DAVIS, Calif. — There’s a quiet crisis unfolding in Davis—one that’s reshaping classrooms, disrupting families, and threatening the long-term stability of the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD). It’s not just about budgets or test scores. It’s about housing. And the people at the heart of it are our teachers.
In an April interview with the Vanguard, DJUSD Superintendent Matt Best issued a stark warning: the district is losing educators at an unsustainable rate, not because they don’t love teaching, and not because they don’t love Davis—but because they simply can’t afford to live here.
“If you can’t live in the community where you work, it’s hard to stay long-term,” Best told us. “We’re seeing staff turn over faster. And it’s not just a pipeline problem—it’s a retention problem.”
The average early-career teacher salary in DJUSD hovers in the $55,000 to $70,000 range. That doesn’t go far in a city where the median home price is more than $600,000, and rents for modest one-bedroom apartments often exceed $2,000 a month. For many educators, the math just doesn’t pencil out.
What that means in practice is this: bright, passionate teachers accept a job in Davis, work here for a year or two, and then move on—driven out by high housing costs, long commutes, and the absence of a viable long-term plan to remain in the city. They’re replaced, often by another short-term hire, and the cycle repeats.
This is not an isolated Davis issue. It’s a statewide crisis, and forward-thinking districts across California are responding. Just last week, Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) broke ground on a bold new workforce housing development that will bring 110 new rental apartments to San Pablo Avenue by 2027—reserved specifically for educators and school staff.
The project, developed on underutilized land behind the Berkeley Adult School, is the culmination of years of planning and community engagement. It’s part of a growing movement to provide stable, affordable housing for the very people who make public education possible.
Berkeley’s initiative is one of 12 education workforce housing (EWH) projects in California that are either occupied, under construction, or in late-stage planning, according to a 2025 report by UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools and cityLAB at UCLA. These developments recognize that teacher housing isn’t just a benefit—it’s infrastructure. It’s foundational to recruiting and retaining qualified staff, reducing costly turnover, and fostering long-term connections between schools and communities.
Berkeley’s six-story, J-shaped building will offer apartments to school employees earning 30% to 120% of the area median income—roughly $32,000 to $130,000 for a household of two. Rents will range from $876 to $3,400 depending on unit size and income, and the building will include family-friendly amenities like a children’s play area, fitness space, and vegetable garden. It will be financed through a combination of city general obligation bonds, state housing agency loans, and federal low-income housing tax credits.
This kind of comprehensive planning doesn’t happen overnight. According to the Berkeley study, most workforce housing developments in California take seven to eight years from concept to completion. But once built, they make a lasting difference. In Daly City, Jefferson Union High School District’s 705 Serramonte development—offering 122 affordable units for staff—led to a measurable increase in retention. Before the housing was available, the district’s teacher retention rate was 85%. One year after it opened, it rose to 90%.
What makes that number matter is the impact of turnover on schools. According to the Learning Policy Institute, replacing a single teacher can cost a district up to $25,000. More importantly, high turnover negatively affects student outcomes—particularly in schools serving low-income or high-needs populations.
Davis should be paying close attention.
The district is facing a parallel storm of interlocking challenges: declining enrollment, aging facilities, budget pressure, and a growing gap between who can afford to live in Davis and who the community needs to retain. Over the past four years, DJUSD has lost more than 500 students. Kindergarten classes are shrinking. Fewer children are being born in Davis. In 2003, the city recorded over 600 births. By 2023, that number had fallen to just 346.
At the same time, housing development in Davis has slowed. Many of the families who work here—at UC Davis, in our public schools, in small businesses—are forced to live elsewhere. Today, about 1,200 of DJUSD’s students—nearly 15%—come from outside the district. These students are the children of people who want to live here but can’t find an affordable home.
DJUSD is funded on a per-pupil basis. Every student lost means about $12,000 in lost revenue. The district has already cut $7.5 million in response to enrollment declines, and it may have to double that in the coming years.
Some in the community have argued that the district should simply “right-size” its operations—consolidate campuses, cut programs, close schools. But as Best points out, the savings aren’t linear. For every dollar of lost enrollment, the district only saves about 60 cents—due to fixed costs, operational inefficiencies, and the time lag of restructuring.
“You don’t stabilize,” Best said. “You bleed.”
And once a school closes, it’s rarely reopened. The social cost is incalculable. Neighborhood identity erodes. Parents are forced to bus their children to distant campuses. Community engagement suffers. These are not abstract policy debates—they are deeply human decisions with long-term consequences.
So what is the solution?
It starts with building more housing. And not just any housing—housing that educators, young families, and essential workers can actually afford. That means workforce housing, built on publicly owned land, with rents targeted to moderate-income households.
DJUSD has already begun exploring this idea. Superintendent Best confirmed the district is assessing underutilized properties for possible redevelopment. Parking lots, administrative buildings, and portions of larger school campuses may hold potential for teacher housing. But so far, no concrete plan has been approved, and time is running short.
If the city fails to approve new family-oriented housing developments—like the proposed Village Farms or Willowgrove projects—the district projects it may have to close two schools by 2027–28. If just one of those projects is approved, that number might be reduced to one. Either way, without new housing, the district will be forced to make difficult and painful decisions.
But this moment also presents an opportunity.
Davis has always prided itself on being forward-thinking, environmentally conscious, and committed to high-quality education. Embracing educator housing is not only consistent with those values—it’s essential to preserving them. By following the lead of Berkeley, Santa Clara, and San Francisco, Davis can join a small but growing group of communities that are treating teacher housing as a public good.
As the Housing California Educators report notes, education workforce housing doesn’t just benefit schools—it benefits entire cities. It brings families back into the community. It revitalizes parks and sports leagues. It reduces traffic congestion and pollution from long commutes. And it signals that the city values the people who educate its children.
Berkeley Federation of Teachers President Matt Meyer said it best during last week’s groundbreaking: “It’s more than just housing. It’s a model for how we retain our staff, how we recruit new talent, and how we show respect for the people who support students day in and day out.”
Here in Davis, that respect must be shown not just with words, but with action.
Superintendent Best and his team are working hard to raise awareness. By the end of this school year, they will have met with more than 90 community groups to explain the connection between housing and school sustainability. Their message is simple: schools don’t exist in a vacuum. They rise or fall with the community around them.
“What we hear over and over again is, ‘We didn’t know. No one told us that voting down a housing project would impact schools,’” Best said. “Well, now we’re telling you. Loudly.”
Davis faces a choice. One path leads to contraction: fewer families, fewer students, fewer teachers. The other leads to renewal: vibrant neighborhoods, stable schools, and a future in which educators can live, work, and thrive in the same community.
The question isn’t whether we can build that future. It’s whether we will.
Why is it that DJUSD is essentially engaging in political advocacy? Is that allowed, under the law?
And in regard to that, who are the “90 community groups” that the superintendent has met with?
This type of self-interested, questionable advocacy goes beyond my personal opposition to sprawl – it makes me downright angry and disgusted that the school district is engaging in this, and for more than one reason.
“Why is it that DJUSD is essentially engaging in political advocacy? ”
Political advocacy would be – we support Measure K. They aren’t doing that.
They seem to be skirting the law (essentially advocating for development proposals – which would, in fact, be illegal to my knowledge). Anyone who doesn’t see what DJUSD is doing as “advocacy” is lying to themselves. Conducing “90 community meetings” (whatever that means) and stating that they close down schools (if voters don’t approve what they want) pretty much meets the definition of “political advocacy”.
You’ve had some experience with a similar issue, and it became quite a hassle and expense.
They are allowed to do what they’ve done so far. What they cannot do is take a position on a ballot measure.
From article: “No one told us that voting down a housing project would impact schools,’” Best said. “Well, now we’re telling you. Loudly.”
Uh, huh – no “political advocacy”, there – right? After all, it’s not like there’s two upcoming development proposals on the ballot (and a simultaneous attempt to undermine Measure J).
Wondering what type of oversight there is regarding school districts and this type of advocacy. (My guess is that it’s almost non-existent.)
I find this disgusting, in more than one way. It’s not “just” the district’s support for sprawl – it’s that they also don’t care if they decimate other districts. Again, poaching of students can occur by “moving” students to Davis, as well.
So unless people move to Davis to have kids that they wouldn’t have elsewhere, DJUSD is once again demonstrating its lack of concern regarding its advocacy on those “left behind” (e.g., in other districts that they poach from).
They obviously don’t care about any of this (sprawl, other districts, etc.).
Given that there is no project on the ballot currently – correct it is not legally considered political advocacy.
This is more than teachers, that are displaced it is university staff and the bulk of our service economy as well.
That said, I still don’t see why Mr Best is gunning so hard for these single family developments that WONT for the most part be affordable to teachers. How many displaced teachers do we have? Will they actually find housing competing for the couple hundred of micro-houses in these developments slated to be affordable? I really doubt it.
It just doesnt seem to pencil out. And why should we entitle 1800 units (that are mostly mc mansions) in the hope that just a few of the affordable units might end up in the hands of local schoolteachers? Its a totally upside-down concept.
If we want workforce / university staff / teacher housing, then lets deliberately create that. The peripheral proposals are perpetuating a fully discredited development model that we KNOW is THE WORST way to plan a city. We shouldnt even be considering them, let alone advocating FOR them on the hope that some marginal coat-tail of the most affordable parts might end up being home for teachers or maybe some students.
Dude did you even read the article? Teachers can’t afford to live here so lets build subsidized housing for teachers on surplus school district land. That is the issue raised in the article. Declining enrollment is a secondary problem of concern mentioned in the article.
The housing developments you seem to oppose would provide habitat for people to nest up and have kids. Single family homes are a long time preferred choice of housing type for family formation. Of course if your incessant opposition to anything that doesn’t match your idea of what the future should look like prevails you are likely to get less of either type. Remember it’s been 20 years since the Village Farms site was last on the ballot. How long you willing to wait?
You are conflating two different issues. One is your personal preference for the type of market housing you want in new developments and the other is subsidized school employee housing. Pretty straight forward dichotomy of issues.
Ok.. quick AI-assisted research dive here.. blame chat GPT if any of this is wrong ( but please do let me know). But check this out.
Here are the average salaries for Davis teachers based on experience and then “how expensive of a home can they afford” assuming an 8x income-to-value multiple, which apparently is the lower end of the range we see in CA.
Experience Level. | Average Salary (USD) | Estimated Affordable Home Price (USD)
Entry (0–2 yrs). |$56,867 |$454,936
Mid (2–4 yrs) |$62,518 |$500,144
Experienced (5–8 yrs). |$67,517. |$540,136
Veteran (8+ yrs). |$74,166. |$593,328
Max scale. |$84,300. |$674,400
Given that we have little confidence that ANY of the brand-new single family housing in either of these developments are going to be much lower than the median home price of davis which is in the 800k range.. JUST HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT TEACHERS???
The district is going to have to get rid of some teachers; not look for ways to attract more of them.
What part of “declining enrollment” do they not understand? (Not just in Davis, either.)
They are absolutely going to be forced to shut down a school or two, no matter how much kicking and screaming they do on the way out.
Really? Are you aware that districts constantly have to look for new teachers to replace teachers that are leaving or retiring? Ron, you make comments like this all the time and you don’t seem to understand how things operate in the real world.
The overall DJUSD workforce needs to shrink. That’s how things operate in the real world, as you say.
Any of the newer teachers working there will be lucky if they’re not on an upcoming termination list. (In light of THAT fact, “replacement” recruitment might be challenging – regardless of housing.)
Overall (statewide, and beyond) it’s not a good time to try to become a teacher. That’s true of any field in which there’s a declining need. I’m not sure when the teacher unions decided that they were uniquely on a mission from God, compared to everyone else who has to deal with jobs and changes in the workforce.
“Don’t be afraid of change”, as someone once said.