Teacher shortages and Cleare et al. v. West Contra Costa County USD

LEAs must exhaust all available options for filling vacancies

Districts across the nation are facing significant staffing issues, particularly with hiring and retaining fully certificated teachers. According to the Learning Policy Institute’s June 2025 analysis, approximately one in eight teaching positions nationwide are either unfilled or filled by a teacher who is not fully credentialed.

In California, the Legislature has established a comprehensive teacher certification system aimed at ensuring that every classroom has a fully qualified teacher.

When a local educational agency fails to staff its classrooms with qualified teachers, the system allows parents and teachers to file written complaints (known as “Williams complaints”) to call attention to the teacher vacancies and/or misassignments and to request the LEA take corrective action. A misassignment exists when the teacher is not fully credentialed or does not have the appropriate credential for the assignment. The difficulty in complying with this mandate gives rise to the question of the legal validity of the argument that school districts simply cannot fill every teacher position with a properly certificated teacher in response to complaints filed against an LEA. The case Cleare et al. v. West Contra Costa County Unified School District presented this scenario and raised this question.

In Cleare, several teachers in West Contra Costa County Unified School District filed complaints concerning three district schools that they alleged had been plagued by multiple teacher vacancies for several years. The common theme of the complaints was that the district was using “rolling substitutes” to fill vacancies instead of ensuring that all classes were covered by a single, designated certificated teacher, as well as failing to take advantage of options for staffing classrooms with teachers working toward their full certification. As a remedy, the teachers asked that the district cease using long-term substitutes to fill vacancies, and instead implement districtwide processes to recruit, hire and assign permanent teachers in a timely manner. The teachers also requested the district refine teacher development and support programs to, among other things, support current classified staff interested in becoming certificated teachers.

The district responded and noted that it was “unable to provide the requested remedies to the extent they require addressing statewide systemic problems over which the District has little control.” The teachers appealed this denial to the district’s board of education, which also denied their requested remedies. Following the board’s decision, the teachers filed a lawsuit that essentially asked the court to mandate their requested remedies.

During the litigation, the district outlined several endeavors it had undertaken to fill these persistent vacancies. According to the district, it had undertaken significant efforts, including, but not limited to, posting jobs on various employment websites and attending multiple job fairs; partnering with Teach for America and multiple universities to recruit teachers as well as participating in internship programs; asking retired teachers to return to the classroom; developing its own programs to assist people in becoming credentialed teachers; and utilizing Short-Term Staff Permits. The district also stated it took advantage of exemptions and allowances for teachers who want to teach outside of their credential areas. Despite these extensive efforts, the vacancies persisted, leading the district to allege that compliance with the mandate of Education Code Section 35186 was essentially impossible.

While the trial court held in favor of the district, finding it did the best it could; on appeal, the First District Court of Appeals overturned the decision. The court first noted that the district has a duty to fill every classroom with a permanent, qualified teacher and that substitute teachers may not be used for more than 60 days. The court then acknowledged that, despite these requirements, the Legislature “did not mandate inflexible rigidity in hiring only currently credentialed teachers.” In support of this statement, the court pointed to recent legislative changes such as authorizing the hiring of retired teachers and using university interns for up to four years, as well as reassigning credentialed teachers from administrative and non-teaching positions. Finally, the court explained that there are several “special permits and short-term renewal waivers” that a school district may request from either the Commission on Teaching Credentialing (CTC) or the State Board of Education (SBE).

The court then looked at the district’s claim of impossibility, explaining that this defense requires the district to establish that it had explored all available options without resolving the issue. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that if district had truly exhausted all options, it was then required to request a waiver from the CTC or SBE. And, despite the evidence that the district had applied for and apparently obtained some waivers, the court found it had not done all it could in that regard. In short, the district’s failure to establish that it had exhausted the available statutory options, including applying for every possible waiver, undermined any claim that complying with the mandate to place an appropriately credentialed teacher in every classroom is impossible.

Overall, this decision demonstrates that while courts may be sympathetic to the lengths school districts must go to when hiring and retaining credentialed teachers, they will expect to see that every option available was explored. Before claiming impossibility, school districts should not only continue engaging in significant efforts to attract more teachers but also apply for any and all potential waivers or allowances offered by the CTC or SBE. Assistance from legal counsel such as CSBA’s District and County Office of Education Legal Services is highly encouraged.

Please note that the information provided here by CSBA is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.