Why this topic matters right now (and why it’s not just an HR issue)
As a Special Education Director, I spend a lot of time in the space where staffing meets student services. When we don’t have the right people in the right roles on Day 1, it doesn’t just create an inconvenience for administrators—it disrupts learning, increases staff burnout, and can quickly become a compliance concern. And while this brief focuses on teachers, the same “candidate to classroom” realities show up in related service areas, including special education and therapy staffing.
The Annenberg Institute brief, From Candidate to Classroom: Research-Based Practices for Recruiting and Hiring Highly-Effective Teachers, summarizes a growing body of evidence about what actually improves hiring outcomes. The most useful takeaway is this: districts can’t control everything (regional labor markets, enrollment shifts, state timelines), but we can control many of the policies and practices that determine whether we hire early, hire well, and hire for long-term fit.
The central question: How do we attract and select highly effective teachers?
The brief is grounded in a practical question for district and school leaders: how can we implement evidence-based recruitment and hiring practices that result in highly effective teachers in classrooms?
That question is urgent. The brief notes that 86% of U.S. public schools reported challenges hiring teachers for the 2023–24 school year. In my network, I hear the same story repeatedly: special education, math, science, bilingual education, and related services remain especially hard to staff. When positions sit vacant—or get filled late—students feel it first.
Late hiring has real academic costs
Many districts hire later than they intend. In some urban districts, up to 20% of teachers are hired after the school year starts. The brief highlights research showing that being assigned to a teacher hired after the start of the year can reduce student learning by three to five weeks. Importantly, the negative impact is not only about the individual teacher’s skill; it’s also about disruption—less time to plan, weaker onboarding, and difficulty establishing classroom routines and culture once the year is underway.
From a systems perspective, late hiring also tends to hit the same schools over and over—often those serving higher proportions of low-income students and students who are already experiencing opportunity gaps. That’s a staffing problem and an equity problem at the same time.
Why districts hire late (even when leaders are trying to do the right thing)
The brief outlines several common drivers of late hiring. If you’ve worked in a district office or building leadership, these will sound familiar:
Budget timelines and approvals that land late due to state funding cycles or local political processes.
Enrollment uncertainty, especially in schools with high mobility or changing demographics.
Late resignation/retirement notice policies, which create unexpected vacancies. Fewer than 10% of large districts require more than three months’ notice.
Transfer and placement rules that require schools to prioritize internal candidates, even when fit is unclear.
Inefficient HR processes that delay posting and screening even when early hiring is allowed.
“Waiting for a better candidate”—a strategy that often backfires and results in rushed late hires anyway.
In special education and therapy services, we see parallel patterns: delayed postings, unclear caseload projections, and a tendency to “hope the market improves.” The evidence suggests that hope is not a strategy—process is.
Evidence-based hiring policies that improve outcomes
1) Post positions early (March or April)
One of the clearest findings is also one of the simplest: early-posted positions attract more applicants and are more likely to be filled.
In Boston Public Schools, positions posted early received about seven more applications on average than those posted after July 1.
In Boston, positions posted in March were 8 percentage points more likely to be filled than positions posted in July.
In Providence, 91% of positions posted in March were filled by the start of school, compared to 57% for positions posted after June 1.
For district leaders, this supports a practical planning move: build a calendar that treats March and April as “prime hiring season,” not “too early to know.” Even if enrollment is uncertain, posting early and building a candidate pool gives you options.
2) Use open hiring (mutual consent) to improve fit
The brief highlights evidence supporting open hiring processes that allow schools to select candidates without constraints from district transfer processes. In mutual consent hiring, internal candidates do not automatically receive priority; they compete through the same selection process.
Why does this matter? Because teacher effectiveness improves when there is a strong match between a teacher’s skills and preferences and the school’s needs and culture. Better matches are associated with higher retention, greater diversity, and improved student outcomes.
When New York City implemented mutual consent, transfer and excessed teachers were equally likely to be selected, and most reported satisfaction with their new roles.
Boston’s move to open hiring accelerated timelines and cut late hiring by nearly 50%, while also improving outcomes (lower turnover, greater diversity, and higher student achievement).
Recruitment strategies that build a stronger pipeline (not just a bigger applicant pool)
1) Partner with strong student teaching programs
Student teaching partnerships are a long-term play with immediate benefits. Teachers are much more likely to take a first job near where they student taught, and districts can observe candidates in real classrooms before making hiring decisions.
In Chicago Public Schools, 30% of student teachers in one year became teachers-of-record the next year.
Mentor teacher evaluations of student teachers’ instructional abilities were positively related to later observation ratings.
Research also suggests student teachers do not negatively impact student learning and may increase engagement.
In practice, this means investing in mentor capacity and building “try-before-you-buy” pathways that reduce hiring risk.
2) Recruit paraeducators and substitute teachers into teaching
Paraeducators and substitute teachers are often overlooked talent pools. They already know school routines, they often have strong community ties, and they can increase workforce diversity.
Florida supported tuition for paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities; most completed degrees and had high retention once teaching.
A Mississippi study found that promoting experienced school staff into teaching roles (without traditional licensure exams) produced teachers who performed as well as licensed peers, were more likely to stay, and better reflected student demographics.
Substitute teachers transition into permanent roles at seven times the rate of paraeducators and are often more diverse than the current workforce.
For special education leaders, this is especially relevant: paraeducators frequently have deep experience supporting students with disabilities and can become excellent certified teachers when supported with clear pathways.
3) Recruit year-round and keep candidates engaged
Continuous recruitment is about relationship-building, not just posting jobs. The brief notes that districts that recruit year-round and continually engage candidates are more likely to secure high-quality hires.
Maintain an active candidate pool even before vacancies are finalized.
Invite candidates to school visits or structured conversations with staff.
Create a process that builds connection and excitement rather than leaving candidates waiting in silence.
4) Use financial incentives carefully
There is promising (but not definitive) evidence that financial incentives can help attract teachers into hard-to-staff subjects or schools, but they have limited impact on retention.
Hawaii offered $10,000 bonuses for special education teachers and reduced vacancies by one-third.
Studies across contexts show bonuses can improve recruitment but often do not improve long-term retention.
In other words: incentives may help you get candidates to the table, but they won’t replace strong onboarding, supportive working conditions, and good job fit.
Screening and interviews: where many districts lose the advantage
A critical caution in the brief is that larger applicant pools do not automatically lead to better hires. A 2023 study found that schools with larger pools did not, on average, hire teachers who were more qualified, effective, or likely to stay. That means the selection process matters just as much as recruitment.
Use standard measures, but don’t stop there
Academic preparation, references, GPA, and subject matter knowledge can predict later outcomes, but they are not enough on their own. The strongest references are from people who have directly observed the candidate teaching.
References from supervisors or colleagues who observed teaching strongly predict performance.
References from unrelated sources (friends, non-instructional contacts) are not good predictors.
Structured interviews and demonstration lessons are high-value tools
Structured interviews (same questions, clear rubrics) and demonstration lessons provide a more accurate picture of future performance, including classroom management, instructional decision-making, and alignment with school culture.
Demonstration lesson performance is associated with later student achievement and evaluation ratings.
Debriefs after lessons reveal how candidates reflect and respond to feedback—an essential trait for growth.
Structured interviews support fair comparisons and reduce reliance on “gut feelings.”
Practices to avoid (even if they feel efficient)
The brief flags two common pitfalls that show up in many districts:
Assuming early hiring alone fixes quality. Early posting helps, but without strong screening tools, districts may still miss the best candidates.
Relying on “gut” feelings. When hiring lacks agreed-upon data points (rubrics, structured tools), implicit bias can influence decisions and undermine diversity efforts.
Connecting this to special education and online therapy staffing
Although the brief focuses on teachers, the same principles apply to related service providers—especially in times of staffing shortages. In my work, I’ve seen that early planning, clear role definitions, structured selection, and realistic job previews reduce turnover and improve service stability.
This is also where online service models can be part of a district’s staffing strategy. Providers like TinyEYE can help districts maintain continuity when vacancies persist, when caseloads spike unexpectedly, or when recruitment timelines don’t align with student needs. The goal is not simply “filling a slot,” but ensuring students receive consistent, appropriately delivered services while districts build sustainable pipelines.
A simple action checklist for district leaders
Post anticipated vacancies in March or April whenever possible.
Build a year-round candidate pool and keep candidates engaged.
Strengthen partnerships with student teaching programs.
Create pathways for paraeducators and substitutes to become certified teachers.
Use structured interviews with rubrics and multiple trained interviewers.
Include demonstration lessons and a debrief focused on reflection and feedback.
Provide realistic job previews: classroom visits, team meetings, student interactions.
Avoid “information-poor” hiring and overreliance on intuition.
For more information, please follow this link.
