Opinion: Ah, for a four-day week
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Maybe it’s just that I want in too, but this recent trend toward a four-day school week in a smattering of smaller school districts across the country seems like a refreshing idea that’s clearly not right for all campuses, but possibly worth considering for some in our lock-step, five-workday world.
The schools first get involved to save money, but many have been finding other benefits: reduced absenteeism among teachers and students, more class time spent on task, fewer behavior problems. The schools don’t reduce the actual instructional time; they run slightly longer each day. The savings, since teachers are still working the same amount of time, come through less use of substitute teachers, lower transportation costs and some reduced salaries for, say, cafeteria staff -- though some school districts keep everyone’s pay at the same level. Achievement has stayed steady or in some cases gone up a bit.
The downsides: finding affordable child care for working parents; figuring out a long day that suits the youngest children, who tend to get learning fatigue by about 11 a.m.
The most recent school district to sign on, tiny Centerville in Montana, provides a handy guide to what it has learned about the experience in other districts, and the organization Education Northwest rounds up the very limited research on the subject.
As the editorial board examines this issue, the question is, did schools seeking money-saving ideas accidentally stumble on an educational model worth at least some emulation? Maybe as a pilot program? Perhaps in magnet schools, so it draws only the families for whom the schedule works? Good for high school, not elementary? Parents, teachers and anyone who’s ever slogged through a five-day week, what do you think?
-- Karin Klein
