be able to say, you built this housing five years ago, is that why you’re having an easier time recruiting now?”
Sara Hinkley
California program manager at the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools
The challenge for districts
A key challenge with teacher housing is measuring the return on investment, both Hinkley and Coffey said. As a researcher, Hinkley said, it’s difficult to trace these housing initiatives to student outcomes and teacher quality.
When it comes to gauging improvements to teacher recruitment and retention, Hinkley said that there are many factors at play, including salaries and the specific types of shortage areas.
“So it can be challenging to be able to say, you built this housing five years ago, is that why you’re having an easier time recruiting now?” said Hinkley.
For most districts, success is measured anecdotally based on what district leaders hear from staff benefiting from the workforce housing, she added.
Still, Coffey said she thinks the evidence “is a little shaky” as to whether these housing developments are worth the time and investment. She cited research in states like Colorado, where a 2025 statewide survey of over 3,200 educators produced encouraging findings that a district housing strategy would make a difference for them.
“But in a lot of cases … there just isn’t enough to say whether it would or would not make a difference for teachers,” Coffey said. “There’s a lot of feel good human interest stories.”
If a district does want to seriously pursue staff housing developments, Hinkley said, it’s important to understand it will be a long process and there will often be board or superintendent turnover throughout. Districts also need to set concrete goals for what they’re trying to achieve with the project.
Those goals should clearly outline who will benefit from the housing as well as how the project will fit in with the district’s overall education strategy, enrollment picture and facility needs, Hinkley said. Otherwise, she said, a district could get pulled into a project that’s not going to meet its goals — which should ultimately be based on educational needs.
