Key points:
- Colorado educators are being driven out of their profession due to unaffordable housing.
- Housing costs are fueling teacher turnover and pressuring district resources in Colorado.
- Districts like Byers have successfully retained staff by providing housing directly.
A sweeping new study by the Keystone Policy Center reveals that Colorado educators are being pushed out of the profession because they simply cannot afford housing in the communities where they work.
At the same time, the Davis Joint Unified School District is grappling with similar challenges: soaring housing costs are fueling teacher turnover and putting added pressure on district resources and enrollment.
The Keystone Policy Center’s report, We Can’t Live Where We Teach, compiles survey data from more than 3,200 educators across rural, urban, and suburban districts in Colorado. It finds that many teachers spend unsustainably high portions of their income on rent; in some districts, more than half of educators devote over 40 percent of their salary to housing costs—well beyond the commonly accepted 30 percent affordability benchmark (Keystone Policy Center).
Colorado’s housing crunch is forcing teachers to delay homeownership, commute long distances, or leave the profession altogether. They include a veteran seventh-grade math teacher in Cortez who spends 42 percent of his salary on rent despite recent raises, and a first-year teacher earning $44,000 who relies on support from her parents to make ends meet (Colorado Public Radio).
International educators too are affected—a teacher from the Philippines pays $750 monthly for a single room in a shared home (Chalkbeat).
The report also reveals that 58 percent of educators expressed interest in affordable, district‑provided housing, and 70 percent were comfortable with their school district serving as landlord.
Districts like Byers illustrate the model’s potential: by directly providing housing, this district has retained staff who might otherwise leave.
Keystone’s findings underline the urgent need for coordinated housing strategies involving policymakers, school districts, nonprofits, and developers—solutions such as converting unused buildings, housing on district land, and rent‑subsidy partnerships (Keystone Policy Center, The Colorado Sun).
These statewide insights mirror local realities here in Davis. DJUSD has recognized how the high local cost of living restricts its ability to attract and retain teachers and staff, and how that, in turn, exacerbates declining enrollment and tight budgets.
In May 2024, DJUSD conducted an Employee Workforce Housing Interest Survey, which drew responses from more than 40 percent of its staff—447 individuals—and revealed deep interest in affordable housing solutions .
In August 2024, the district’s Board of Education unanimously adopted a resolution supporting a workforce housing plan.
DJUSD has been named to the California School Boards Association’s Educator Workforce Housing Cohort, engaging with peer districts to learn about successful housing models.
Superintendent Matt Best called the effort a crucial step: “We are experiencing a housing crisis in Davis, and this has had significant consequences for our schools. DJUSD can be a local leader in finding creative solutions to the challenges of housing affordability…”
Most recently, in August 2025, DJUSD launched a feasibility study exploring the potential to build more than 200 housing units at Harper Junior High. The study aims to deliver an actionable strategy and financing plan.
Locally, the effects are already visible. As highlighted in the Vanguard’s reporting, Superintendent Best noted, “If you can’t live in the community where you work, it’s hard to stay long‑term.”
He warned that turnover is driven not just by pipeline challenges but retention issues tied to housing affordability (Davis Vanguard). Davis faces compounding pressures: as more teachers and staff move away, district revenue suffers, fueled by declining student enrollment.
Without action, Davis could face school closures. The Vanguard reported that if housing development projects like Village Farms or Willowgrove are not approved, DJUSD might have to close two schools by the 2027‑28 school year.
Colorado and local findings converge on a fundamental truth: housing affordability is inseparable from education quality and stability. Teachers—not just in California but across the Mountain West—cannot sustain their careers in places where housing is out of reach. Districts like DJUSD are stepping into the fray, treating teacher housing not as fringe policy, but as essential infrastructure.
Failure to act carries deeply personal consequences—not just for educators, but for students and communities that will bear the longer-term costs of turnover, closures, and lost opportunities.
Maybe it’s hard to retain teachers when a school system is oversized for the actual need according to a town’s student demographics? Just some food for thought.
“when a school system is oversized”
Why would that affect teacher retention?
It’s easier to keep positions filled when less are needed.
Having a smaller school district will make housing more affordable?
Downsizing probably wouldn’t have any discernible impact on the (general) cost of housing, but it would eliminate some of the “need” emanating from those who claim that they can’t (or won’t) live in Davis. Some of them would then have no connection to Davis whatsoever, and would also not need to commute to Davis.
Perhaps they’d even *gasp* seek employment in the communities in which they DO live.
Downsizing would also reduce the need for the district to provide housing for its own employees.
No, but it will make it easier to keep teacher positions filled because less are needed. What is wrong with having a school system that actually fits the population of the city it’s supposed to serve?
“What is wrong with having a school system that actually fits the population of the city it’s supposed to serve?”
What does that have to do with the topic of this article?
Don is correct, but to the extent that this is on topic, it misses the mark because your question doesn’t solve either of the problems identified here – the lack of affordable housing or lack of living wages for teachers – in fact, your suggestion makes both problems worse.
Don: Retention is mentioned in the article, as is housing for teachers.
As Keith pointed out, it’s generally easier to keep (for example) 10 positions filled, then it is to keep 100 positions filled.
Let’s say that the district is having trouble filling 10% of its positions:
10% of 10 positions = 1 position.
10% of 100 positions = 10 positions.
And as teachers get laid off, more of them will be competing for the vacant position. Needless to say, this type of competition makes it much easier for the district to keep those positions filled.
It’s also easier to house 10 teachers, then it is to house 100 of them. It’s also cheaper if there’s fewer of them, if they’re receiving some type of housing subsidy. And yes – it also reduces demand (in general) for housing, but probably not enough to lower housing prices.
Also, there’d be more money available for each teacher (e.g., from the parcel tax dedicated to their salaries), if there was fewer of them.
If people can’t afford housing districts won’t retain them.
“your suggestion makes both problems worse”
How does rightsizing a school district make problems worse? So any school district needs to be bigger than the needs of the city it serves to make problems better?
I’ve explained this so many times, I refuse to engage in it again.
Well this might be a shock to you but not everyone buys into your explanation.
Which is fine, but you are arguing the same point and asking the same questions over and over again (EVEN WHEN THAT’S NOT THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE). Moreover, the real problem is that you guys lack an understanding of the issue and have failed to educate yourselves to rectify your knowledge gap. It’s not worth my time to engage with people who refuse to learn.
I’ve got news for you David, not all of your opinions are sacrosanct.
That’s not a solution to your knowledge gap
The only thing that’s worse than a “knowledge gap” is publishing “incorrect knowledge” as if it were factual. For example, the type of “knowledge” disseminated by a self-interested entity, which has no intention of making any adjustments – regardless of what’s best for the community (or communities) as a whole.
Except you don’t know if that’s true, because you lack the requisite knowledge and failed to make up for that knowledge gap.
It is 100% true that auditors “don’t take an organization’s word” for something, ESPECIALLY when the organization has a self-interest in the numbers presented.
And yet, that’s exactly what you do.
Common sense will also tell you that a smaller school district costs less for state taxpayers. And in the case of Davis, it will also cost less for local taxpayers (since Davis taxpayers “make up for” the financial shortcomings of the state for each student.)
And again, parcel taxes go further, when they’re used for a fewer number of students/staff.
This isn’t rocket science.
In general, when something (like students) cost more money than you take in (from statewide taxpayers), you don’t add “more money losers” in hopes of saving money.
Now, if we were talking about child labor (where the “participants” actually do create value), you and the school district might have a point.
But again, schools are a COST – not a “money producer”.
Seems like a good idea for the district to provide housing for its own employees.
I wonder if UCD is still planning to do the same – in addition to the housing that they’ve already provided behind Davis Commons mall. How does that work, anyway?
But DJUSD is too large in the first place. Some teachers and their own kids wouldn’t even need to commute to Davis, if DJUSD closed a school or two (and got rid of some teachers/staff).
Of course, a lot of teachers have partners/spouses who bring in other income.
Honestly, I question the wisdom of some young people who pursue teaching careers since they’ve “never” paid well – and that’s been true and well-known for decades. That is, unless they’re from a two-worker household, etc.
DG say, “I’ve explained this so many times, I refuse to engage in it again.”
Could you do the same regarding housing. Please? PLEASE!!!???
Or you could not read housing articles?