Breaking the cycle of teacher shortages: What kind of policies can make a difference?

Abstract

Teacher shortages have recurred in the United States over many decades. This article introduces a special issue of EPAA that seeks to better understand the factors that contribute to the insufficient supply and inequitable distribution of qualified teachers, as well as the recurrences of teacher shortages. Together, the six articles in this issue help provide an empirical understanding of the current state of the supply, demand, and distribution of America’s public school teachers. This lead article provides an overview of the current status of teaching in the U.S. and outlines the volume’s findings about the key contributors to teacher supply, demand, and shortages of qualified teachers; the subject areas and locations in need of teachers; the determinants of high turnover for particular types of teachers; promising policies to recruit and keep teachers; and states’ attention to these policies. We hope the findings from this volume enable a better understanding of the obstacles and solutions to providing all students with high-quality teachers.

Full text

Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 25/3/2019
Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 26/3/2019
Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 26/3/2019
Special Issue
Understanding and Solving Teacher Shortages:
Policy Strategies for a Strong Profession
education policy analysis
archives
A peer-reviewed, independent,
open access, multilingual journal
Arizona State University
Volume 27 Number 34 April 8, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341
Breaking the Cycle of Teacher Shortages:
What Kind of Policies Can Make a Difference?
Linda Darling-Hammond
&
Anne Podolsky
Learning Policy Institute
United States
Citation: Darling-Hammond, L., & Podolsky, A. (2019). Breaking the cycle of teacher shortages:
What kind of policies can make a difference? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(34).
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4633 This article is part of the special issue, Understanding and
Solving Teacher Shortages: Policy Strategies for a Strong Profession, guested edited by Linda Darling-
Hammond and Anne Podolsky.
Abstract: Teacher shortages have recurred in the United States over many decades. This article
introduces a special issue of EPAA that seeks to better understand the factors that contribute to the
insufficient supply and inequitable distribution of qualified teachers, as well as the recurrences of
teacher shortages. Together, the six articles in this issue help provide an empirical understanding of
the current state of the supply, demand, and distribution of America’s public school teachers. This
lead article provides an overview of the current status of teaching in the U.S. and outlines the
volume’s findings about the key contributors to teacher supply, demand, and shortages of qualified

Ed ucat ion Polic y An alys is A rchives Vol. 27 No . 34 SPECIAL ISSUE 2
teachers; the subject areas and locations in need of teachers; the determinants of high turnover for
particular types of teachers; promising policies to recruit and keep teachers; and states’ attention to
these policies. We hope the findings from this volume enable a better understanding of the obstacles
and solutions to providing all students with high-quality teachers.
Keywords: teacher shortages; teacher supply; teacher demand; attrition; teacher quality
Deteniendo el ciclo de escasez de maestros: ¿Qué tipo de políticas pueden marcar
la diferencia?
Resumen: La escasez de maestros se ha repetido en los Estados Unidos durante muchas
décadas. Este artículo presenta un número especial de EPAA que busca comprender mejor
los factores que contribuyen a la oferta insuficiente y la distribución desigual de docentes
calificados, así como las recurrencias de la escasez de docentes. Juntos, los seis artículos en
este número ayudan a proporcionar una comprensión empírica del estado actual de la
oferta, la demanda y la distribución de los maestros de escuelas públicas de los Estados
Unidos. Este artículo principal proporciona una descripción general del estado actual de la
enseñanza en los Estados Unidos y describe los resultados del volumen sobre los
contribuyentes clave a la oferta, demanda y escasez de maestros calificados; las áreas
temáticas y los lugares que necesitan maestros; los determinantes de la alta rotación para
tipos particulares de maestros; políticas prometedoras para reclutar y mantener maestros ; y
la atención de los estados a estas políticas. Esperamos que los resultados de este volumen
permitan una mejor comprensión de los obstáculos y soluciones para proporcionar a todos
los estudiantes maestros de alta calidad.
Palabras clave: escasez de maestros; oferta de maestros; demanda de maestros; calidad de
los maestros; atrición
Terminando o ciclo de escassez de professores: Que tipo de políticas podem fazer a
diferença?
Resumo: A escassez de professores vem ocorrendo nos Estados Unidos ao longo de
muitas décadas. Este artigo apresenta uma edição especial da EPAA que procura entender
melhor os fatores que contribuem para a oferta insuficiente e a distribuição desigual de
professores qualificados, bem como as recorrências de falta de professores. Junt os, os seis
artigos desta edição ajudam a fornecer uma compreensão empírica do estado atual da
oferta, demanda e distribuição dos professores das escolas públicas dos Estados Unidos.
Este artigo principal fornece uma visão geral da situação atual do ensino nos EUA e
descreve as descobertas do volume sobre os principais contribuintes para a oferta, a
demanda e a escassez de professores qualificados; as áreas temáticas e locais que
necessitam de professores; os determinantes da alta rotatividade para tipos es pecíficos de
professores; políticas promissoras para recrutar e manter professores; e declara a atenção
para essas políticas. Esperamos que os resultados deste volume permitam uma melhor
compreensão dos obstáculos e soluções para fornecer a todos os alunos professores de alta
qualidade.
Keywords: escassez de professores; oferta de professores; demanda de professores;
qualidade do professor; atrito

Br eaking the Cy cle o f Te ache r Shortages 3
Introduction
Last week and this week, two of my teachers were out almost the whole week.
Today, I had no teacher for my last period, and that period is Civics…My Civics
teacher left in almost the middle of the year because she got a better job in another
parish.
– New Orleans High School Student (NAACP, 2017).
As this recent quote from a New Orleans high school student illustrates, not every student in the
United States experiences a stable, high-quality teaching force. In fact, over many decades, hundreds
of thousands of U.S. students have attended schools where teacher turnover is high, many teachers
are underprepared for their teaching assignments, and the inability to find teachers results in large
classes or cancelled courses.
These conditions are in part the result of recurring teacher shortages, which have occurred in
frequent waves since at least the 1930s, and in part the result of inadequate funding in under-
resourced schools that offer low salaries and poor working conditions, a side-effect of the unequal
funding systems for education in most states. These conditions are most common in schools serving
children of color living in communities of concentrated poverty (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
This special issue of Educational Policy Analysis Archives addresses the current wave of teacher
shortages, which became obvious in 2015 and has deepened in the several years since. By 2016,
more than 40 states were reporting severe shortages in subject areas like mathematics, science, and
special education, and many states were hiring substitutes and individuals without teaching
credentials by the thousands in states ranging from Arizona, California, Oklahoma, and Utah to
Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Two-thirds of districts surveyed by the American
Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) reported as a “big challenge” finding enough
candidates for open positions—rates double those of a few years earlier.
A team of researchers at the Learning Policy Institute set out to find out why districts were
reporting these difficulties when teachers were being laid off only a few years earlier. We titled the
first study, “A Coming Crisis in Teaching?” with a question mark denoting that what feels like a
crisis in many states may be resolved by policies states and districts enact to boost supply and reduce
attrition. We modeled supply, demand, and turnover from national data, and examined evidence of
shortages across the states.
We defined shortages as an inadequate quantity of qualified individuals willing to offer their
services for available jobs under prevailing wages and conditions. We defined qualifications
according to state requirements for teacher certification or licensure, which evaluate preparation to
teach in terms of exposure to particular bodies of content and pedagogical knowledge, as well as
passage of licensure tests—often in basic skills, subject matter knowledge, and pedagogy or teaching
performance. From this perspective, the key issue is not whether there are enough warm bodies to
enter teaching, but whether there are enough qualified individuals, by state’s licensure standards,
willing to offer their services in the specific fields and locations that currently lack an adequate
supply—and whether sufficiency of supply can be achieved solely in response to the market, or will
require policy interventions.
A series of studies followed, some of which are represented in this special issue, along with
research by others who have been examining these issues. We offer a set of six articles, including
this one, that together examine the size and extent of the shortages; their sources (with a special
focus on teacher attrition, which currently accounts for nearly 90% of annual hiring); and potential
solutions found effective in previous research. One article examines the particular case of recruiting

Ed ucat ion Polic y An alys is A rchives Vol. 27 No . 34 SPECIAL ISSUE 4
and retaining teachers of color, whom recent research identifies as particularly important for the
achievement of students of color. A final piece looks ahead at how states are intending to respond to
teacher shortages and the unequal distribution of qualified teachers in their plans for educator equity
under the Every Student Succeeds Act. A substantial body of literature on teacher supply, demand,
quality, and turnover is reviewed in the course of these articles, offering the reader a framework for
understanding the field. The intention is to strengthen our collective understanding of teacher
shortages as an initial step to eventually solving them.
The Current Status of Teaching in the United States
An important part of the story of teacher shortages is that teaching conditions in the United
States have deteriorated over the last decade and currently compare poorly with those of other
nations. Unlike teachers in many Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) countries whose salaries are, on average, comparable to those of other college graduates,
U.S. teachers are, on average, paid 30% less than other college graduates (OECD, 2017). Indeed, in
30 states, the average teacher heading a family of four qualifies for several forms of government
assistance (Boser & Straus, 2014). The children of teachers can themselves be on food stamps at
home and free lunch at school. U.S. teachers’ wages have declined relative to those of other college-
educated workers since the early 1990s, when they were at their most competitive—and when
teacher attrition was much lower than it is today (Allegretto & Mishel, 2016).
Furthermore, U.S. teachers teach the greatest number of hours per week of countries and
have among the lowest number of hours for planning. They also have above-average class sizes, by
international standards, and teach more low-income students than teachers in the other higher-
achieving OECD countries (OECD, 2014). This is because child poverty, food insecurity, and
homelessness in the U.S. have climbed to the highest levels in the industrialized world: Nearly 1 in 4
American children live in poverty and 1 in 30 are homeless (American Institutes for Research, 2019;
National Center for Children in Poverty, 2019).
Exacerbating inequalities, the salaries that teachers can expect are often lowest in the urban
and poor rural school districts serving the most disadvantaged students with the greatest educational
needs (Adamson & Darling-Hammond, 2012). And the supports teachers receive in the critical first
years of teaching—both mentoring and physical supports like adequate classrooms, materials, and
supplies—are much less available in poorer districts, which then suffer greater turnover and must
continually recruit greater numbers of teachers.
Meanwhile, during the Great Recession, beginning in 2007, states made deep cuts to their
education budgets. Even a decade later, several years after the recovery began, most are still
providing fewer school dollars per student than they had in 2008, according to the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities (Leachman, 2017). Salaries were often frozen; mentoring programs were cut;
service scholarships for training were eliminated; and professional development supports were
reduced. Budget cuts also led to teacher layoffs; reductions in support personnel such as counselors,
librarians, and instructional specialists; larger class sizes; narrowed curriculum; and less investment in
books, materials, supplies, computers, and other school equipment.
As schools have been left with fewer resources to address growing student needs, the result
has been growing turnover and unrest in the teaching profession. Signs from recent teacher strikes
in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kentucky—some of them carried by parents and students—
reflected the issues many experience:

Br eaking the Cy cle o f Te ache r Shortages 5
Speed limit 35. Not class size.
Do the math: 28 seats, 44 students, 89°, 0 books. CPS classroom.
Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions.
Deteriorating school conditions in many communities exacerbate the problems of attracting and
retaining teachers. As middle school teachers from recent focus groups in North Carolina explained:
They try to address it, but unfortunately, funding is not there—that’s what we are told. For instance…we
don’t have textbooks, we need to make copies of reading selections to teach those kids. We only get like 1,500
copies per nine weeks…we [use] our own money, we have to buy cartridges for our printers to print this.
I know people who have worked gas stations at night, and teach all day. [I]f I didn’t coach those three sports
and get extra money from that, I’d have to go work another job.
I don’t [see myself here in five years or in the profession]…because we’re a household of two teachers. It’s just
not feasible money-wise for both of us to teach.
When recruitment is difficult, many children are taught by individuals who have not completed – or
often even started – preparation for teaching. Study after study finds that children from lower
income families and students of color are the most likely to be taught by inexperienced and
underprepared teachers (Betts et al., 2000; Boyd et al. 2008; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Sass et al., 2012),
and these are the children who rely most upon schools for their success (Clotfelter el al., 2006;
Rivkin et al., 2005; Rockoff, 2004).
These inequities are, in part, a function of how public education is funded in the United
States. In most cases, education costs are supported primarily by local property taxes, along with
state grants-in-aid that are somewhat equalizing but typically not sufficient to close the gaps caused
by differences in local property values. In many states, the wealthiest districts spend two to three
times what the poorest districts can spend per pupil, differentials that translate into dramatically
different salaries for educators, as well as different learning conditions for students (Adamson &
Darling-Hammond, 2012).
Furthermore, the wealthiest states spend about three times what the poorer states spend
(Baker et al., 2017). So the advantages available to children in the wealthiest communities of high-
spending and high-achieving states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont
are dramatically different than the schooling experiences of those in the poorest communities of
low-spending states such as Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina, where buildings are often
crumbling, classes are overcrowded, instructional materials are often absent, and staff are often
transient.
This variability suggests another key aspect of the landscape: As this interactive map shows,
some states and communities with strong financial commitments to education, reasonable salaries,
and good working conditions experience little turnover and encounter much less difficulty in filling
vacancies. Thus, they rarely hire teachers who are inexperienced and untrained. However, even high-
achieving states differ in their ability or willingness to create conditions that will distribute teachers
equitably across districts serving different kinds of students.

Ed ucat ion Polic y An alys is A rchives Vol. 27 No . 34 SPECIAL ISSUE 6
This Special Issue
The goal of this special issue is to provide an empirical understanding of the current state of
the supply, demand, and distribution of America’s public school teachers. Together, the articles in
this volume identify the key contributors to teacher supply, demand, and shortages of qualified
teachers; the subject areas and locations in need of teachers; the determinants of high turnover for
particular types of teachers; promising policies to recruit and keep teachers; and states’ attention to
these policies. These articles primarily rely on nationally representative data collected by the U.S.
Department of Education. In addition, they synthesize relevant literature and review examples of
state and local policies aimed at influencing teachers’ career decisions.
This research is critical in light of debates about the prevalence of teacher shortages and the
multitude of policies aimed at alleviating shortages. While most states and districts report struggling
to find qualified teachers, some commentators claim that shortages are overblown (see, e.g., Biggs,
2015; Malkus, 2015; Walsh, 2016). Others worry that concerns about widespread teacher shortages
and turnover could lead to what they view as short-sighted policy solutions, such as “too many …
generic efforts to boost teacher retention, like districtwide pay increases,” rather than more targeted
bonuses only to teachers in certain fields (Aldeman, 2017). In an opinion piece in The 74, Mike
Antonucci (2017) suggested that publicizing teacher turnover rates is a “frightening” scare tactic and
protested “generic solutions” such as general pay raises for teachers. Antonucci also pointed to the
National Council on Teaching Quality's (NCTQ) efforts to rebut teacher shortages. NCTQ at one
point claimed the shortages must be a fiction, largely because the size of the teaching force is
growing again (NCTQ, 2017). Indeed it is because the teaching force is growing again and qualified
individuals cannot be found to fill the new positions that we are experiencing shortages.
Answers to these kinds of questions require evidence both about the facts of supply and
demand and about the previous success of different kinds of strategies for addressing recruitment
and retention in different contexts. The lack of empirical grounding in policy conversations often
contributes to often ill-informed solutions that do little to stem teacher churn or to improve student
learning and achievement in the long run.
Teacher Supply & Demand
The first article in this volume, “Understanding Teacher Shortages: An Analysis of Teacher
Supply and Demand in the United States,” by Leib Sutcher, Linda Darling-Hammond, and Desiree
Carver-Thomas provides a comprehensive overview of U.S. teacher supply and demand, modeling
trends using a set of national data bases providing data on teacher education enrollments, entry
rates, teacher turnover, and qualifications of those hired. The authors find that the demand for new
teachers has significantly increased due to: (1) increases in student enrollments, (2) efforts to return
to pre-recession course offerings and class sizes, and (3) high teacher attrition, which is the largest
component of annual demand. Meanwhile, supply of teachers has declined due to declines in teacher
preparation enrollments as well as lower re-entry rates of those who have left the profession. They
estimate the size of the current shortages at about 100,000 annually—a number that has since been
confirmed by collection of teacher workforce data from individual states about the numbers of
teachers uncertified for the positions they are filling – and illustrate the potential size of the shortage
in future years, absent policy changes that could redirect current trends. Their analysis shows that
teacher shortages vary by subject, location, and student population, and therefore require tailored
policies to address the unique needs of each context.

Br eaking the Cy cle o f Te ache r Shortages 7
Teacher Attrition
In the next article, “The Trouble with Teacher Turnover: How Teacher Attrition Affects
Students and Schools,” Desiree Carver-Thomas and Linda Darling-Hammond closely examine a
major contributor to shortages of teachers: the attrition of approximately 8% of America’s public
school teachers who leave the profession every year, while another 8% of teachers move between
schools annually, which is disruptive to the students and schools they leave behind. Attrition from
the profession currently accounts for about 90% of the annual demand for teachers, and is about
double the teacher leaving rates of countries like Canada, Finland, and Singapore. The authors show
that more than two-thirds of teachers leave for reasons other than retirement, most of them citing
dissatisfaction with different aspects of teaching that are amenable to policy intervention, including
accountability policies, lack of administrative support, and lack of opportunity for decision making
input and collaboration.
U.S. teachers did not always leave the profession at such high rates: In 1992, only 5.1% of
teachers left the profession. This was at a time when teachers’ salaries were most closely comparable
to those of other professions. Attrition rates below 5% still pertain in some states, largely in New
England, where salaries and working conditions remain strong, while teachers in the south and
southwest leave the profession at much higher rates. Teachers who enter the profession through
alternative certification pathways leave at rates about 25% higher than traditionally prepared
teachers, even after the characteristics of their schools and students are controlled.
Teachers also leave schools with higher proportions of students of color and lower-income
students, which tend to have lower salaries and poorer working conditions. In addition, teachers of
color are more likely to leave the profession early, in part because they disproportionately teach in
high-minority, lower-income schools, and they are more likely to enter teaching without having
completed training. Higher turnover is also found among teachers in shortage areas, such as
mathematics, science, special education, English language development, and world languages.
Failure to effectively address teacher turnover is costly, both in terms of dollars and student
learning. Teacher turnover is expensive, with estimates that it can cost an urban school district over
$20,000 to replace a teacher who leaves. And importantly, high rates of turnover at the school level
reduce student achievement while preventing the gains in effectiveness that can accompany teacher
experience, especially when a collegial workplace supports ongoing teacher learning (Kini &
Podolsky, 2016).
Recruitment and Retention of Minority Teachers
Richard Ingersoll, Henry May, and Gregory Collins focus specifically on the supply and
demand of minority teachers, because of the persistent gap between the percent of minority students
and the percent of minority teachers in the US. This gap is important because minority teachers
provide role models for all students and they have been shown to positively influence the
achievement of both minority and non-minority students. Using data from the 1980s to 2013, the
authors find that the teaching workforce has grown more diverse since the 1990s, with the number
of minority teachers recruited into the teaching force in the U.S. doubling. However, the growth in
the minority teaching force has been undermined by high rates of turnover, which are tied to the
poorer working conditions and lower salaries in the high-poverty schools in which two-thirds of
minority teachers work. In short, creating a diverse teacher workforce requires solving the problems
of minority teacher retention as well as recruitment.

Ed ucat ion Polic y An alys is A rchives Vol. 27 No . 34 SPECIAL ISSUE 8
Recruitment and Retention Strategies
Anne Podolsky, Tara Kini, Linda Darling-Hammond, and Joseph Bishop build on the
analyses of the teacher labor market from the first three articles in the volume by analyzing
additional data on teachers’ reasons for quitting their jobs and by summarizing the broader literature
on factors that influence teacher recruitment and retention, especially for teachers in hard-to-staff
schools—typically schools with high proportions of students from lower-income families and
students of color. In addition, the authors review the policy literature to identify district, state, and
federal strategies that have been effective at addressing the factors affecting teachers’ professional
decisions.
They outline strategies that influence teachers’ decisions about whether to remain in or leave
the classroom, including: increasing compensation through wages and allocations for such costs as
housing and college loan forgiveness; improving hiring and school management practices so that
teachers are expeditiously evaluated and hired and appropriately assigned; ensuring comprehensive
preparation so that teachers are both more effective and more likely to stay in the profession (as
well-prepared teachers are two to three times less likely to leave than unprepared teachers);
strengthening professional support for early mentoring (which can also double retention rates for
beginners) as well as ongoing learning and collegial problem solving; and improving working
conditions. Important working conditions supporting retention include opportunities for teachers to
professionally collaborate and contribute to decisions, school leadership that supports teachers
individually and collectively, providing a collegial environment, and providing sufficient resources
for teaching and learning.
State Policies Supporting Teacher Recruitment and Retention.
Gary Sykes and Kacy Martin look forward at the prospects for change through their review
of state plans to address the inequitable distribution of qualified teachers, which were submitted to
the U.S. Department of Education in 2015 as required under the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Through their analysis of 31 state plans, they find that many state strategies are not targeted to
ensure that teachers work in the subject areas, schools, and communities with persistent shortages of
qualified teachers. After ranking the quality of state plans and conducting case studies of three high
quality plans (in Delaware, Minnesota, and Nevada), they find that higher quality plans seek to
address the root causes of the inequitable distribution of teachers. For example, higher quality plans
try to remedy inequitable funding schemes that allow wealthier districts to offer higher salaries.
Higher quality plans also focus on ways to improve the quality of school leaders in hard-to-staff
schools due to principals’ significant influence on teachers’ working conditions. High-quality state
plans also include other evidence-based policies mentioned throughout this volume, like
incentivizing teachers to work in high-need schools and subjects by providing increased
compensation, such as through scholarships, to teachers who commit to teach in these areas.
Conclusion
Together, the articles in this special issue provide a starting-off point for policy analysts,
policymakers, and practitioners who want to stabilize and strengthen the teacher workforce. They
illustrate that addressing teacher shortages is about more than funneling warm bodies into
classrooms. Instead, teachers must be recruited, trained, and supported to teach successfully in the
specific subject areas, schools, and communities that experience shortages. The persistent shortages
in math, science, special education, and world languages that have existed since the 1950s
demonstrate that the market does not necessarily resolve these challenges by itself. Instead,

Br eaking the Cy cle o f Te ache r Shortages 9
evidence-based policies, like those raised in this volume, are required to alleviate the dearth of
qualified teachers in some areas.
That solving shortages is possible is demonstrated by the experiences of high-achieving
nations that provide a skilled, stable teaching force in all of their schools—in several cases turning
around earlier challenges that they had experienced.
1
In a recent study of five such nations (Darling-
Hammond. et al., 2017), the common policies they shared included:
 Equitable funding of schools
 Teacher compensation competitive with other college-educated professions
 High-quality preparation available at little or no cost to entering teachers
 Careful recruitment of candidates with the commitment and dispositions for teaching, as
well as academic background
 Readily available support from trained mentors for beginning teachers
 Ongoing time and support for professional learning and collaboration.
A number of these conditions have also been achieved at various points in time in high-achieving
states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont. The variation in the challenges
within the teacher labor market documented in this volume illustrate that the path to strengthening
the teacher workforce varies by state, district, and even school. After diagnosing the source of
teacher turnover and shortages, state and local policymakers can consider the comprehensive set of
policies needed to ensure that every child in every community is taught by a competent, committed
teacher. The policies pursued can influence the quality as well as quantity of America’s teachers and
have long-term impacts on student learning and the future of our nation.
References
Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Funding disparities and the inequitable distribution
of teachers: Evaluating sources and solutions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(37).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n37.2012
Aldeman, C. (2017). Analysis: Yes, teacher turnover matters. But much of what we think we know
about it is wrong. The 74. Retrieved from https://www.the74million.org/article/analysis-yes-
teacher-turnover-matters-but-much-of-what-we-think-we-know-about-it-is-wrong/
Allegretto, S. & Mishel, L. (2016). The teacher pay gap is wider than ever: Teachers’ pay continues to fall further
behind pay of comparable workers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-pay-gap-is-wider-than-ever-teachers-pay-
continues-to-fall-further-behind-pay-of-comparable-workers/.
American Institutes for Research. (2019). National Center on Family Homelessness. Retrieved from
https://www.air.org/center/national-center-family-homelessness
Antonucci, M. (2017). Analysis: Teacher turnover is high-except when you compare teaching to
other professions. The 74. Retrieved from https://www.the74million.org/article/analysis-
teacher-turnover-is-high-except-when-you-compare-teaching-to-other-professions/
Baker, B. D., Farrier, D., Johnson, M., Luhm, T., & Sciarra, D. G. (2017). Is school funding fair? A
National Report Card. Education Law Center. Rutgers Graduate School of Education.
1
The nations studied and documented in Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching
Quality Around the World include: Australia, with a focus on New South Wales and Victoria; Canada, with a
focus on Alberta and Ontario; China, with a focus on Shanghai; Finland; and Singapore.

Ed ucat ion Polic y An alys is A rchives Vol. 27 No . 34 SPECIAL ISSUE 10
Betts, J. R., Reuben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of
school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of
California.
Biggs, A. (2015). Is there really a teacher shortage? Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2015/08/13/is-there-really-a-teacher-
shortage/#9399ce467516
Boser, U. & Straus, C. (2014). Mid- and late-career teachers struggle with paltry incomes (Washington, DC:
Center for American Progress). https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/teachersalaries-brief.pdf
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New
York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high‐poverty
schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20377
Carroll, T. G. (2007). Policy brief: The high cost of teacher turnover. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added
and student outcomes in adulthood (No. w17699). National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w17699
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment
of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778-820.
https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLI.4.778
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will
determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E. L., &
Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around
the world. John Wiley & Sons.
Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher
quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5),
293-307. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15592622
Leachman, M. (2017). K-12 funding in some states still far below pre-recession levels. Washington, DC: Center
for Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/blog/k-12-funding-
in-some-states-still-far-below-pre-recession-levels
Malkus, N. (2015). The exaggerated teacher shortage. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/11/25/the-teacher-shortage-
crisis-is-overblown-but-challenges-remain
NAACP Task Force for Quality Education. (2017, April 6). Testimony in New Orleans hearing.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2019). Child poverty. Columbia University, Mailman School
of Public Health. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Facts to know about teacher shortages. Retrieved
from: https://www.nctq.org/publications/NCTQ-Questions-National-Teacher-Shortage-
Narrative,-Releases-Facts-to-Set-the-Record-
Straight?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI95qbvdmb4QIVhB-Bh28yAoqEAAYASAAEgJyEvD_BwE
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2014).TALIS 2013
Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, Paris: Author.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2017). Education at a Glance,
2017. Table D.3.2a. Paris: Author. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en

Br eaking the Cy cle o f Te ache r Shortages 11
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from
panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244
Sass, T. R., Hannaway, J., Xu, Z., Figlio, D. N., & Feng, L. (2012). Value added of teachers in high-
poverty schools and lower poverty schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 72(2-3), 104-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2012.04.004
Sutcher, L., Carver-Thomas, D., and Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Understaffed and Underprepared:
California Districts Report Ongoing Teacher Shortages (Research Brief). Palo Alto, CA: Learning
Policy Institute.
Walsh, K. (2016). The national teacher shortage is a myth. Here’s what’s really happening. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-national-
teacher-shortage-is-a-myth-heres-whats-really-happening/2016/12/02/58fac7d0-b4e5-11e6-
a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.2d55d0e6aa81

Ed ucat ion Polic y An alys is A rchives Vol. 27 No . 34 SPECIAL ISSUE 12
About the Authors/Editors
Linda Darling-Hammond
Learning Policy Institute
ldh@learningpolicyinstitute.org
Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond is President of the Learning Policy Institute and Charles E.
Ducommun Professor of Education Emeritus at Stanford University. She has conducted extensive
research on issues of educator supply, demand, and quality. Among her award-winning publications
in this area are What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future; Teaching as the Learning Profession;
Powerful Teacher Education; and Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be
Able to Do.
Anne Podolsky
Learning Policy Institute
apodolsky@learningpolicyinstitute.org
Anne Podolsky is a Researcher and Policy Analyst at the Learning Policy Institute. Her research
focuses on improving educational opportunities and outcomes, especially for students from
underserved communities.
education policy analysis archives
Volume 27 Number 34 April 8, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341
Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is
attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non-
commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More
details of this Creative Commons license are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the
author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School
of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de
Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil),
SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China).
Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter
feed @epaa_aape.

Br eaking the Cy cle o f Te ache r Shortages 13
education policy analysis archives
editorial board
Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University)
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Associate Editors: David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Scott Marley,
Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University)
Cristina Alfaro
San Diego State University
Amy Garrett Dikkers University
of North Carolina, Wilmington
Susan L. Robertson
Bristol University
Gary Anderson
New York University
Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
Gloria M. Rodriguez
University of California, Davis
Michael W. Apple
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ronald Glass University of
California, Santa Cruz
R. Anthony Rolle
University of Houston
Jeff Bale
University of Toronto, Canada
Jacob P. K. Gross
University of Louisville
A. G. Rud
Washington State University
Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany
Eric M. Haas WestEd
Patricia Sánchez University of
University of Texas, San Antonio
David C. Berliner
Arizona State University
Julian Vasquez Heilig California
State University, Sacramento
Janelle Scott University of
California, Berkeley
Henry Braun Boston College
Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University
of North Carolina Greensboro
Jack Schneider University of
Massachusetts Lowell
Casey Cobb
University of Connecticut
Aimee Howley Ohio University
Noah Sobe Loyola University
Arnold Danzig
San Jose State University
Steve Klees University of Maryland
Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo
Nelly P. Stromquist
University of Maryland
Linda Darling-Hammond
Stanford University
Jessica Nina Lester
Indiana University
Benjamin Superfine
University of Illinois, Chicago
Elizabeth H. DeBray
University of Georgia
Amanda E. Lewis University of
Illinois, Chicago
Adai Tefera
Virginia Commonwealth University
David E. DeMatthews
University of Texas at Austin
Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana
University
A. Chris Torres
Michigan State University
Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center
for Education Research & Policy
Christopher Lubienski Indiana
University
Tina Trujillo
University of California, Berkeley
John Diamond
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Sarah Lubienski Indiana University
Federico R. Waitoller
University of Illinois, Chicago
Matthew Di Carlo
Albert Shanker Institute
William J. Mathis
University of Colorado, Boulder
Larisa Warhol
University of Connecticut
Sherman Dorn
Arizona State University
Michele S. Moses
University of Colorado, Boulder
John Weathers University of
Colorado, Colorado Springs
Michael J. Dumas
University of California, Berkeley
Julianne Moss
Deakin University, Australia
Kevin Welner
University of Colorado, Boulder
Kathy Escamilla
University ofColorado, Boulder
Sharon Nichols
University of Texas, San Antonio
Terrence G. Wiley
Center for Applied Linguistics
Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev
Eric Parsons
University of Missouri-Columbia
John Willinsky Stanford University
Melissa Lynn Freeman
Adams State College
Amanda U. Potterton
University of Kentucky
Jennifer R. Wolgemuth
University of South Florida
Rachael Gabriel
University of Connecticut
Kyo Yamashiro
Claremont Graduate University

Ed ucat ion Polic y An alys is A rchives Vol. 27 No . 34 SPECIAL ISSUE 14
archivos analíticos de políticas educativas
consejo editorial
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editores Asociados: Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Angelica Buendia,
(Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Antonio Luzon,
(Universidad de Granada), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Paula Razquin (Universidad de San Andrés),
Maria Alejandra Tejada-Gómez (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia)
Claudio Almonacid
Universidad Metropolitana de
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile
Ana María García de Fanelli
Centro de Estudios de Estado y
Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET,
Argentina
Miriam Rodríguez Vargas
Universidad Autónoma de
Tamaulipas, México
Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega
Universidad Autónoma de la
Ciudad de México
Juan Carlos González Faraco
Universidad de Huelva, España
José Gregorio Rodríguez
Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Colombia
Xavier Besalú Costa
Universitat de Girona, España
María Clemente Linuesa
Universidad de Salamanca, España
Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad
y la Educación, UNAM, México
Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad
Autónoma de Barcelona, España
Jaume Martínez Bonafé
Universitat de València, España
José Luis San Fabián Maroto
Universidad de Oviedo,
España
Antonio Bolívar Boitia
Universidad de Granada, España
Alejandro Márquez Jiménez
Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la
Universidad y la Educación,
UNAM, México
Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad
de la Coruña, España
José Joaquín Brunner Universidad
Diego Portales, Chile
María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez,
Universidad Pedagógica Nacional,
México
Yengny Marisol Silva Laya
Universidad Iberoamericana,
México
Damián Canales Sánchez
Instituto Nacional para la
Evaluación de la Educación,
México
Miguel Pereyra Universidad de
Granada, España
Ernesto Treviño Ronzón
Universidad Veracruzana, México
Gabriela de la Cruz Flores
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México
Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional
de San Martín, Argentina
Ernesto Treviño Villarreal
Universidad Diego Portales
Santiago, Chile
Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes
Universidad Iberoamericana,
México
Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves
Instituto para la Investigación
Educativa y el Desarrollo
Pedagógico (IDEP)
Antoni Verger Planells
Universidad Autónoma de
Barcelona, España
Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV,
México
Paula Razquin Universidad de San
Andrés, Argentina
Catalina Wainerman
Universidad de San Andrés,
Argentina
Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
José Ignacio Rivas Flores
Universidad de Málaga, España
Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco
Universidad de Colima, México

Br eaking the Cy cle o f Te ache r Shortages 15
arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas
conselho editorial
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editoras Associadas: Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGV,
Brazil), Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Gilberto José Miranda,
(Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do
Rio de Janeiro)
Almerindo Afonso
Universidade do Minho
Portugal
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz
Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Brasil
José Augusto Pacheco
Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Rosanna Maria Barros Sá
Universidade do Algarve
Portugal
Regina Célia Linhares Hostins
Universidade do Vale do Itajaí,
Brasil
Jane Paiva
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Maria Helena Bonilla
Universidade Federal da Bahia
Brasil
Alfredo Macedo Gomes
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Brasil
Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira
Universidade do Estado de Mato
Grosso, Brasil
Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil
Jefferson Mainardes
Universidade Estadual de Ponta
Grossa, Brasil
Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva
Universidade Federal do Mato
Grosso do Sul, Brasil
Alice Casimiro Lopes
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Jader Janer Moreira Lopes
Universidade Federal Fluminense e
Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora,
Brasil
António Teodoro
Universidade Lusófona
Portugal
Suzana Feldens Schwertner
Centro Universitário Univates
Brasil
Debora Nunes
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Norte, Brasil
Lílian do Valle
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Flávia Miller Naethe Motta
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Alda Junqueira Marin
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de
São Paulo, Brasil
Alfredo Veiga-Neto
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil
Dalila Andrade Oliveira
Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, Brasil