5 Ways School Districts Address Teacher Housing

At our booth, our team met school HR leaders from just about every state.

Even though districts and housing markets varied, nearly everyone was dealing with some version of the same problem. Their teachers and staff are struggling to afford housing in the communities where they work.

And it's not just happening in traditionally expensive markets like California or New York. We're hearing it from districts across Texas, Florida, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, and just about everywhere in between.

It's not a surprise, we all know why this has become an issue. Everything is so expensive, especially the cost of housing.

According to a 2025 study by the National Council on Teacher Quality, apartment rents increased 51% and home prices increased 47% between 2019 and 2025 across 72 large school districts studied. Beginning teacher salaries increased just 24% over that same period. In 39 of those 72 districts, a new teacher with a bachelor's degree would have to spend more than 30% of their salary to rent a one-bedroom apartment.

For school districts already dealing with recruitment challenges, employee turnover, and hard-to-fill positions, housing costs are now an HR issue, not just a personal one for employees.

In our presentation, we walked through five approaches school districts across the country are already using to provide affordable housing for their employees.

Some require district-owned land. Some rely on voter-approved funding. Others involve private developers, nonprofit organizations, or philanthropy.

Each model has advantages and limitations, and what makes sense for one district might not work for another.

Here are the five approaches we covered.

One of the most established examples of school district employee housing comes from Jefferson Union High School District in Daly City, California.

In 2022, the district opened 122 apartments specifically for its teachers and staff, with rents set at approximately 50% below prevailing market rates.

The project, known as 705 Serramonte, cost approximately $75.5 million to develop. Of that, $33 million came from a voter-approved bond measure, with the balance financed through certificate of participation notes (COPs).

Rather than relying on a private developer to own the community, the district pursued a structure that allowed it to retain ownership and control over the housing.

As of September 2026, approximately 60% of residents were credentialed teachers, and the community had a waiting list of around 70 employees.

For a district in one of the country's most expensive housing markets, that's a meaningful employee benefit. You will see this model in plenty of other California districts, and now here in Texas with Pflugerville ISD.

The biggest advantage of this model is control. The district can establish its own eligibility requirements, rental rates, and long-term housing policies. It also retains ownership of a real estate asset that could serve employees for decades.

That control comes with responsibility. The district had to secure financing, oversee planning, development, and construction, and set up a structure to operate the property. The project also required substantial public support to get off the ground.

For districts with available land, strong leadership, sufficient financial capacity, and a community willing to invest in employee housing, direct ownership can be an effective long-term strategy.

The challenge is that many school districts simply don't have the capital or appetite to take on real estate development themselves.

Another increasingly popular approach involves using land that school districts already own.

Under a traditional ground lease, the district retains ownership of its land but enters into a long-term agreement allowing a private developer to construct and operate housing on the property.

This can be an attractive option for districts sitting on valuable, underutilized land.

Austin ISD and San Diego Unified School District are two examples of districts pursuing this approach.

Austin ISD: Turning a closed school property into housing

Austin ISD is working with The NRP Group to redevelop the former Anita Ferrales Coy facility in East Austin.

The approximately 18-acre site is planned to accommodate roughly 675 apartments across two phases, with the first phase delivering 341 residences.

The development will include a combination of income-restricted and market-rate housing (50%). District employees will receive priority leasing, but the apartments will also be available to the general public.

Under the agreement, the developer is responsible for financing, constructing, managing, and operating the housing.

The district retains ownership of the land, receives ground lease revenue, and does not have to fund the housing construction or operations.

According to Austin ISD, leasing for the first phase is anticipated to begin in fall 2027.

I think this is a great example of a school district looking at an underutilized asset and finding a way to put it to work.

San Diego Unified: Nearly 3,000 units across six sites

San Diego Unified has been even more aggressive in exploring the use of district-owned property for workforce housing.

As of January 2026, the district reported a pipeline of nearly 3,000 proposed housing units across six sites, with several projects advancing through developer selection and negotiations.

The district is using long-term ground leases and joint-occupancy partnerships to create new housing opportunities for its workforce.

An earlier project, Livia at Scripps Ranch, already provides 54 affordable homes for district employees. The waitlist was over 2,000!

San Diego Unified's approach shows how a school district can create a repeatable strategy for developing housing rather than treating every project as a completely separate undertaking.

The tradeoff: District control

While ground leases can be a great way to leverage existing land, there's an important tradeoff that I think school districts need to understand.

With a traditional ground lease, the developer typically maintains direct control over the project and day-to-day operation of the housing community.

The district can negotiate protections upfront, including affordability requirements, employee preferences, and other restrictions, but it generally doesn't directly administer every aspect of the housing program. How much control it keeps depends on the agreement.

For example, in Austin ISD's project, employees receive a leasing preference rather than exclusive access to the homes. Once someone becomes a resident, they don't have to remain employed by the district to keep their apartment. It's treated as any other "affordable" apartment.

San Diego's workforce housing agreements may provide stronger employee-specific protections, but the developer still has substantial responsibility for delivering and operating the properties.

If the primary goal is recruitment and retention, I believe districts should have the ability to shape their housing program around the specific needs of their workforce.

Ground leases can absolutely work, especially for districts with valuable land and limited capital. But districts need to carefully consider how much control they're retaining and whether the resulting program will meet their long-term HR objectives.

Jackson Hole, Wyoming, has one of the most challenging housing markets in the country.

It's a beautiful place to live, but the cost of housing can make it incredibly difficult for teachers, school administrators, and support staff to live anywhere near their schools.

Teton County School District No. 1 decided to address that problem directly.

In April 2026, the district celebrated the opening of 24 new employee apartments at a development called The Buttes.

The project was supported by approximately $16 million in voter-approved local sales tax funding (SPET), along with a state loan that allowed construction to move forward sooner. The project was delivered on time and on budget, which is very impressive in the world of construction!

At the time of opening, a nearby market-rate one-bedroom apartment was renting for more than $3,500 per month. The district's new one-bedrooms rent for $1,460, utilities included, which can save an employee more than $2,000 a month.

The district also took an interesting approach to resident selection, using a lottery that gives additional weight to employees with more years of service.

The 24 apartments may only be the first phase. The site has room for two more of similar size if future funding is approved.

For other districts, the lesson is that an employee housing program doesn't need to start with hundreds of homes. A smaller development can provide immediate relief while allowing a district to evaluate demand, learn from the first phase, and potentially expand over time.

The obvious challenge is funding. Voter-approved taxes and public financing depend on local laws, community support, and political willingness. Districts also need to consider the responsibilities that come with owning and operating the homes.

But Teton County/Jackson Hole illustrates what can happen when a community views employee housing as an important part of keeping its schools functioning.

This is the model we're pioneering at Upward Communities, and it's the approach we believe gives districts the best chance of success.

When we started Upward, we wanted to create a way for school districts to provide high-quality, attainable housing without having to finance, develop, or operate real estate themselves.

We also wanted the district to keep direct control over its employee housing program.

Through our structure, a district enters into a long-term master lease with a nonprofit. Upward handles everything from planning through construction and property management, so the district can focus on education.

Unlike a ground lease such as Austin ISD's, where a district may negotiate a preference for employees within a privately operated apartment complex, our master lease structure is designed to give the district direct control over the housing program itself.

The district can establish employee eligibility, set priority guidelines, shape the rental pricing framework, and help determine the types of homes and amenities that best serve its workforce.

The district sets the program's policies and priorities, but it doesn't have to take on the day-to-day work of operating a housing community.

A turnkey housing solution from beginning to end

We handle the entire process, from the initial idea through long-term operations, including:

Initial feasibility studies and employee housing demand surveys
Site identification and land acquisition
Master planning and community design
Financing and development structuring
Zoning, entitlements, and municipal approvals
Construction management and project delivery
Pre-leasing, marketing, and resident onboarding
Ongoing property management, maintenance, and community operations

School districts don't need to hire a real estate development team, manage contractors, or create an internal property management department.

They can remain focused on running their schools while having a direct say in the housing benefit they're providing to employees.

This mattered to us when we designed the model, because most school district leadership teams are already stretched thin. Even if a district recognizes the need for housing, taking on a major real estate development is probably the last thing its superintendent or HR team wants to manage.

Our goal is to make the process as straightforward as possible.

Lockhart ISD: 117 homes without district-owned land

Our first example is Wildflower at Juniper Springs in Lockhart, Texas.

We're currently building 117 rental homes for Lockhart ISD employees, and we intentionally made most of them three or four bedrooms.

A lot of teacher housing developments around the country focus on smaller apartments. Those serve an important purpose, particularly for new teachers and employees just entering the workforce.

But we also wanted to address employees who have families, need additional space, or have been working in education for years.

The community, designed by DPZ CoDesign, will include a pool, fitness center, walking trails, green spaces, and shared gathering areas.

The partnership involves Upward Communities, the nonprofit Public Private Development Corporation (PPDC), and Lockhart ISD.

Lockhart ISD did not have to contribute land or issue its own bonds to finance construction.

The goal is for employee rents to support the housing program's financing and operating costs, allowing it to operate without a recurring net cost to the district once stabilized.

Hays CISD: Turning surplus district land into 362 homes

Our second example is Live Oak Commons, which we're developing in partnership with Hays CISD in Uhland, Texas.

This is a larger community consisting of 362 rental homes, ranging from one to four bedrooms, with private yards and every amenity you could think of.

The neighborhood, also designed by DPZ CoDesign, will include green spaces, walking trails, a resort style pool, playgrounds, sand volleyball, community garden, soccer field, and a walkable village center with retail.

It's being designed to feel like an actual neighborhood rather than a traditional apartment complex.

The Hays project uses land the district declared surplus.

The district had property available that wasn't needed for a school campus. Rather than leaving the land underutilized, it sold the property for the housing development.

That allowed the district to put a surplus asset to productive use while establishing a housing program for its employees through our master lease structure.

And because of our structure, the district has a direct role in shaping the housing program instead of simply leasing its land to a developer and receiving ground rent.

What if a school district already owns land?

One misconception I heard during AASPA was that districts need to choose between using their own land and pursuing a privately financed housing partnership.

At Lockhart, we secured a development site without requiring the district to provide land and for Hays we purchased the surplus district property through a competitive RFP process. Both districts are using the same structure.

That flexibility matters because every district has a different real estate portfolio. Some have closed campuses or surplus acreage. Others have growing employee populations but no available land.

Why I think this model is different

For me, there are four major advantages.

The district maintains direct control over the employee housing program. Its leadership can establish eligibility, priorities, rent policies, and other important program decisions, subject to the governing agreements and applicable law.
The district doesn't have to become a real estate developer or property manager. Upward handles the development and management process through a turnkey structure.
The district doesn't fund construction and development costs, so no GO debt is required.
District-owned land is optional. The model can work on surplus district property or on a site acquired independently.

Of course, this doesn't eliminate financial risk.

A long-term master lease is still a significant contractual obligation, and districts need to carefully evaluate lease payments, operating assumptions, occupancy, reserves, and other potential risks with their legal and financial advisors.

But for districts that want to provide a meaningful housing benefit while staying focused on education, we believe it's a compelling structure.

Beyond avoiding upfront development costs, the biggest advantage is a housing program designed specifically for your employees, with an experienced partner responsible for executing it.

The fifth approach we discussed is one that I think deserves more attention, particularly for districts looking to begin with smaller projects.

In North Carolina's Outer Banks, Dare County Schools has worked with the Dare Education Foundation to provide below-market rental housing for teachers.

The foundation funds and operates two communities: Run Hill Ridge, with 24 apartments, and Hatteras Teacher Housing, with 12 apartments.

Both developments were supported by interest-free loans from the North Carolina State Employees' Credit Union Foundation, along with community and foundation support.

These are two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartments intended to provide affordable options for teachers working in a region where year-round housing can be difficult to find.

The program is still growing. In July 2026, Dare County approved a $1.15 million contribution toward 12 additional apartments at Run Hill Ridge. The expansion is expected to bring the foundation's housing portfolio from 36 to 48 homes.

The new phase also involves additional financing and private support, making it a good example of how philanthropic, public, and private capital can work together.

Most communities have people and organizations that care deeply about their public schools.

Education foundations, local businesses, major employers, private donors, and community lenders may be willing to support housing initiatives if there's a clear plan and a measurable benefit.

Philanthropy alone may not be enough to finance a large housing community. But combined with low-cost loans, local government participation, or other development partners, it can help close financing gaps and get projects moving, which could make a real difference for smaller school districts.

After speaking with so many HR leaders at AASPA, I learned that a lot of districts know they have a housing problem, but aren't sure what their first step should be.

My advice is to start by understanding the employees, not by immediately looking for land or selecting a developer.

Where are your teachers and staff living today? How far are they commuting? What can they realistically afford? Are they looking for apartments, townhomes, or family-sized homes?

Are housing costs actually affecting your ability to recruit and retain employees?

From there, districts can begin evaluating the resources available to them.

Some may own land that could support a development. Others might have access to public funding, supportive foundations, or private development partners.

The right solution depends on the local housing market, employee needs, the district's financial position, and its willingness to take on different levels of responsibility and risk.

Five questions every school district should ask

Before moving forward with an employee housing initiative, I think district leadership should answer five basic questions.

1. Who are we trying to help? Is the program designed for new teachers, hard-to-fill positions, or all district employees? We believe there is a lot of value in creating programs that support employees across different roles and income levels.

2. What can our employees actually afford? Start with employee compensation and housing demand rather than assuming market rents will work. The goal is to create a meaningful benefit.

3. Do we have land available? Inventory surplus property, closed campuses, and other potential sites. But don't assume that owning land is a prerequisite for developing housing.

4. How much control do we want? This is one of the most important questions. Districts should carefully consider whether they want to simply provide employees access to housing or establish a dedicated housing program with direct control over eligibility, priorities, and pricing policies.

5. Who is going to execute and manage the program? Developing housing is one challenge. Operating it for the next 30, 40, or 50 years is another. Districts need to understand who will be responsible for leasing, maintenance, resident issues, and ongoing financial performance.

Most of these are HR questions as much as real estate questions, which is why I think human resources leaders need to have a major role in shaping these programs.

I left AASPA even more proud of why we started Upward Communities.

When we launched the company, we knew housing affordability was creating real challenges for school districts.

But having conversations with HR leaders from nearly every state really put into perspective just how widespread the issue has become.

Housing isn't going to solve every recruitment or retention challenge. Districts still need competitive compensation, strong leadership, and a supportive work environment.

But when an employee can't afford to live within a reasonable distance of where they work, even a great school district can have a difficult time keeping them.

There isn't one model that's right for everyone. Jefferson Union, Austin, San Diego, Teton County, Lockhart, Hays, and Dare County are all taking different approaches, and some are further along than others. What they have in common is a willingness to try something different.

I really enjoyed meeting so many school leaders this week who are thinking seriously about how to better support their employees.

There's a lot of work ahead, but there are also more options available than many districts realize, and I'm excited to keep having that conversation.

5 ways school districts are addressing teacher housing challenges

The same problem in nearly every state

District-owned employee housing: Jefferson Union High School District, California

Ground leases: Austin ISD and San Diego Unified

Austin ISD: Turning a closed school property into housing

San Diego Unified: Nearly 3,000 units across six sites

The tradeoff: District control

Voter-funded employee housing: Teton County School District, Wyoming

The master lease model: Lockhart ISD and Hays CISD, Texas

A turnkey housing solution from beginning to end

Lockhart ISD: 117 homes without district-owned land

Hays CISD: Turning surplus district land into 362 homes

What if a school district already owns land?

Why I think this model is different

Philanthropy and education foundations: Dare County Schools, North Carolina

So where should school districts start?

Five questions every school district should ask

Housing is becoming part of the recruitment and retention conversation

Exploring employee housing for your district?

Stay connected