By Jacqueline Gordon
As we continue researching principals’ experiences with the growing teacher shortage, I remain surprised by how many vacancies are still being filled through traditional interview processes. Having worked with and observed numerous schools and districts over the last decade, the reasons are both straightforward and obvious to anyone who recruits for a living.
Know What Your Problem Is
The first step is distinguishing whether you have a recruiting problem or a retention problem. This distinction isn’t difficult, but it does require analyzing data that many schools historically ignored. I asked the director of a state HR office whether they tracked which teacher-preparation programs produced the highest retention rates among new teachers. His response was telling: “We always thought that might be a good idea, but we’ve never gotten around to doing so.”
With fewer educators entering the workforce, finding candidates is only the first challenge; the more important goal is keeping them. Successful staffing strategies begin with clear diagnostics: are you losing teachers shortly after hire, or are you simply not attracting enough qualified applicants?
Know What the Solution Is
There is no single fix that fits every situation, but there are universal motivations behind why people change jobs: the desire to learn new skills and to assume greater responsibility. Compensation often serves as the justification, not the primary driver, unless the salary differential reaches significant levels. Even financial concerns can be addressed through a compelling, dynamic value proposition that highlights career growth, support, and work-life considerations rather than just pay.
When districts treat money as the only recruitment lever, they miss opportunities to create meaningful reasons for teachers to move—and, crucially, to stay. A well-crafted value proposition aligns the school’s strengths with what candidates truly want: professional development, leadership pathways, supportive culture, and clarity about expectations.
Do It a Different Way
Our recent research with building principals revealed that when a position goes unfilled, it’s the principal, staff, and students who suffer most—except in very small districts where leadership roles may be handled centrally. Ninety-five percent of principals we interviewed reported a significant decline in both the quantity and quality of applicants over the last three years. Several described positions that remained unfilled for more than a year, sometimes with no applicants at all. Two weeks before the start of school, some principals were still trying to hire kindergarten teachers.
Many principals were unfamiliar with interstate reciprocity agreements that could simplify hiring from other states. Those who managed to recruit out-of-state candidates often found that relocation costs fell entirely to the teacher, creating a major obstacle. Most districts relied primarily on money and benefits as their recruitment tools; strikingly, none had developed a formal value proposition tailored to prospective hires.
Generic job postings are another common misstep. Ninety percent of districts were posting generic openings under the assumption that quantity of applicants would solve the problem. Of those postings, 90 percent emphasized what the district wanted from candidates and only 10 percent described what the district offered. This imbalance discourages candidates who need clear reasons to choose—and remain with—a school.
Time-to-hire varied widely, from two weeks to two months. Principals reported teachers accepting counteroffers from their current employers or failing to show on the first day. Job fairs, once reliable, are now less effective: one spring event drew more than 200 districts but fewer than 125 candidates.
An additional and unexpected finding was the number of schools without experienced building leaders; in one state we studied, 18 percent of schools had either a new principal or no principal at all—an instability that further complicates hiring and retention.
There is a clear difference between human resources and recruiting. HR focuses on process: hiring paperwork, onboarding, compliance. Recruiting focuses on results: finding the right person and improving retention. HR’s process orientation can unintentionally hinder outcomes when it prioritizes filling seats over building long-term fit. Effective recruiting provides candidates with a reason to start and, more importantly, a reason to stay.
About the Author
Jacqueline Gordon is a Human Capital Management solutions provider for K–12 schools at E Squared, helping districts shift from a passive to an active staffing model. E Squared—Effective Educators—began by assisting districts with staffing shortage areas and expanded to emphasize the importance of placing the right leaders in key roles.
Ms. Gordon works with K–12 schools across the United States to help them identify and hire the leaders they need. Internationally, she represents a major private education group in China that serves thousands of students.
This article was originally published by The Learning Counsel, a research institute and news media organization focused on the transition to digital curriculum and the changing landscape of education.