Why Can't Curriculum Solve the Teacher Shortage?

We are facing a historic shortage of teachers in the United States, and while this crisis may feel sudden, the reasons behind it are entirely predictable. Higher education costs continue to climb, yet teacher salaries remain stagnant, making it difficult for new talent to choose teaching as a viable career. The skills required to be a successful teacher—subject-matter expertise, classroom management, and the ability to inspire young minds—are transferable to industries that offer higher pay and less regulation. It’s no wonder that fewer individuals are entering the teaching profession, while many who do are leaving within the first few years.

A Longstanding Burden on Teachers

Historically, the cost of becoming a teacher has fallen squarely on the shoulders of those entering the profession. While scholarships and subsidies are available for those in high-need areas like special education or STEM fields, most teachers must finance their undergraduate degrees and licensure through student loans or out-of-pocket expenses. For decades, this model relied on deferred debt repayment over 10-15 years—an enormous financial burden for individuals who already face a modest salary trajectory. Recently, because of the increasing alternative licensure pathway growth, teachers have had to pay out of pocket without the option of financing the costs.

This traditional preparation pipeline worked when the cost of education was lower and the societal value of teaching was seen as high. However, this system is no longer sustainable. The cost of higher education has skyrocketed, and teaching—despite its intrinsic value to society—no longer offers the financial stability to justify the investment. The result? Fewer people are willing to take on the cost burden of becoming a teacher, contributing to today’s widespread shortages. The burden on talent development then falls on the employer, who risks being proactive in finding, investing in, and training new talent to lose them to larger, higher-paying districts in their area.

The Rise of Alternative Pathways

In response, alternative licensure pathways and programs for paraprofessionals lacking bachelor's degrees are rapidly becoming the largest pipeline for new teaching talent. These alternative routes allow individuals already embedded in the education system to earn their licensure while continuing to work. However, this growing trend has a significant challenge: the financial burden of credentialing still falls on the teacher.

For many working adults, the traditional model of deferring payment over several years is simply unfeasible. They often need to balance jobs, families, and other obligations, which means they cannot afford to pause their careers or take on large amounts of debt for prolonged periods. The traditional teacher preparation system was not designed with these individuals in mind, and we now need to think differently about how to structure teacher preparation to address this need. To think differently, we believe the risk needs to be shared between the entities involved, namely the Institution of Higher Education, the employer, and the teacher receiving the training. Shared responsibility and risk could drive affordability if done well.

A Thought Experiment: Sharing the Cost Burden

This brings us to the central question of this blog: How can we distribute the cost burden of teacher preparation more equitably across multiple stakeholders? Cost is related to risk, demand, and value, so sharing costs would also mean sharing those.

Consider this thought experiment: What if the teacher candidate didn't bear the financial responsibility for preparing teachers? What if, instead, this responsibility was shared among the teacher, the employer (the school or district), and the higher education institution or training provider? What if we didn’t continue the top-down approach of state and federal subsidies for high-needs professions like teaching to reduce talent production costs?

We need to see an investment from multiple parties to make this a reality. Schools could reallocate small portions of their budgets to help cover teacher preparation costs, viewing it as an investment in long-term staffing solutions. Candidates themselves would still contribute, but in a more manageable way—perhaps a low monthly payment that aligns with their financial reality. The institution providing the training would also need to take on some of the economic risks by reducing their recruitment and training delivery costs by forging this type of partnership with districts and teacher candidates.?

The Per-Student Cost of Teacher Preparation

As we work through this thought experiment, one potential solution comes to mind: What if the cost of teacher preparation was attached to the cost of curriculum itself? The budget for the curriculum is present in every school and district, and it is necessary for the promise of quality education for the students in that system. Curriculum companies are vested in ensuring that teachers are well-trained to use their materials effectively and with fidelity. Without trained educators, the impact of a high-quality curriculum is diminished. This is called the gap between the intended curriculum and the enacted curriculum. Curriculum companies all have professional services, part of their organizations that train teachers, so this is nothing new to their operations. Currently that training does not articulate to college credit or to licensure competencies.

In a joint offering, a curriculum company could partner with a higher education institution to create a model where the cost of teacher preparation is shared among four collaborative entities: the school as the employer, the teacher as the user of both the curriculum and training, the institution that provides the credentials and degree, and the curriculum company that depends on teachers’ expertise for the successful implementation of its products.

This shared-risk model could be transformative. Not only would it lower the financial burden on teacher candidates, but it would also ensure that schools and curriculum providers have a direct role in the training and success of educators. Schools would benefit from having highly trained teachers proficient in using their chosen curriculum. Teachers would benefit from a system that makes their professional preparation more affordable and achievable. Curriculum companies would benefit by ensuring their materials are correctly used, leading to better student outcomes and greater product satisfaction. Since the curriculum is typically charged on a per-student basis, it may be true that this type of coalition could add a negligible increase to the per-student cost but have exponential benefits to all parties involved– including new teachers.

Conclusion: Curriculum Alone Won’t Solve the Problem

While a high-quality curriculum is essential to student success, it alone cannot solve the teacher shortage or our student performance and learning issues. The issue lies in how we prepare and support teachers in the first place. We must think beyond traditional models of teacher preparation and explore innovative ways to share the financial responsibility across all stakeholders involved in the educational ecosystem. By doing so, we can address the teacher shortage and ensure that future educators are well-prepared, supported, and ready to inspire the next generation.