As we’ve discussed before (see here and here), shifting to a four-day school week is an increasingly popular trend that’s quickly sweeping the country.

It’s important to note, however, that this change appears to primarily reflect local preferences rather than reputable research, and it seems to focus more on certain perceived benefits rather than on improving student learning.

In general, the primary perceived benefits are 1) saving money, 2) reducing student absences, and 3) attracting/retaining teachers. While most proponents believe these benefits are significant, emerging research shows only weak support for these assertions. According to most studies (see below), their positive impact appears to be minimal at best.

In addition, when it comes to student learning, most studies indicate that a truncated week has a negative impact on learning for low-income students and for those with learning disabilities. Even when the data shows slight upward gains in student achievement, those gains appear to be minimal and often reflect other factors. For example, this study found stronger growth in schools with a more traditional five-day schedule than in adjacent schools with a four-day schedule.

There are sociological factors to consider, too. The change to a four-day school week is often difficult for lower-income parents, who have trouble paying childcare for days their kids don’t attend school. Also, low-income students rely on public schools for almost half their meals — breakfast and lunch during the week — so there are also health and nutrition issues involved.

While a four-day school week may be workable in some specific settings, administrators need to carefully review the research and share that with their constituents before considering such a shift. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, so far the research does not indicate significant advantages in making this change. In fact, it appears that in many cases, just the opposite is true. And unless educational leaders acknowledge this, they may be guilty of supporting confirmation bias (telling constituents what they want to hear rather than providing factual information) … which is not how successful schools make decisions.

REFERENCES:

Kilburn, et al. (2021). “Does Four Equal Five? Implementation and Outcomes of the Four-Day School Week.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA373-1.html.

Thompson, P. (2021). “The Shrinking School Week: Effects of a four-day schedule on student achievement.” Education Next, 21(3), 60-67. https://www.educationnext.org/shrinking-school-week-effects-four-day-schedule-student-achievement/

Turner, et al (2019). “Three Midwest Rural School Districts’ First Year Transition to the Four Day School Week.” The Rural Educator, DOI: 10.35608/ruraled.v40i1.529.

Turner et al. (2018). “Staff Perspectives of the Four-Day School Week: A New Analysis of Compressed School Studies.” Journal of Education and Training Studies. DOI: 10.11114/jets.v6i1.2769.

Turner, et al. (2018). “The Economics of a Four-Day School Week: Community and Business Leaders’ Perspectives.” Journal of Education and Training Studies. DOI: 10.11114/aef.v5i2.2947.

Anderson, D. (2015). “Does Shortening the School Week Impact Student Performance? Evidence from the Four-Day School Week.” Education Finance and Policy. DOI: 10.1162/EDFP_a_00165.