Print
Does a four-day school week make sense?
Yes
Donna L. Murrell-Speed
History shows it's worth considering in some schools.
Rising school district energy costs help explain some of the renewed interest in the idea of a four-day school week around the nation. While it’s silly to cast the four-day week as a one-size-fits-all proposition for schools, it’s also foolish to dismiss the idea out of hand, particularly since the strategy may yield benefits that extend beyond the pump and the heating bill.
Many rural school districts in Colorado, for example, went to the four-day school week after being hit by the energy crisis in the 1970s. When the crisis eased, some schools did not revert to the five-day week because their communities preferred the new system.
Of course, the participating school districts in Colorado were able to save money on transportation, fuel and food services. But the shorter week also enabled some students to catch up on projects and assignments, and to participate in extracurricular activities. There was less absenteeism for staff and students, and a decline in the need for substitute teachers. Participating schools also saw an increase in students’ scores, perhaps due to additional productive class time in the extended hours of a four-day week.
The Custer, S.D., school district adopted the four-day school week in 1995. The staff was not required to come to school on Fridays, but many of them took advantage of the time to complete paperwork, tutor students, meet with parents and coach extracurricular programs. They were compensated for these additional hours and for professional development workshops held on Fridays. Student test scores and attendance have made substantial gains since the four-day week was adopted.
The four-day week would lengthen the regular school day and increase productive class time. The fifth day would allow for the opportunity to add programs such as tutoring for students at risk of failing, reading rooms, one-on-one programs, career and technical education, hobbies and crafts. And making the fifth day an extra compensated day would offer some relief to educators who stay after school for two or three extra hours per day in a regular five-day week to catch up on projects, paperwork, lesson plans, parent conferences and many other duties. To help make the shift smooth for parents, even those whose students aren’t engaged in fifth-day remedial or extracurricular activities, the school district could seek assistance from federal out-of-school grants.
The four-day week is not for everyone. The majority of school districts in the nation with four-day school weeks have small student enrollment and are located outside city limits. But the record for many districts that have made the switch—a record of community support, reduced dropout rates, declining discipline referrals and higher student test scores—shows the idea merits consideration.
AFT member Donna L. Murrell-Speed has taught in Atlanta and New York City public schools for more than 20 years.
No
Wedless Campbell
The shortened week is a poor fit for urban education
Against a backdrop of fiscal constraints confronting our nation’s schools, the discussion continues as to whether a four- or five-day school week best meets the needs of our students. A number of rural districts in states such as Colorado, New Mexico and South Dakota adopted the four-day week to save on transportation costs during the energy crunch of the ’70s. While this change did result in modest savings in transportation costs for these districts, they did not see the type of substantial growth in test scores anticipated.
The four-day week does help teachers, giving them time for other duties. It also provides students with time they can use for enrichment, remedial help and work on their regular studies—not to mention less time on long rural school commutes and more of a chance to help around the house. But it’s no coincidence that heightened interest in the four-day school week comes at a time of rising energy costs and cuts in education budgets; the driver for this movement, quite frankly, seems to be the dollars involved.
I teach in an urban district where we serve the needs of students who are very different from the students in rural communities. Our urban students have emotional, educational and psychological needs that are distinct from rural students’ needs. The decline of marriage, especially in many urban communities, is cracking the foundation of the nuclear family and worsening poverty. Our children have not experienced the character-building aspects of life on the farm, for example, and need comparable types of positive experiences to help shape them into productive, successful citizens—opportunities that come with more time in school, not less. The circumstances facing children coping with the realities of urban life are such that we need to spend at least five days a week with them, addressing their educational and emotional needs.
Outside of school, the urban child of today is constantly exposed to consumerism and negative self-images. These influences, coupled with the challenges of poverty and single-parent families, create students who would find academic achievement difficult if not impossible without five full days each week in school. There, they can fill what might otherwise be empty hours with learning and doing, under the supervision and encouragement of those whose profession is teaching and nurturing.
The time in school does make a difference: The fantastic thing about our brains is that they are “plastic” (the brain can make new connections within itself and therefore experience new learning, new skills and new ideas). A nurturing and concentrated school environment can—and does—address these challenges.
Wedless Campbell, Ph.D., teaches chemistry at Frederick Douglass High School in Atlanta and is a member of the Atlanta Federation of Teachers.
