shorter school week essay

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

The four-day school week: Research shows benefits and consequences

To save money and help recruit teachers, many U.S. schools are taking Mondays or Fridays off. We look at research on how the four-day school week affects student test scores, attendance and behavior.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource September 6, 2023

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/four-day-school-week-research/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

We updated this piece on the four-day school week, originally published in June 2018, to include new figures, research and other information on Sept. 6, 2023.

Just over 2,100 schools in 26 states have switched to a four-day school week, often in hopes of recruiting teachers, saving money and boosting student attendance, according to the most recent estimate from the Four-Day School Week policy research team at Oregon State University.

Small, rural schools facing teacher shortages have led the trend, choosing to take Mondays or Fridays off and giving teachers and students a three-day weekend every week. To make up for the lost day of instruction, school officials tack time onto the remaining four days.

In places where schools have made the change, school district leaders have marveled at the resulting spikes in applications from teachers and other job seekers.

“The number of teacher applications that we’ve received have gone up more than 4-fold,” Dale Herl , superintendent of the Independence, Missouri school district, told CBS News last month .

Independence, which serves about 14,000 students outside Kansas City, introduced the new schedule when classes there resumed last month. In all, 30% of Missouri school districts now have a four-day school week, The Kansas City Star reported recently .

Schools nationwide faced teacher shortages long before the COVID-19 pandemic. But vacancies grew as the virus, which has killed 1.1 million Americans to date , spread.

In the spring before the pandemic, a total of 662 public school districts used the schedule – up more than 600% since 1999, Paul Thompson and Emily Morton , leading researchers in this field, write in a 2021 essay for the Brookings Institution. That number climbed to 876 during the 2022-23 academic year, Thompson and Morton told The Journalist’s Resource in email messages.

Brent Maddin , executive director of the Next Education Workforce project at Arizona State University, told The New York Times the pandemic has made many teachers feel more undervalued.

“If we’re serious about recruiting people into the profession, and retaining people in the profession, in addition to things like compensation we need to be focused on the working conditions,” he told the Times.

Scholars are still trying to understand the impact of cutting the school week by one day. Most studies focus on a single state or group of states, so their findings cannot be generalized to all schools on a four-day schedule. The research to date indicates:

• The amount of time students spend in class varies from state to state.
• Some schools offer less instructional time during a four-day school week than they did during a five-day week.
• There’s limited cost savings, considering employee salaries and benefits make up the bulk of school expenses. In a 2021 analysis , Thompson estimates schools save 1% to 2% by shortening the school week by a day.
• The impact of the condensed schedule differs depending on a range of factors, including the number of hours schools operate and how they structure their daily schedules. Recent research generally finds small drops in student achievement.
• Staff morale improved under a four-day school week.
• High school bullying and fighting declined.

“For journalists looking for a definitive answer to [the question] ‘Are four-day school weeks a good or bad thing?’, I would caution that it is still too early to tell,” Thompson, an associate professor of economics who is part of Oregon State’s Four-Day School Week policy research team, wrote to The Journalist’s Resource.

Both he and Morton urged journalists to explain that the amount of time schools dedicate to student learning makes a big difference.

“I think too often the importance of instructional time for the impacts of the policy is missed,” Morton, a researcher at the American Institutes of Research, wrote to JR. “It’s pretty critical to the story that districts with longer days (who are possibly delivering equal or more instructional time to their students than they were on a five-day week) are not seeing the same negative impacts that districts with shorter days are seeing.”

Keep reading to learn more about the research. We’ll update this collection periodically.

——————–

Impacts of the Four-Day School Week on Early Elementary Achievement Paul N. Thompson; et al. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2nd Quarter 2023.

Summary: This study is the first to examine the four-day school week’s impact on elementary schools’ youngest students. Researchers looked at how children in Oregon who went to school four days a week in kindergarten later performed in math and English Language Arts when they reached the third grade. What they found: Overall, there were “minimal and non-significant differences” in the test scores of third-graders who attended kindergarten on a four-day schedule between 2014 and 2016 and third-graders who went to kindergarten on a five-day schedule during the same period.

When the researchers studied individual groups of students, though, they noticed small differences. For example, when they looked only at children who had scored highest on their pre-kindergarten assessments of letter sounds, letter names and early math skills, they learned that kids who went to kindergarten four days a week scored a little lower on third-grade tests than those who had gone to kindergarten five days a week.

The researchers write that they find no statistically significant evidence of detrimental four-day school week achievement impacts, and even some positive impacts” for minority students, lower-income students,  special education students, students enrolled in English as a Second Language programs and students who scored in the lower half on pre-kindergarten assessments.

There are multiple reasons why lower-achieving students might be less affected by school schedules than high achievers, the researchers point out. For example, higher-achieving students “may miss out on specialized instruction — such as gifted and enrichment activities — that they would have had time to receive under a five-day school schedule,” they write.

Effects of 4-Day School Weeks on Older Adolescents: Examining Impacts of the Schedule on Academic Achievement, Attendance, and Behavior in High School Emily Morton. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, June 2022.

Summary: Oklahoma high schools saw less fighting and bullying among students after switching from a five-day-a-week schedule to a four-day schedule, this study finds. Fighting declined by 0.79 incidents per 100 students and bullying dropped by 0.65 incidents per 100 students.

The other types of student discipline problems examined, including weapons possession, vandalism and truancy, did not change, according to the analysis, based on a variety of student and school data collected through 2019 from the Oklahoma State Department of Education and National Center for Education Statistics.

“Results indicate that 4-day school weeks decrease per-pupil bullying incidents by approximately 39% and per-pupil fighting incidents by approximately 31%,” writes the author, Emily Morton , a research scientist at NWEA, a nonprofit research organization formerly known as the Northwest Evaluation Association.

Morton did not investigate what caused the reduction in bullying and fighting. She did find that moving to a four-day schedule had “no detectable effect” on high school attendance or student scores on the ACT college-entrance exam.

Only a Matter of Time? The Role of Time in School on Four-Day School Week Achievement Impacts Paul N. Thompson and Jason Ward. Economics of Education Review, February 2022.

Summary: Student test scores in math and language arts dipped at some schools that adopted a four-day schedule but did not change at others, according to this analysis of school schedule switches in 12 states.

Researchers discovered “small reductions” in test scores for students in grades 3 through 8 at schools offering what the researchers call “low time in school.” These schools operate an average of 29.95 hours during the four-day week. The decline in test scores is described in terms of standard deviation , not units of measurement such as points or percentages.

At schools offering “middle time in school” — an average of 31.03 hours over four days — test scores among kids in grades 3 through 8 did not change, write the researchers, Paul N. Thompson , an associate professor of economics at Oregon State University, and Jason Ward , an associate economist at the RAND Corp., a nonprofit research organization.

Scores also did not change at schools providing “high time in school,” or 32.14 hours over a four-day school week, on average.

When describing this paper’s findings, it’s inaccurate to say researchers found that test scores dropped as a result of schools adopting a four-day schedule. It is correct to say test scores dropped, on average, across the schools the researchers studied. But it’s worth noting the relationship between test scores and the four-day school week differs according to the average number of hours those schools operate each week.

For this analysis, researchers examined school districts in states that allowed four-day school weeks during the 2008-2009 academic year through the 2017-2018 academic years. They chose to focus on the 12 states where four-day school weeks were most common. The data they used came from the Stanford Educational Data Archive and “a proprietary, longitudinal, national database” that tracked the use of four-day school weeks from 2009 to 2018.

The researchers write that their findings “suggest that four-day school weeks that operate with adequate levels of time in school have no clear negative effect on achievement and, instead, that it is operating four-day school weeks in a low-time-in-school environment that should be cautioned against.”

Three Midwest Rural School Districts’ First Year Transition to the Four Day School Week Jon Turner, Kim Finch and Ximena Uribe-Zarain. The Rural Educator, 2019.

Abstract: “The four-day school week is a concept that has been utilized in rural schools for decades to respond to budgetary shortfalls. There has been little peer-reviewed research on the four-day school week that has focused on the perception of parents who live in school districts that have recently switched to the four-day model. This study collects data from 584 parents in three rural Missouri school districts that have transitioned to the four-day school week within the last year. Quantitative statistical analysis identifies significant differences in the perceptions of parents classified by the age of children, special education identification, and free and reduced lunch status. Strong parental support for the four-day school week was identified in all demographic areas investigated; however, families with only elementary aged children and families with students receiving special education services were less supportive than other groups.”

Juvenile Crime and the Four-Day School Week Stefanie Fischer and Daniel Argyle. Economics of Education Review, 2018.

Abstract: “We leverage the adoption of a four-day school week across schools within the jurisdiction of rural law enforcement agencies in Colorado to examine the causal link between school attendance and youth crime. Those affected by the policy attend school for the same number of hours each week as students on a typical five-day week; however, treated students do not attend school on Friday. This policy allows us to learn about two aspects of the school-crime relationship that have previously been unstudied: one, the effects of a frequent and permanent schedule change on short-term crime, and two, the impact that school attendance has on youth crime in rural areas. Our difference-in-difference estimates show that following policy adoption, agencies containing students on a four-day week experience about a 20 percent increase in juvenile criminal offenses, where the strongest effect is observed for property crime.”

Staff Perspectives of the Four-Day School Week: A New Analysis of Compressed School Schedules Jon Turner , Kim Finch and Ximena Uribe – Zarian . Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2018.

Abstract: “The four-day school week is a concept that has been utilized in rural schools for decades to respond to budgetary shortfalls. There has been little peer-reviewed research on the four-day school week that has focused on the perception of staff that work in school districts that have recently switched to the four-day model. This study collects data from 136 faculty and staff members in three rural Missouri school districts that have transitioned to the four-day school week within the last year. Quantitative statistical analysis identifies strong support of the four-day school week model from both certified educational staff and classified support staff perspectives. All staff responded that the calendar change had improved staff morale, and certified staff responded that the four-day week had a positive impact on what is taught in classrooms and had increased academic quality. Qualitative analysis identifies staff suggestions for schools implementing the four-day school week including the importance of community outreach prior to implementation. No significant differences were identified between certified and classified staff perspectives. Strong staff support for the four-day school week was identified in all demographic areas investigated. Findings support conclusions made in research in business and government sectors that identify strong employee support of a compressed workweek across all work categories.”

The Economics of a Four-Day School Week: Community and Business Leaders’ Perspectives Jon Turner , Kim Finch and Ximena Uribe – Zarian . Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2018.

Abstract: “The four-day school week is a concept that has been utilized in rural schools in the United States for decades and the number of schools moving to the four-day school week is growing. In many rural communities, the school district is the largest regional employer which provides a region with permanent, high paying jobs that support the local economy. This study collects data from 71 community and business leaders in three rural school districts that have transitioned to the four-day school week within the last year. Quantitative statistical analysis is used to investigate the perceptions of community and business leaders related to the economic impact upon their businesses and the community and the impact the four-day school week has had upon perception of quality of the school district. Significant differences were identified between community/business leaders that currently have no children in school as compared to community/business leaders with children currently enrolled in four-day school week schools. Overall, community/business leaders were evenly divided concerning the economic impact on their businesses and the community. Community/business leaders’ perceptions of the impact the four-day school week was also evenly divided concerning the impact on the quality of the school district. Slightly more negative opinions were identified related to the economic impact on the profitability of their personal businesses which may impact considerations by school leaders. Overall, community/business leaders were evenly divided when asked if they would prefer their school district return to the traditional five-day week school calendar.”

Impact of a 4-Day School Week on Student Academic Performance, Food Insecurity, and Youth Crime Report from the Oklahoma State Department of Health’s Office of Partner Engagement, 2017.

Summary: “A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) utilizes a variety of data sources and analytic methods to evaluate the consequences of proposed or implemented policy on health. A rapid (HIA) was chosen to research the impact of the four-day school week on youth. The shift to a four-day school week was a strategy employed by many school districts in Oklahoma to address an $878 million budget shortfall, subsequent budget cuts, and teacher shortages. The HIA aimed to assess the impact of the four-day school week on student academic performance, food insecurity, and juvenile crime … An extensive review of literature and stakeholder engagement on these topic areas was mostly inconclusive or did not reveal any clear-cut evidence to identify effects of the four-day school week on student outcomes — academic performance, food insecurity or juvenile crime. Moreover, there are many published articles about the pros and cons of the four-day school week, but a lack of comprehensive research is available on the practice.”

Does Shortening the School Week Impact Student Performance? Evidence from the Four-Day School Week D. Mark Anderson and Mary Beth Walker. Education Finance and Policy, 2015.

Abstract: “School districts use a variety of policies to close budget gaps and stave off teacher layoffs and furloughs. More schools are implementing four-day school weeks to reduce overhead and transportation costs. The four-day week requires substantial schedule changes as schools must increase the length of their school day to meet minimum instructional hour requirements. Although some schools have indicated this policy eases financial pressures, it is unknown whether there is an impact on student outcomes. We use school-level data from Colorado to investigate the relationship between the four-day week and academic performance among elementary school students. Our results generally indicate a positive relationship between the four-day week and performance in reading and mathematics. These findings suggest there is little evidence that moving to a four-day week compromises student academic achievement. This research has policy relevance to the current U.S. education system, where many school districts must cut costs.”

Other resources

• The Education Commission of the States offers a 50-state comparison of public school students’ instructional time requirements. For example, students in Colorado are required to be in school for a minimum of 160 days each academic year while in Vermont, the minimum is 175 days and in North Carolina, it’s 185.
• The State of the American Teacher project offers insights into how teachers feel about their jobs and the education field as a whole. In early 2022, RAND Corp. surveyed a nationally representative sample of teachers, asking questions on topics such as job-related stress, school safety, COVID-19 mitigation policies and career plans. Survey results show that 56% of teachers who answered a question about their attitude toward their job “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed with the statement, “The stress and disappointments involved in teaching aren’t really worth it.” Meanwhile, 78% “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed with the statement, “I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began teaching.”
• Opinions about the four-day school week vary among school board members, district-level administrators, school principals and teachers. These organizations can provide insights: the Schools Superintendents Association , National School Boards Association , National Association of Elementary School Principals and National Association of Secondary School Principals .

Looking for more research on public schools? Check out our other collections of research on student lunches , school uniforms,   teacher salaries and teacher misconduct .

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

A Four-Day School Week?

• Posted June 28, 2018
• By Denise-Marie Ordway

To save money and help with teacher recruitment, numerous school districts in the United States have decided to give students and employees Fridays off. An estimated 560 districts in 25 states have allowed at least some of their schools to adopt a four-day week, with most moving to a Monday-to-Thursday schedule, according to the National Conference of State Legislators . Generally, schools make up for the lost day by adding extra time to the remaining four days.

Four states — Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma and Oregon — are leading the trend, which is especially popular in rural areas. More than 60 school systems in Montana alone were using a compressed schedule in 2016-17, state records show. Meanwhile, four-day scheduling has spread so quickly across New Mexico that lawmakers have placed a moratorium on the practice until state leaders can study its impact on student performance and working-class families.

"If local leaders are lucky, graduates of these schools won’t be any less well educated than their siblings who went to school all week. But, in an environment where young rural adults already suffer from isolation and low economic opportunity, the shorter school week could exacerbate their problems." – Paul T. Hill

Critics point out that the change can be tough on lower-income parents, who may have trouble paying for childcare on the day their kids no longer have class. Also, low-income students rely on public schools for almost half their meals — breakfasts and lunches during the week. Paul T. Hill , a research professor at the University of Washington Bothell who founded the Center on Reinventing Public Education, has argued that while some adults like the new schedule, it could end up hurting rural students.

“The idea has proved contagious because adults like it: Teachers have more free time, and stay-at-home parents like the convenience of taking kids to doctors and doing errands on Friday,” Hill co-wrote in a piece published on the Brown Center Chalkboard blog in 2017. “If local leaders are lucky, graduates of these schools won’t be any less well educated than their siblings who went to school all week. But, in an environment where young rural adults already suffer from isolation and low economic opportunity, the shorter school week could exacerbate their problems.”

It appears that while a truncated schedule does cut costs, the savings is small. A 2011 report from the Education Commission of the States examined six school districts and found that switching to a four-day schedule helped them shave their budgets by 0.4 percent to 2.5 percent. “In the Duval [County, Florida] school district, moving to a four-day week produced only a 0.7 percent savings, yet that resulted in a budget reduction of $7 million. That $7 million could be used to retain up to 70 teaching positions,” the report states.

See below for recent journal articles and government reports, as well as links to other resources, including a 50-state comparison of local laws outlining student instructional time requirements.

Excerpted from an article by  Journalist's Resource , a project at the  Harvard Kennedy School 's  Shorenstein Center  on Media, Politics and Public Policy . Read the  original piece .

Additional Resources

• Juvenile Crime and the Four-Day School Week
• Staff Perspectives of the Four-Day School Week: A New Analysis of Compressed School Schedules
• The Economics of a Four-Day School Week: Community and Business Leaders’ Perspectives
• Impact of a 4-Day School Week on Student Academic Performance, Food Insecurity, and Youth Crime
• Does Shortening the School Week Impact Student Performance? Evidence from the Four-Day School Week
• A 50-state comparison of students’ instructional time requirement, from the Education Commission of the States

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

Fighting for Change: Estefania Rodriguez, L&T'16

Notes from ferguson, part of the conversation: rachel hanebutt, mbe'16.

The Hechinger Report

Covering Innovation & Inequality in Education

PROOF POINTS: Seven new studies on the impact of a four-day school week

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our  weekly newsletters  to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox. Consider supporting our stories and becoming  a member  today.

Get important education news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox

• Weekly Update
• Future of Learning
• Higher Education
• Early Childhood
• Proof Points

Is a four-day school week a bad idea?

The answer matters because hundreds of thousands of students at more than 1,600 schools across 24 states were heading to school only four times a week by the spring of 2019, according to one estimate . The number of four-day schools had exploded by more than 600 percent from 20 years earlier in 1999, when only about 250 schools had four-day weeks. That tally could be even larger today because more schools switched to a four-day schedule during the pandemic. 

Although the switch was initially seen as a cost-saving measure, educators have quickly learned that longer weekends are immensely popular with families, especially in rural communities where the truncated school week is most common.

“We know that kids love it and so do parents and teachers,” said Emily Morton, a researcher at NWEA, a nonprofit assessment company, who has studied four-day school weeks around the country. “There are crazy high approval ratings for this policy.”  Eighty-five percent of parents and, perhaps unsurprisingly, 95 percent of kids said they would choose to stay on a four-day school week, according to a RAND survey published in 2021 .

But over the course of a typical 36-week school year, a four-day week means 36 fewer days of school. Many policymakers lament the downsizing of education, worried that students may learn less. Legislators in New Mexico are debating whether to crackdown on the schedule switch. Oklahoma passed a law to restrain the move to four-day weeks but delayed putting it into effect. Today, when many education advocates want to expand learning time to help kids recover academically from the pandemic, the four-day week would seem to be a move in the wrong direction.

The research evidence isn’t clear. The first empirical study, published in 2015, found that Colorado students in four-day schools did a lot better . The number of fifth grade students who were proficient in math rose by more than 7 percentage points. The number of fourth grade students who were proficient in reading rose by nearly 4 percentage points. Those results seemed to defy logic. 

But now seven newer studies generally find negative results  – some tiny and some more substantial. One 2021 study in Oregon , for example, calculated that the four-day week shaved off one-sixth of the usual gains that a fifth grader makes in math, equal to about five to six weeks of school. Over many years, those losses can add up for students.

The most recent of the seven studies, a preliminary paper posted on the website of the Annenberg Institute at Brown University in August 2022, is a large multi-state analysis and it found four-day weeks harmed some students more than others. 

Researchers at NWEA, led by Morton, and at Oregon State University began by analyzing the test scores of 12,000 students at 35 schools that had adopted four-day weeks in six states: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Like the more recent crop of studies, they found that four-day weeks weren’t great for academic achievement on average . The test scores of four-day students in grades three through eight grew slightly less during the school year compared to hundreds of thousands of students in those six states who continued to go to school five days a week. (City students were excluded from the analysis because no city schools had adopted four-day weeks. Only rural, small town and suburban students were included.)

The switch seemed to hurt reading achievement more than math achievement. That was surprising. Reading is easier to do at home while math is a subject that students primarily learn and practice in school. During pandemic school closures and remote learning, for example, math achievement generally suffered more than reading.

The researchers focused on rural students. Rural schools accounted for seven out of 10 schools on the four-day schedule in this study. The types of students in rural communities were also different. They tended to be poorer than in small towns and suburbs and the rural students’ test scores were lower. In the six midwestern and western states in this study, the share of Native American and Hispanic students was higher in rural areas than in small towns and suburbs. 

When researchers compared rural students who attended four-day schools with rural students who attended traditional five-day schools, ignoring small town and suburban students altogether, the results suddenly changed. Rural four-day students generally learned as much as rural five-day day students. Statistically, both groups’ test scores rose by about the same amount every year. 

By contrast, small town and suburban students who switched to four-day weeks were far worse off than other students in the state. Though it’s less common for small town and suburban schools to switch to four-days –  they constitute only 30 percent of the four-day schools – their students really seemed to be harmed. For example, a quarter of the usual achievement gains that fifth graders typically make in a year disappeared. 

The distinctions that the U.S. Census Bureau makes between a rural area and a small town are quite technical. I think of a small town as far from a metropolitan area, but with a bit of commerce and more people than a rural area would have. 

This quantitative study of test scores does not explain why students at rural schools are faring better with only four days than students in small towns. NWEA’s Morton, the lead author, has long been studying four-day school weeks and conducted an earlier 2022 study in rural Oklahoma , where she found no academic penalty for the shorter week. 

One possible explanation, Morton says, is sports. Many rural athletes and young student fans leave school early on Fridays or skip school altogether because of the great distances to travel to away games. In effect, many five-day students are only getting four-days of instruction in rural America. 

“One district we talked to, half the kids would be out on Friday for football,” said Morton. “They would not really have math on Friday, because how can you teach with only half the classroom? So it’s affecting everyone.”

Absences for football games, considered to be part of school, are often “excused.”  Official records don’t reveal that attendance rates are any better at four-day schools because many of the Friday classes that five-day students skip aren’t documented in the attendance data. 

Another possible explanation is teaching. The four-day work week is an attractive work perk in rural America that may lure better teachers. 

“It is harder for rural districts to get teachers that are highly qualified or honestly, sometimes to get teachers period, into their buildings and to retain them than it is for town or suburban districts,” said Morton. “All of this is anecdotal, but they’re saying in interviews that teachers are happier. They like spending more time with their own children. It gives them time to do things that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to do.”

By this theory, four-day schools may make it easier to hire better teachers, who could accomplish in four days what a less skilled teacher accomplishes in five days.

Four-day weeks are not necessarily better, but five-day weeks have their own drawbacks in rural America: hidden absences, skipped lessons and lower quality teachers.

So what to make of it all? Morton says there are reasons to think that four-day weeks are working better in rural America than elsewhere, but she wouldn’t wholeheartedly recommend it. Hispanic students, who accounted for one out of every six rural students in this study, suffered much more from four-day weeks than white students did. (Native American students, who made up one of every 10 rural students, did relatively better with the four-day week.) 

Morton is also worried that rural students may be ultimately harmed academically from the shorter week. In her calculations, she detected hints that even four-day students in rural schools might be learning slightly less than five-day students, but the difference was not statistically significant. A downside to a four-day education could be detected in a larger study with more students.

“We don’t want to say ‘it doesn’t hurt kids’ when it might actually be hurting kids a little bit,” said Morton. “Another thing that could be happening is it could hurt kids more over time. It could be that we haven’t observed it for long enough.” 

For schools that are considering a four-day week, the schedule matters. Some schools have been better at preserving instructional time, reallocating the hours across four longer days, Morton told me. Others have struggled to protect every minute of math and reading instruction. Longer hours can also tax young children’s attention spans. It’s a tradeoff.

Historically, schools have shortened school weeks for cost savings. That’s been especially needed in rural communities, which were not only hit with declining tax revenues after the 2008 recession, but continued to suffer education budget cuts because of depopulation and declining student enrollment. 

However, the biggest surprise to me in this review of the research is how tiny the cost savings are: 1 to 2 percent .  It does save some money not to run the heat or buses one day a week, but the largest expenses, teacher salaries, stay the same.

The four-day week may ultimately be a popular policy, but not one that’s particularly great for public coffers or learning. 

This story about a  four-day school week was written by Jill Barshay and produced by  The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the  Hechinger newsletter .

Related articles

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Jill Barshay SENIOR REPORTER

(212)... More by Jill Barshay

Letters to the Editor

At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.

By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.

HI Ms. Barshay, Do you have any information on what a 4-day school week would do for poor and/or homeless students? Or how underperforming school districts can make real impacts to these students’ learning in a 4-day school week as they lose a day of consistent instruction? Whether rural or urban?

Hi! My group is debating whether 4-day or 5-day weeks are better do you know if 5-day is better, or 4-day.

Hi, my group is also debating on this topic. Im in the 10th grade and go to sycamore high school in BlueAsh, Ohio on Cornell road. I wanted to know how does this effect the to not have a day of school but longer days? Would this harm the sleep schedule or Increase their intelligent and chances for higher test scores?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Submit a letter

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Planet Money

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

The rise of the four-day school week

Sarah Gonzalez

Mary Childs

Molly Messick

Sam Yellowhorse Kesler

Right now, a lot of school districts across the country are making a pretty giant change to the way public education usually works. Facing teacher shortages and struggling to fill vacant spots, they are finding a new recruitment tool: the four-day school week.

Those districts are saying to teachers, "You can have three-day weekends all the time, and we won't cut your pay." As of this fall, around 900 school districts – that's about 7% of all districts in the U.S. – now have school weeks that are just four days long.

And this isn't the first time a bunch of schools have scaled back to four days, so there is a lot of data to lean on to figure out how well it works.

In this episode, teachers love the four-day school week, and it turns out even parents love it, too. But is it good for students?

This episode was produced by Sam Yellowhorse Kesler with help from Willa Rubin. It was edited by Molly Messick and engineered by Maggie Luthar. Fact-checking by Sierra Juarez. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer.

Baby's first market failure

Help support Planet Money and get bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney .

Always free at these links: Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Google Podcasts , NPR One or anywhere you get podcasts.

Find more Planet Money: Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter .

Music: Universal Production Music - "Wrong Conclusion," "Bossa Nova Dream," and "Please Hold"

4-day school weeks: Educational innovation or detriment?

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, evidence suggests instructional time makes the difference, paul thompson and paul thompson associate professor, school of public policy - oregon state university @paul_n_thompson emily morton emily morton research scientist - nwea @emily_r_morton.

July 12, 2021

Four-day school week schedules are becoming an increasingly common experience for America’s rural youth. These schedules typically involve increasing the length of the school day four days per week and “dropping” the fifth day. In the spring before the COVID-19 pandemic, 662 districts were using the schedule across 24 states, an increase of over 600% since 1999.

During the pandemic, many additional schools in both rural and non-rural areas adopted alternative school schedules, such as the four-day school week. These schedules generally altered the amounts and proportions of synchronous (in-seat) and asynchronous (at-home) learning students received. School administrators have described the pandemic as a “ catalyst ” for necessary innovations to school schedules and in-seat learning time.

Most of these changes were unprecedented, and their effects on students’ learning and well-being beyond the pandemic remain largely unknown. However, emergent research on the four-day school week may allow us to better assess its effectiveness as a school model in post-pandemic educational policy.

Recent survey findings show that four-day school weeks have been adopted as a way to alleviate budgetary issues, attract teachers, and reduce student absences—issues that the pandemic exacerbated for many districts. Although conditions may be ripe for more schools to turn to such a model in the wake of the pandemic, the research suggests that most of these aims fail to be realized.

Here, we describe the key takeaways from this emerging body of evidence.

Shorter weeks may attract teachers, but don’t expect major cost savings or attendance gains

National and state-specific research finds minimal impacts of the four-day school week on overall cost savings, but it suggests that four-day school weeks may allow school districts greater resource flexibility in the wake of budget shortfalls. The four-day school week may also be used as a form of non-monetary compensation to facilitate instructional cost reductions, as research finds that teachers generally prefer it .

In terms of student attendance, the research to date finds minimal impacts on measures of recorded daily attendance . However, some educators reason  that that the four-day week could improve attendance in more nuanced ways undetected by traditional measures of attendance. Most notably, the schedule could decrease the class time that rural students miss for lengthy travel to appointments or extracurricular activities by shifting many of these activities to the off-day.

Maintaining instructional time key for mitigating academic harm

A key concern surrounding the four-day school week is the impact on students’ academic progress. While the evidence regarding overall student achievement impacts is mixed, recent evidence has found primarily negative achievement impacts of four-day school weeks in Oklahoma and Oregon . This has led to a prevailing perception that four-day school weeks are bad for student achievement, a sentiment that was articulated in a recent Education Next piece on the Oregon study . However, the Oregon four-day school week experience is hardly the norm. A more nuanced take of the evidence would suggest that the effects on achievement may depend on whether instructional time stays mostly intact.

In the Oregon study , for example, the stark reductions in math and reading achievement were associated with reductions of three to four hours in weekly time in school. Recent national evidence also suggests that the schools where four-day weeks led to reductions in learning time see the most negative outcomes on student academic progress, with little to no impact on achievement among schools that maintain adequate learning time. Thus, structuring the four-day school week to maintain adequate learning time seems to be the key to avoiding student learning loss and presents a path forward for schools considering this schedule.

Across the country, students on four-day weeks spend about 85 fewer hours per year at school. Some of that time is likely to be lost instructional time, but a portion of it is also non-instructional time, like lunch, recess, and hallway passing time. It’s theoretically possible for a district to maintain its instructional time if it sufficiently extends its school days and reduces the proportion of time spent on non-instructional activities. But in practice, the schedule changes we observe show most schools are reducing instructional time to facilitate the switch.

Few schools with four-day weeks have historically provided any in-school or asynchronous learning opportunities on the off-day. Approximately 50% of schools report being completely closed and only 30% offered any sort of remedial or enrichment activities with any frequency (e.g., regularly or as-needed).

More to worry about than just achievement losses

Lost exposure to the school environment doesn’t only mean missing in-person academic instruction, but also reduced access to school-meal programs, physical activity opportunities, and structured social interactions with peers, teachers, and administrators. A recent study from Colorado finds mixed evidence on health outcomes in schools using a four-day week, but much more research is needed to understand various potential impacts of the schedule on student health.

Worries about child care and unsupervised children on the off-day also abound in discussions of four-day school week implementation. Evidence from Colorado suggests that adolescent students may engage in more criminal activity as a result of the off-day, while a multi-state study found that maternal employment and labor market earnings were reduced as a result of the four-day school week. Despite this evidence, much more research is needed to understand the impact of the four-day school week on family dynamics, relationships, and time use.

The future of four-day school weeks

In the wake of the forced educational innovation during the pandemic, many schools will reconsider their schedules, their policies on in-seat learning time, and synchronous versus asynchronous learning. These decisions could have long-term implications for students’ achievement and well-being.

For districts that have adopted or are interested in adopting four-day weeks, offering asynchronous learning on the off-day could be a creative way for districts to maintain instructional time. Asynchronous learning has been a staple of many pandemic-related educational provision options and, while likely inferior to in-person instruction (as the pandemic learning-loss research suggests), it could be seen as a beneficial supplement to regular in-person school instruction in a post-pandemic educational climate. Incorporating at-home, off-day learning could allow school districts to experience the potential benefits of the four-day school week model while helping to mitigate the achievement losses if in-person time in school is to be reduced.

Increased internet infrastructure, especially in rural and remote areas, has facilitated online synchronous and asynchronous instruction during the pandemic. And while there is worry that some of the new infrastructure investment may be temporary , continued long-term investments in connecting remote communities–as suggested in the recent Biden administration’s “ American Jobs Plan ”–may make at-home learning more feasible in the areas where four-day school weeks have generally been adopted.

If four-day school weeks continue to be implemented nationwide, issues related to shifting the burdens of food provision and child care on the off-day onto families are likely to remain substantial in many areas. However, continuing to expand “grab-and-go meal” programs that have been a staple of school-meal provision during the pandemic could be a promising strategy for providing school meals on the off-day for students on four-day weeks in the future. (The USDA recently extended these programs through the 2022 academic year .) The American Jobs Plan also outlines expansions to child-care infrastructure, potentially paving the way for more off-day child-care options for parents in these four-day school week communities.

For better or for worse, four-day school weeks–once dubbed a “ troubling contagion ”–appear to be a fixture of the post-pandemic educational landscape. The evidence to date suggests that how schools structure the four-day schedule is a key determinant in this model’s impact on learning outcomes. Minimizing the loss of instructional time appears to be the best chance at avoiding negative results, though more research is needed to understand the full scope of impacts on students, families, and communities. It also remains to be seen whether other educational innovations in the wake of the pandemic–including remote learning opportunities, greater access to meal programs, and off-day child care–will further the effectiveness of the four-day school week in a post-pandemic world.

Related Content

Paul T. Hill, Georgia Heyward

March 3, 2017

Alice Opalka, Alexis Gable, Tara Nicola, Jennifer Ash

August 10, 2020

Education Policy K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Douglas N. Harris

June 6, 2024

Carly D. Robinson, Katharine Meyer, Susanna Loeb

June 4, 2024

Monica Bhatt, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig

June 3, 2024

Home » Tips for Teachers » 6 Reasons Why School Days Should Be Shorter: Unpacking the Benefits and Challenges of Reduced Classroom Hours

6 Reasons Why School Days Should Be Shorter: Unpacking the Benefits and Challenges of Reduced Classroom Hours

The contemporary educational landscape is marked by a critical debate: should school days be shorter? The article “6 Reasons Why School Days Should Be Shorter” ventures into this discussion, dissecting various dimensions of the length of school days and their impact on the educational ecosystem. This exploration is not just limited to the United States; it extends to a global perspective, offering a comparative analysis of school day lengths and their varying implications across different cultures and education systems.

The article methodically unpacks the intricacies of school day regulations within the U.S., illustrating the diversity and complexity of policies that govern educational time. It also delves into the advantages of shorter school days, considering how they could reshape learning experiences, boost academic performance, and enhance student well-being. These potential benefits are juxtaposed with the challenges and concerns that accompany the prospect of reducing school hours.

Shorter school days. Elementary should be 5 hours, 6-7 for middle, 8 for high school, rather than teaching 7 year olds that they’re misbehaving if they get too antsy while sitting in a chair for 8 hours — astarion’s spoon ⏳ (@PurpleInsomnia_) November 17, 2023

From the logistical hurdles for schools and families to the implications for instructional quality, the article comprehensively examines the multifaceted impact of this significant shift in educational practice. By offering a balanced perspective, it aims to contribute thoughtfully to the ongoing dialogue on optimizing school day length for the betterment of students, educators, and the broader educational community.

What you’ll find on this page:

• Understanding the Diversity in School Day Regulations Across the U.S. →
• Comparative Analysis of School Day Lengths: A Global Perspective →
• Key Benefits of Shorter School Days →
• Evaluating the Challenges of Shorter School Days and Addressing Concerns →
• A Look at Successful Shorter School Day Models Around the World →

Understanding the Diversity in School Day Regulations Across the U.S.

The length of the school day in the United States is subject to state regulations, with the average K-12 public school session spanning approximately 180 days annually. This figure emerges from an analysis by the Pew Research Center , which examined data from the Education Commission of the States . However, the uniformity ends there, as the definition of a ‘school day’ and the total educational time varies significantly across different states.

In the United States, the regulation of the school day length is characterized by significant diversity, with states adopting various criteria such as minimum days, hours, or minutes per school year. This variety reflects the unique educational needs and preferences of different regions:

• State Regulations on School Days: 39 states have laws or policies setting minimum school times. Notably, Oklahoma offers flexibility with options like 180 standard school days or 1,080 hours over 165 days.
• Variation by Grade Level: Among these states, 26 have varying annual time minimums based on grade level. For example, South Dakota requires 875 hours for fourth graders and 962.5 hours for eighth graders.
• Average Instructional Hours: There’s a significant range in instructional hours across states. On average, fourth graders receive about 997.8 hours annually, while 11th graders experience a wider range from 720 hours in Arizona to 1,260 hours in Texas, averaging 1,034.8 hours.
• Daily Time Requirements: Additionally, 29 states and the District of Columbia have specific daily hours or minutes requirements, often differing by grade. Pennsylvania’s daily minimum varies from 2.5 hours for kindergarten to 5.5 hours for high school students.
• Extremes in Daily Hours: The school day length for eighth graders can range from as little as 3 hours in Maryland and Missouri to as much as 6.5 hours in Tennessee. New Hampshire and Oregon even have maximum daily limits.
• Texas’s Unique Approach: Texas specifies a total of 75,600 minutes (1,260 hours) per school year, including breaks, allowing districts to decide how to allocate these minutes. Previously, Texas had a 7-hour school day, which equated to a 180-day school year.

This diverse array of regulations across the U.S. showcases the adaptability in meeting educational needs, balancing instructional requirements with practical considerations in various school environments. Each state’s approach is tailored to the specific needs and preferences of its districts, illustrating the varied landscape of educational time management in the country.

Comparative Analysis of School Day Lengths: A Global Perspective

The length of the school day in the United States, averaging around 7 hours and 30 minutes, reveals interesting contrasts when compared to school days in other countries. This comparison highlights the diverse educational practices and philosophies globally.

• In Asia , Taiwan and China exhibit significantly longer school days than the U.S., with Taiwan leading at 10 hours and China close behind at around 9 hours and 30 minutes. These extended hours reflect the intense academic focus prevalent in many Asian educational systems.
• European countries like France and Chile (although not in Europe but demonstrating a similar approach) have school days lasting about 8 hours, which is slightly longer than the U.S. This duration tends to balance academic instruction with other activities.
• The United Kingdom , with a 7-hour school day, is quite comparable to the U.S. However, Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia have slightly shorter school days, around 6 hours and 30 minutes and 6 hours and 15 minutes, respectively.
• Further contrast is seen in countries like Russia, Spain, Mexico , and Italy , where the school day spans approximately 6 hours, offering a more balanced approach between academic pursuits and other aspects of student life. Finland and Brazil , known for their progressive educational policies, have even shorter school days, averaging around 5 hours, focusing on efficiency and student well-being.
• Germany represents the shortest average school day at 4 hours and 30 minutes, indicating a different educational philosophy that may emphasize the quality of instruction over the number of hours spent in school.

These comparisons show that the U.S. falls in the middle range of school day lengths. Unlike the longer days seen in Asian countries, which focus heavily on academics, and shorter than those in countries like Germany, which prioritize concentrated and efficient learning, the U.S. school day reflects a balance of instructional time and other educational activities. This diversity in school day lengths across countries underscores varying educational approaches and priorities, shaped by cultural, social, and pedagogical factors unique to each nation.

Key Benefits of Shorter School Days

The concept of shorter school days is increasingly being recognized as beneficial for students, leading to happier, healthier, and more successful outcomes. This approach challenges the traditional belief that longer school hours are synonymous with better academic achievement. Let’s delve into the advantages of shorter school days and how they could be implemented.

Curious about how shorter school days might impact students? Recent studies suggest they could be beneficial. Explore the nuances of who these changes affect and what the ideal length for a school day might be by watching this informative video. It delves into the latest research and expert opinions, offering a comprehensive look at this important educational topic.

1. Boost in Academic Performance

Discover an intriguing approach to school timing that might just make mornings easier for parents of teenagers. Some English schools are experimenting with starting classes later in the day, allowing teens extra sleep in the morning. Graham Satchell visits one such school to explore this innovative trial. Watch his report to see the impact of this change and whether it could become a more widespread practice.

Surprisingly, shorter school days have been linked to improved academic performance. Research by the National Bureau of Economic Research reveals that students in schools with shorter days often score higher on standardized tests. This improvement is attributed to enhanced focus and more effective information retention, as shorter days reduce cognitive overload.

Research conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that shorter school days can lead to improved academic performance. The study found that students attending schools with shorter days often scored higher on standardized tests than those in schools with longer days.

This improvement in academic performance is thought to result from students being able to focus better and retain information more effectively, as shorter school days help reduce cognitive overload. This research supports the idea that reducing the length of the school day could be beneficial for students academically​.

Why it’s important: Enhanced academic performance is crucial for students’ educational and career prospects. Shorter school days can lead to better focus and more effective information retention, reducing cognitive overload. Improved academic outcomes are essential for students’ self-esteem, future learning opportunities, and overall success in life.

2. Improved Mental Health and Well-being

Explore the inspiring journey of Hailey Hardcastle, a University of Oregon freshman and student mental health advocate, in this video. Learn about her influential work on passing House Bill 2191, allowing mental health days for students, and her efforts in promoting student advocacy and innovative solutions to teenage mental challenges.

Extended school hours can adversely affect students’ mental health, leading to fatigue, stress, and burnout. Shortening the school day can offer students much-needed downtime, fostering better mental health and increased motivation. This break from academic pressures is crucial for emotional and psychological well-being.

Research  supports the idea that shorter school days can positively impact students’ mental health and well-being. For instance, a study by the RAND Corporation, as discussed in an article from The Daily Iowan, found that a four-day school week improved students’ sleep, resulting in them feeling less tired. This change also offered students a day of rest, contributing to better mental health outcomes.

The study highlighted that students with a four-day school week experienced benefits in both their learning experience and mental health, suggesting that reduced school hours can enhance overall student well-being. This research aligns with the notion that shorter school days can provide crucial downtime for students, reducing stress and improving their mental health.

Why it’s important: Students’ mental health and well-being are vital for their overall development. Long school days can lead to fatigue, stress, and burnout, negatively impacting mental health. Shorter school days provide necessary downtime for relaxation and recharging, leading to improved mental health and increased motivation. This is crucial for students’ emotional resilience and ability to cope with academic pressures.

Dive into the compelling “ 8 Reasons Why Students Should Have Mental Health Days: A Research-Based Analysis ” to understand the importance of mental health in academic settings. This article offers a thorough, evidence-based exploration of why mental health days are crucial for student well-being and academic success, making a strong case for their inclusion in educational policies.

3. Enrichment Through Extracurricular Activities

With more free time, students can engage in extracurricular activities that foster skills beyond the academic realm. Participation in sports, arts, and clubs contributes to holistic development, offering experiences that are invaluable for personal growth. Moreover, additional family time strengthens familial bonds and provides emotional support.

Discover the significance of extracurricular activities in this engaging video. It delves into why these activities are essential for personal and educational development, especially for young students. It is a great resource for parents, educators, and students alike to understand the value of these pursuits beyond the classroom.

Research has consistently shown that participation in extracurricular activities offers significant benefits for students, enhancing their social, emotional, and academic development. According to a publication by the Center for Responsive Schools, extracurricular activities instill values such as teamwork, responsibility, and a sense of community.

They are also proven to boost school attendance, academic success, and aspirations for continuing education beyond high school. Additionally, these activities lead to healthier lifestyle choices, such as avoiding drug use and maintaining a healthy body weight, thereby contributing to students’ overall emotional well-being and interpersonal skills (Center for Responsive Schools, 2020).

Watch Cori as she explains the crucial role of extracurricular activities in the college preparation process. This video offers valuable insights into how these activities enhance college applications and contribute to student development. A must-see for students planning their academic future.

Another study , as summarized on the European Commission website and conducted by RAND, emphasizes the role of extracurricular activities in fostering social inclusion, particularly for children from disadvantaged and vulnerable backgrounds. These activities, ranging from sports clubs to music and educational groups, enable children to become active citizens in their community and develop soft skills such as self-esteem and resilience.

The study highlights that although current research on the specific benefits of extracurricular activities is fragmented, there is a recognized potential for these activities to support social inclusion and offer diverse benefits to children participating in them (RAND Corporation, 2021).

Why it’s important: Extracurricular activities play a significant role in holistic development. They foster skills beyond academics, such as teamwork, creativity, and leadership. More free time allows students to engage in these activities, contributing to their personal growth and development of valuable life skills. Participation in sports, arts, and clubs enriches students’ educational experiences and prepares them for diverse life situations.

4. Reduction in Stress and Burnout

The stress and exhaustion associated with long school days can lead to student burnout, affecting both motivation and academic performance. Shorter school days can alleviate this stress, promoting a healthier balance between academic responsibilities and personal life. This balance is key to maintaining enthusiasm for learning and overall student well-being.

Check out this insightful video where Carley shares her experience with school-related stress, offering a unique perspective that compares her situation to someone who longs for educational opportunities. This video sheds light on the real issue of stress levels among students and prompts viewers to think differently about the pressures of academic life.

Research on the impact of shorter school days on student stress and burnout suggests that reducing the length of the school week can have positive effects on students’ well-being. A study conducted on the four-day school week in Colorado found a generally positive relationship between the four-day school week and academic achievement, which indirectly points to reduced stress and burnout.

The study indicated that the schedule change could lead to better attendance and potentially more focused instruction time, contributing to improved performance and reduced stress for students (Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press).

Uncover surprising insights in ‘7 Research-Based Reasons Why Students Should Not Have Homework: Academic Insights, Opposing Perspectives & Alternatives ‘. This article provides a thought-provoking analysis of homework’s impact on students, offering evidence-based arguments and exploring alternative educational strategies for effective learning.

Why it’s important: Reducing stress and burnout is essential for maintaining students’ enthusiasm for learning and overall well-being. The pressure and exhaustion from long school days can lead to decreased motivation and academic performance. Shorter school days can help establish a healthier work-life balance for students, enhancing their productivity and engagement in both academic and personal endeavors.

5. Enhanced Teacher Well-being and Performance

Shorter school days not only benefit students but also provide vital rest and rejuvenation for teachers. In contrast to the brief periods in college or university, school teaching can be more demanding. Allowing teachers adequate rest time, even within a shorter school timeframe, keeps them energized and prepared for effective teaching.

A well-rested teacher can plan engaging and fun activities, enhancing student engagement and learning experiences. This approach aligns with broader educational research that underscores the importance of teacher well-being as a critical factor in delivering quality education and fostering a positive learning environment.

I recommend watching this insightful video that delves into the reasons behind teachers’ fatigue and the benefits of shorter school days. It highlights how demanding the current educational system can be for educators, leading to a state of exhaustion. Interestingly, the video also presents the idea that shorter school days could be a game-changer, offering teachers more time to unwind and reducing their workload. This approach could significantly improve the well-being and effectiveness of educators.

Research by RAND Corporation has explored the effects of shorter school weeks, particularly the four-day school week, on both students and teachers. It was found that teachers reported feeling less burned out and missed fewer instructional days due to illness or exhaustion with the shorter week. This schedule change also allowed them more time to prepare for the upcoming week and to engage in personal activities.

Why it’s important: Addressing teacher burnout and stress is crucial for maintaining a high-quality education system. The RAND Corporation’s study on the four-day school week highlights that reduced working hours can significantly improve teachers’ well-being and job satisfaction. This is important because teachers’ mental health directly affects their ability to engage with students, plan effective lessons, and create a positive learning environment. By improving teacher well-being, schools can enhance the overall educational experience for students.

6. Effective Homework Management in Shorter School Days

Long school days combined with a plethora of extracurricular activities can lead to students tackling their homework late into the night. Adopting shorter school days, however, could provide a solution. This change allows students to partake in additional activities while ensuring they have enough time for homework, thereby balancing their academic and personal lives.

This informative video examines the impact of excessive homework on teen stress levels, highlighting how shorter school days not only reduce stress but also provide more time for homework completion. It’s a concise yet insightful exploration of the balance between academic demands and student well-being.

Research on the implications of shorter school days points to positive outcomes in homework management. For example, a study on the four-day school week in Colorado found a positive association with academic performance, indirectly suggesting a reduction in homework-related stress. The study indicated that a condensed school week could result in better attendance and more efficient classroom time, leading to improved performance and less pressure for students to complete homework late at night (Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press).

Why it’s important: Ensuring students have adequate time for homework without the burden of overly long school days is essential for their well-being and academic success. Shorter school days can help establish a healthier balance, enhancing students’ ability to manage their academic responsibilities effectively and maintain their enthusiasm for learning.

In practice, implementing shorter school days would require a reevaluation of current educational models, focusing on quality over quantity in terms of instructional time. This approach encourages efficiency in teaching methods and prioritizes student health and personal development as integral components of educational success. The move towards shorter school days represents a progressive step in adapting education systems to better meet the needs of today’s students.

Evaluating the Challenges of Shorter School Days and Addressing Concerns

Addressing the concerns around the concept of shorter school days, there are several reasons why school days should not be shorter that are often brought up.

1. Impact on Working Parents

Shorter school days can disrupt the schedules of working parents, who often rely on traditional school hours for consistent childcare. This shift could necessitate alternative childcare arrangements, leading to increased stress and financial strain due to the costs of additional childcare or after-school programs.

In the United States, the shift to four-day school weeks in some districts has significantly affected working parents. Parents, especially mothers, have faced challenges in adjusting their work schedules and finding affordable childcare for the additional day off. This change has sometimes resulted in decreased labor income for mothers due to the need to provide childcare or arrange for additional care.

Counterargument: Flexibility and Quality Time for Families In response to this challenge, shorter school days can actually offer more flexible and quality time with children. Communities can adapt by providing enriched after-school programs, potentially reducing the financial burden on individual families. These programs can offer valuable learning experiences outside the traditional classroom setting, being a collaborative effort between schools, local businesses, and community organizations.

2. Costs and Logistics for Schools

Implementing shorter school days may lead to increased financial demands on schools, such as the need for extra staff for supervision or changes in transportation schedules. These logistical adjustments could result in significant additional expenses for schools.

Schools transitioning to shorter school days often incur additional expenses related to staffing and transportation. For example, schools may need to hire more staff to supervise students during after-school programs or adjust their transportation schedules to accommodate the new school hours, leading to increased operational costs.

Counterargument: Long-term Financial Benefits for Schools Despite the initial costs, shorter school days can lead to decreased operational costs, such as utilities and maintenance expenses, thereby offering long-term financial benefits. Additionally, a more focused and efficient school day can lead to better allocation of resources towards enhancing educational quality.

3. Possible Reduction in Instructional Time

There is a concern that shorter school days might lead to a decrease in the amount of instructional time available, potentially affecting the quality of education and the ability to meet curriculum standards.

Concerns about a reduction in instructional time with shorter school days are evident in various education systems. For instance, some schools have had to restructure their curriculums and teaching methods to ensure that essential learning outcomes are still achieved within the shortened school day. This challenge requires innovative approaches to maintain the quality of education.

Counterargument: Enhanced Learning Quality Contrary to this concern, a reduction in instructional time does not necessarily equate to a decrease in learning quality. Shorter school days can lead to more focused and engaged learning sessions, where quality of instruction is more impactful than quantity. Innovative teaching methods and technologies can ensure curriculum standards are met efficiently within a shorter timeframe, potentially improving learning outcomes and student well-being.

In conclusion, while transitioning to shorter school days presents certain challenges, these can be effectively addressed through community collaboration, innovative educational strategies, and a focus on the quality rather than the quantity of schooling. This approach can lead to a more balanced, effective, and enriching education system.

A Look at Successful Shorter School Day Models Around the World

As the debate around the length of the school day continues, it’s essential to look at successful models worldwide to understand the potential benefits of shorter school days. This part of the article “4 Reasons Why School Days Should Be Shorter” examines various international models where shorter school days have been implemented effectively.

The Finnish Model

Finland’s education system stands out for its shorter school days and a strong emphasis on quality education. Finnish students start school at age seven and have school days lasting only about 4-5 hours. Despite this, they rank highly in international assessments like PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). This success is attributed to a curriculum that focuses on student well-being, less homework, and minimal standardized testing, fostering an environment conducive to learning and creativity.

Renowned for its focus on student well-being and less formal structure, Finnish teachers often emphasize the importance of play and individualized attention. They have the autonomy to adjust their teaching methods to suit the needs of each student, which is a key factor in the high performance of Finnish students in international assessments.

Explore how Finland has managed to consistently outperform in education on a global scale. This video delves into the success of Finnish schools, offering insights that could inspire improvements in educational systems worldwide.

The French Model

In France, the school day typically lasts for 6 hours with a substantial two-hour lunch break. French schools also adopt a four-day school week, which has shown success in reducing student stress and improving academic performance. This model balances academic work with ample time for relaxation, socializing, and physical activity.

French educators often highlight the benefits of this model in promoting a balanced approach to education, where students have ample time for socializing, physical activities, and relaxation, contributing to their overall well-being and academic performance.

Discover how France is revolutionizing its educational system in this fascinating video titled “French Education: Reinventing the Idea of School.” Delve into the innovative changes and approaches being adopted in French schools that are transforming the traditional concepts of learning and teaching.

The UAE Model

The United Arab Emirates has been considering shorter school weeks, partly inspired by Finland’s approach. The goal is to focus on quality education without unnecessarily extending school hours. This approach aims to prevent student anxiety and overload, acknowledging the importance of a balanced education that includes time for relaxation and extracurricular activities.

Educators in the UAE focus on the quality of education and the holistic development of students, aiming to reduce stress and anxiety while providing a well-rounded educational experience.

Watch this engaging video to understand how the UAE is placing a strong emphasis on educational reform. It highlights the nation’s commitment to improving its education sector, a vital component of its broader development goals. This video offers insights into the strategic efforts and initiatives underway in the UAE to enhance its educational landscape.

The Japanese Model

The Japanese school model is unique, particularly in its approach to the length of the school day. Typically, a school day in Japan runs from 8:30 am to around 3:00 pm, but this can vary. Some schools have shorter days, especially for younger students. The school day generally includes various classes, lunchtime, and cleaning time, where students participate in cleaning their school environment. This model emphasizes not only academic learning but also life skills and community involvement.

Japanese educators often point to the benefits of their shorter school day model in fostering a more engaging and varied learning experience. This approach allows students more time for extracurricular activities and personal interests, leading to improved attendance rates and lower dropout rates.

Discover the fascinating differences between Japanese and American schools in this eye-opening video. It’s a great opportunity to learn about the unique educational system in Japan and how it contrasts with the schooling experience in the United States.

These international examples demonstrate that shorter school days can lead to more focused learning, better student well-being, and overall academic success. They highlight the importance of balancing academic rigor with students’ holistic development and suggest that shorter school days could be a beneficial approach in various educational contexts.

Useful Resources

• When do kids start sitting still?
• Learning in Motion: Bring Movement Back to the Classroom
• 21 Engaging After-School Activities for Kids & Teens at Home

Final Thoughts

In “Why School Days Should Be Shorter: A Detailed Analysis,” we’ve explored the diverse approaches to school day lengths across the U.S., examined global perspectives, weighed the benefits, and addressed challenges. This comprehensive analysis, including a look at successful models worldwide, underscores the complexity and potential advantages of shorter school days. It highlights that while there are challenges to be navigated, the benefits, ranging from improved academic performance to enhanced student well-being, make a compelling case for considering shorter school days as a viable option in our evolving educational landscape.

Delve into the intriguing “ Why Students Should Not Wear Uniforms: A Thoughtful Exploration with 9 Reasons, Studies, and Statistics ” for a comprehensive understanding of the debate surrounding school uniforms. This article presents a nuanced analysis, backed by research and data, exploring the various reasons and implications of a no-uniform policy in schools.

• 50-State Comparison: Instructional Time Policies
• Minimum number of instructional days and hours in the school year
• Finance and Children’s Academic Performance
• Opinion | Four-day school week would improve mental health for students
• 50 Current Student Stress Statistics: 2024 Data, Analysis & Predictions
• Important Benefits of Extracurricular Activities
• Benefits of Extracurricular Activities for Children
• 50 Shocking Facts: High School Grads Entering College – 2024
• Does Shortening the School Week Impact Student Performance? Evidence from the Four-Day School Week
• 47 Student Stress Statistics (High School/College)
• The Four-Day School Week: Are the Pros Worth the Cons?
• 20 Teacher Burnout Statistics That Prove The Crisis 2024
• TEENS AND SLEEP
• Finnish education system
• The French education system
• Why UAE schools may consider Finland’s shorter day model when the weekend changes
• Education in Japan: The View from the Classroom
• Recent Posts

Simona Johnes is the visionary being the creation of our project. Johnes spent much of her career in the classroom working with students. And, after many years in the classroom, Johnes became a principal.

• 22 Essential Strategies to Check for Understanding: Enhancing Classroom Engagement and Learning - May 20, 2024
• 24 Innovative and Fun Periodic Table Project Ideas to Engage and Inspire Students in Chemistry Learning - May 9, 2024
• 28 Exciting Yarn Crafts for Preschool Kids: Igniting Creativity and Fine Motor Skills - April 29, 2024

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Education — School — Shorter School Hours: Well-being and Performance

Shorter School Hours: Well-being and Performance

• Categories: Performance School

About this sample

Words: 560 |

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Words: 560 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, impact on student health, improved academic performance, enhanced work-life balance and extracurricular engagement.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Business Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 548 words

2 pages / 989 words

2 pages / 966 words

3 pages / 1347 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on School

The cost of education in the United States has risen exponentially over the past few decades, with the average cost of tuition and fees at public universities increasing by 212% since 1987. Additionally, the student loan debt in [...]

The Chicago School of Criminology is more than just an academic milestone; it represents a paradigm shift in understanding the intricate tapestry of urban life and its implications on criminal behavior. Established in the early [...]

The phenomenon of "hallway hangers" has become increasingly prevalent in educational institutions across the country. This term refers to the practice of students gathering and lingering in school hallways during class time, [...]

School lunches have long been a topic of debate and controversy in the education system. From concerns about nutrition and health to questions about affordability and accessibility, the issue of school lunches affects students, [...]

Cheating has always been a prevalent issue in schools, with students finding various ways to deceive teachers and gain an unfair advantage over their peers. From peeking at a neighbor's paper during a test to plagiarizing entire [...]

The American daily life is always changing. In the 1970s men dropping out of high school were still able to support their families and make a decent living. These days, dropping out of high school is practically economic [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Advertisement

• Previous Article
• Next Article

1.  Introduction

2.  background, 4.  empirical strategy, 5.  results, 6.  conclusion, acknowledgments, does shortening the school week impact student performance evidence from the four-day school week.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Search Site

D. Mark Anderson , Mary Beth Walker; Does Shortening the School Week Impact Student Performance? Evidence from the Four-Day School Week. Education Finance and Policy 2015; 10 (3): 314–349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00165

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

School districts use a variety of policies to close budget gaps and stave off teacher layoffs and furloughs. More schools are implementing four-day school weeks to reduce overhead and transportation costs. The four-day week requires substantial schedule changes as schools must increase the length of their school day to meet minimum instructional hour requirements. Although some schools have indicated this policy eases financial pressures, it is unknown whether there is an impact on student outcomes. We use school-level data from Colorado to investigate the relationship between the four-day week and academic performance among elementary school students. Our results generally indicate a positive relationship between the four-day week and performance in reading and mathematics. These findings suggest there is little evidence that moving to a four-day week compromises student academic achievement. This research has policy relevance to the current U.S. education system, where many school districts must cut costs.

“There's no way a switch like that wouldn't negatively affect teaching and learning.” —Tim Callahan, spokesman for the Professional Association of Georgia Educators (Herring 2010 ) “We took our budget savings and plowed it right back into instructional content.” —Riley Ramsey, Webster County, Kentucky school district director of personnel and technology (Kingsbury 2008 )

A surprising number of schools have changed from the traditional Monday through Friday school week to a four-day-week schedule. This policy has been in place for many years in rural school districts in western states such as Colorado and Wyoming and it appears to be spreading, with school districts from Oregon to Missouri to Florida currently considering it. 1 Generally, the four school days are lengthened in order to meet state-mandated minimum instructional hour requirements. 2

The motivation for the schedule change is most often stated as financial, with savings related to transportation and overhead costs. For example, Kentucky's Webster County school district reported substantial savings on transportation, utility, and insurance costs after adopting a Tuesday through Friday schedule (Kingsbury 2008 ). The shortened week has helped the Peach County, Georgia, school district decrease spending on custodial and cafeteria workers in addition to transportation expenditures and utilities (Herring 2010 ). 3

This policy change yields a number of implications that should be evaluated to understand the cost/benefit impact of the four-day week. For example, how much does a four-day week actually affect school expenditures? If school buildings and gymnasiums are opened on Fridays to accommodate extra activities (e.g., athletic events), cost savings could be modest. 4 How do teachers react to a four-day schedule? Is there less turnover or increased teacher satisfaction? Spillover effects on communities could also be present; teens out of school on Friday might engage more in crime or other risky behaviors. 5

Finally, and perhaps more critical than the aforementioned issues, is the question of the effect on student achievement. How do students fare under the altered schedule? Anecdotally, results and opinions are mixed. Some educators and parent groups complain that the shorter week harms students academically (Herring 2010 ), although others have reported higher grade-point averages and test scores after switching to the shortened week (Toppo 2002 ; Turner 2010 ). Some accounts indicate that savings on transportation and utilities costs have been redirected to instructional uses (Kingsbury 2008 ). Interestingly, the articles on the four-day week generally support the notion that student achievement is not adversely affected by the alternative schedule. 6 This work is entirely descriptive in nature, however, and often consists of case studies focusing on only one or a few school districts. Up to this point, no research has used econometric techniques and panel data analyses to estimate the relationship between the four-day school week and academic performance. As a result, prior studies may be plagued by bias because of confounding factors that are simultaneously correlated with student performance and a district's decision to switch schedules.

We estimate the impact of the four-day school week on student achievement using fourth-grade reading and fifth-grade mathematics test scores from the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP). Over one third of the school districts in Colorado have adopted the four-day schedule. Our primary empirical strategy is a difference-in-differences estimation that exploits the temporal and spatial variation in the adoption of four-day-week schedules. Our results generally indicate a positive relationship between the four-day school week and academic achievement. These positive effects, combined with robustness checks designed to address selection bias, suggest there is little evidence that switching to a four-day week harms student performance. Although our data do not support a full analysis of the mechanisms that generate improved academic outcomes, some preliminary investigations suggest better attendance results from the schedule change and thus could contribute to improved performance.

These findings have clear policy relevance to the current situation in the U.S. education system, where many school districts must find ways to cut costs but, of course, do not want to hamper student achievement. An important caveat is that our results speak only to impacts for smaller and more rural districts; a wider adoption of the policy across more densely populated areas would be required to allow for a broader understanding of the effects.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides background information, including a description of the adoption of the four-day week in Colorado, a review of the relevant academic literature, and a brief discussion on the possible advantages and disadvantages of the policy. Section 3 describes the data. Section 4 lays out the empirical strategy. Section 5 discusses the results, and section 6 concludes.

Background of the Four-Day Week

It has been reported that school districts in South Dakota in the 1930s were the first to use a four-day-week schedule (Donis-Keller and Silvernail 2009 ). Yet it was not until the energy crisis of the early 1970s that the shortened school week gained popularity (Ryan 2009 ). As transportation and utilities costs dramatically increased, schools in Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Washington experimented with the four-day week (Gaines 2008 ; Donis-Keller and Silvernail 2009 ). 7 Schools in Colorado began adopting four-day weeks following the legislature's decision in 1985 to alter the minimum school year requirement from 180 days to 1,080 hours for secondary schools and 990 hours for elementary schools (Dam 2006 ). 8 This change allowed schools to meet the minimum instructional hour requirements by increasing the length of their school day and shortening their days per week.

As of 2008, as many as seventeen states had school districts operating on a four-day-week schedule (Gaines 2008 ). 9 The four-day week is currently most prevalent in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming (Dam 2006 ; Darden 2008 ). In Colorado, over 60 of the 178 school districts utilize a four-day week. 10 Although this constitutes over 30 percent of the school districts in Colorado, only about 3 percent of the state's student population is covered by the alternative schedule, reflecting the fact that most four-day-week schools are in rural and sparsely populated districts (Lefly and Penn 2009 ). Figure  1 shows a map indicating the school districts in Colorado where at least one school is on a four-day school week.

Colorado School District Map

A 2010 survey conducted in Colorado by the Department of Education solicited information from school administrators who had applied to either switch their school's schedule to a four-day week or to renew their current four-day-week status. The responses are tabulated in Appendix table A.1 —more than two thirds of the respondents stated that financial savings were a motivation for the altered schedule, with another third citing community support.

How Might the Four-Day Week Impact Student Achievement?

There are a host of possibilities that could allow for a changed weekly schedule to affect student achievement. First, consider how teachers might respond to the changed schedule. It has been conjectured that longer class periods give teachers flexibility to organize lessons more effectively and incorporate more varied teaching methods (Rice, Croninger, and Roellke 2002 ). In fact, teachers have claimed less time is wasted during the four-day week, leaving more time for instruction (Grau and Shaughnessy 1987 ; Durr 2003 ). Anecdotal evidence suggests teachers are able to manage their time efficiently because their instruction is more focused and longer lesson blocks enhance curriculum continuity (Sagness and Salzman 1993 ; Dam 2006 ; Yarbrough and Gilman 2006 ). In some districts, the day off is devoted to teacher planning and enhances faculty collaboration (Yarbrough and Gilman 2006 ). An additional teacher effect could be reduced turnover and absenteeism—teacher turnover has been shown to have an impact on student achievement gains (Ronfeldt et al. 2011 ). Although it is unclear whether the four-day week has reduced turnover, many school districts have reported fewer teacher absences after switching to the alternative schedule (Chamberlin and Plucker 2003 ). Lastly, a different effect could be that teachers are happy with the four-day weeks, and this leads to higher productivity. This would be consistent with findings from the literature on the four-day workweek and employee satisfaction (Baltes et al. 1999 ). 11

Although the four-day school week might lead to teacher effects that improve student achievement, potential drawbacks exist. Critics note that teachers could initially face difficulties adapting their lesson plans to the schedule change (Chamberlin and Plucker 2003 ). A survey from an Idaho school district indicated that 24 percent of teachers reported greater stress and fatigue due to the longer school days under the shortened week (Sagness and Salzman 1993 ).

From the standpoint of the students, a four-day week may lead to better attendance and anecdotal evidence suggests this is the case (Toppo 2002 ; Kingsbury 2008 ; Turner 2010 ). Not surprisingly, higher student attendance has been associated with better performance on standardized tests (Ehrenberg et al. 1991 ). It has also been reported that students are less distracted, exhibit improved morale, and behave better on the shortened weekly schedule (Koki 1992 ; Shoemaker 2002 ; Dam 2006 ; Donis-Keller and Silvernail 2009 ). Outside of school, a longer weekend provides students an extra day for homework and to prepare for class. 12 All of these factors have the potential to improve academic performance. 13 In addition, students with long commutes may fare better on a schedule with fewer trips (Ryan 2009 ).

Recent research on cognitive fatigue could also have bearing on the issue of schedule change and academic performance. Fillmore and Pope ( 2012 ) found that test scores fell for high school students required to take Advanced Placement exams with minimal time between testing. The Advanced Placement exam dates change from year to year, providing a natural experiment to measure the extent of cognitive fatigue. These findings are relevant to the four-day-week schedule because, although students have less time to recover between days during the school week, a longer weekend may positively impact performance. On the other hand, some worry that it is difficult for students to retain subject matter when given an extra day off (Gaines 2008 ). Perhaps the biggest concern is that longer school days require extended focus and attention, and this could be especially detrimental to younger students (Dam 2006 ; Gaines 2008 ; Ryan 2009 ). 14

Aside from these possible advantages and disadvantages, there are several reasons why the alternative schedule could increase the total amount of instructional time students receive. First, the shortened school week gives parents the opportunity to schedule medical and other necessary appointments on their school's day off instead of on a regular school day (Grau and Shaughnessy 1987 ). This has the potential to reduce student absenteeism and is particularly important for those who live in rural communities where long travel distances for appointments are common (Richburg and Sjogren 1983 ; Dam 2006 ). 15 Second, children may receive additional instruction from a childcare facility on their day off. A full day of day-care learning could increase the total amount of instruction children receive. Lastly, travel for sporting events results in missed school time for student athletes. The four-day school week alleviates absenteeism in this regard as many schools schedule athletics and other extra-curricular activities on their day off (Dam 2006 ). 16 This is less relevant for our study, however, because we focus on the academic performance of elementary school students.

The four-day schedule also permits flexibility in the event of weather-related school cancellations—schools can reschedule missed days without increasing the length of the school year (Donis-Keller and Silvernail 2009 ). This is important for us because the CSAP tests are administered during the spring. As a result, if school is cancelled because of winter weather, then students will generally make up lost time before taking the standardized tests, rather than afterward. 17

It is helpful to delineate the mechanisms through which the changed schedule may affect academic performance in the hopes that future research can confirm or reject these hypotheses. Given the data available for this study, we can only provide a first look at some of the potentially important mechanisms.

Relevant Literature on School Schedule Changes

Although none of the school schedule changes that have been rigorously evaluated match precisely the change created by the four-day school week, there are at least three relevant areas of inquiry. First, some research deals with block-scheduling—the reallocation of fixed amounts of classroom time into longer blocks for some subjects. Implemented at the high school level, the block schedule is designed to allow for more variety in instructional formats, encourage more active teaching strategies, decrease disruptions during the school day, and ultimately better prepare students for college work (Rice, Croninger, and Roellke 2002 ; Hughes, Jr. 2004 ). This educational policy change is appealing because overall class hours are not increased, so no new resources are required. Nevertheless, the evidence is mixed regarding the ability of block scheduling to enhance student performance (Rice, Croninger, and Roellke 2002 ; Hughes, Jr. 2004).

Second, other research has examined the impacts of year-round schooling. 18 Similar to students on the four-day school week, students at year-round schools are typically expected to receive the same amount of instructional time as students on traditional schedules. This alternative school calendar simply consists of a set number of instructional hours spread over the entire year. Although past reviews of research on year-round schooling are inconclusive (Merino 1983 ; Cooper et al. 2003 ), recent work by Graves ( 2010 , 2011 ) found the year-round calendar may impede academic achievement. 19

Lastly, a number of studies have investigated the effects of an overall increase in instructional time (see, e.g., Brown and Saks 1986 , 1987 ; Link and Mulligan 1986 ; Coates 2003 ; Marcotte 2007 ; Marcotte and Hemelt 2008 ; Bellei 2009 ). 20 Generally, this research suggests a positive relationship exists between instructional time and academic achievement, and instructional time is subject to diminishing returns.

Data on Test Scores

We use test score data from the CSAP tests to measure student performance. 21 The CSAP tests are administered each spring and every public school student within specified grades is required to take the exams. 22 Schools administer the tests during the period beginning on the second Monday in March and ending on the third Monday in April. The tests are graded based on one of four possible achievement levels: unsatisfactory, partially proficient, proficient, and advanced. Our measures of interest are the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in reading and the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics. 23 These measures represent some of the achievement benchmarks used to evaluate school performance under No Child Left Behind.

In particular, we focus on fourth-grade reading and fifth-grade mathematics scores. These data are reported consistently over time and represent the longest time series of available test scores for Colorado public schools. Our final data set consists of a school-level panel for the periods 2000–10 and 2001–10 for reading and mathematics, respectively. 24 Because there are many more elementary schools than middle or high schools, these data are perhaps the most appropriate for examining the effects of the four-day week on student achievement.

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the test scores. A comparison of sample averages for schools on four-day-week schedules with those for schools on traditional schedules indicates that schools on the four-day week have lower percentages of fifth graders scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics. The mean percentage of fourth graders scoring proficient or advanced in reading is also slightly lower for schools on the four-day schedule, but this difference is not statistically significant.

Notes: a Means are statistically different at 5% level for fifth-grade math sample.

b Means are statistically different at 5% level for fourth-grade reading sample.

Unweighted means for the fifth-grade math sample are based on data from 2001–10. Unweighted means for the fourth-grade reading sample are based on data from 2000–10.

Table 2 illustrates the mean percentages of students scoring proficient or advanced for the schools that changed their schedules to a four-day week during our sample period. For the fifth-grade math and fourth-grade reading samples we observe fourteen and fifteen schools, respectively, that changed their schedules. We report means for the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced for the two years prior to the schedule change, the year in which the schedule change took place, and the two years after the schedule change. For both types of tests, average performance is significantly higher after switching schedules.

Notes: Unweighted means for the fifth-grade math sample are based on data from 2001–10; fourteen schools changed their schedule to a four-day week during this period. Unweighted means for the fourth-grade reading sample are based on data from 2000–10; fifteen schools changed their schedule to a four-day week during this period.

Table 1 also shows descriptive statistics for the remaining variables used in this paper. The independent variable of interest is the Four-day week indicator. The Colorado Department of Education provided the majority of information on school schedules and the timing of schedule changes. For the cases where schedule information was incomplete, we contacted school districts individually to fill in the missing data.

At the county level, we control for the percent living in poverty and population density. 25 Given that four-day-week schedules are implemented primarily for financial reasons in rural areas, these variables are of particular importance.

School district-level controls include the percentage of teachers who are male, the percentage who are white, and the percentage who are Hispanic. 26 These demographic characteristics vary across districts and are likely to be correlated with unobservables that influence academic outcomes. 27

Lastly, we control for the following school-level variables: total enrollment, pupil–teacher ratio, percentage of students who receive free lunch, percentage of students who are white, and percentage of students who are Hispanic. 28 Some specifications also include the cohort's previous year's percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced to control for variation in ability. Whereas the county- and district-level variables control for important time-varying characteristics, the school-level variables perhaps better capture environmental factors that impact test scores and are associated with four-day-week status.

Because the four-day-week schedule is implemented in rural areas and sparsely populated school districts, we base our estimation sample on restrictions to the Population density and Total students variables. Our control group includes only schools with Population density and Total students values that are less than the maximum values for these variables for the four-day-week schools. Specifically, we restrict our focus to schools with enrollments not exceeding 1,100 students and that are in counties with fewer than 300 persons per square mile. 29

Table 1 indicates that, despite the sample selection criterion, differences across schools persist. For example, schools on the four-day-week schedule are generally smaller and in poorer areas. The four-day-week schools also have slightly lower student–teacher ratios and somewhat lower percentages of Hispanic students than the traditional-schedule schools. Again, because of these differences, we examine the robustness of our results to alternative control group specifications.

The vectors X1 , X2 , and X3 are composed of the school-, district-, and county-level controls, respectively. School fixed effects are represented by ν s , and year effects are represented by ω t . The school fixed effects control for differences across schools that are time-invariant, and the year effects control for differences across time that are common to all schools.

A potential source of selection bias comes from the possibility that certain types of parents might opt to enroll their children in a four-day-week school. For example, a shortened school week could increase the expense of childcare arrangements, so that this schedule could appeal more to parents who are relatively less burdened by childcare costs. 32 If children from these families perform systematically better (or worse) in school than others, then estimates of the effect of the four-day week on test scores will be biased. The chances of parents moving their children to schools on the four-day week, however, are limited due to the rural location of most four-day-week schools. 33 School selection is also limited by restrictions on within-district transfers. 34

A second selection bias could result from the fact that school districts choose their schedule. If only schools in poorer areas change to a four-day-week schedule, then an observed relationship between the four-day week and test scores may simply reflect the financial status of the school. School fixed effects, along with the appropriate covariates, help to purge our estimates of this type of bias. It is important to note, however, that school fixed effects cannot account for unobserved time-varying factors that simultaneously influence student performance and the school's choice of schedule. In addition, it is possible a school could switch to a four-day week in response to a downward trend in test scores. To address these issues, we include district-specific linear time trends in a sensitivity analysis.

Primary Results

Before discussing the results based on estimation of equation ( 1 ), it is useful to consider a more explicit test for whether changes in performance take place after a schedule change. Figures 2 and 3 present point estimates (with 95 percent confidence intervals) from simple regressions designed to capture intertemporal effects. 35 Two lead indicators, an indicator for the year a schedule change took place, and three lag indicators are considered as independent variables in a regression that also includes school fixed effects and year effects. 36 The omitted category is three-plus years before a schedule change occurred. In each regression, the dependent variable is the percentage of students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels. The coefficient estimates for the lead dummies in both figures support the common trend assumption that is vital to difference-in-differences estimation. The leads are statistically indistinguishable from zero, indicating schools that switched to a four-day week share similar pre-treatment trends in test scores with schools that remained on a traditional schedule during our sample period.

Math Performance and the Four-Day School Week

Reading Performance and the Four-Day School Week

For schools that switched to a four-day week, figure 2 indicates there is a discrete increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in math during the year in which the schedule change took place, and this improvement persists over time. For reading achievement, the coefficient estimates for the lags are all positive and large in magnitude, but none is significant at conventional levels.

Table 3 presents our baseline ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates of the relationship between the four-day school week and the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on fifth-grade math tests. Each column illustrates results from a separate regression and all models include school fixed effects. When controlling for county-, district- and school-level differences in socioeconomic characteristics, the four-day school week is associated with a 7.41 percentage point increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in math.

Notes: Each column represents the results from a separate OLS regression. The dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students within a school scoring proficient or advanced; the covariates are listed in table 1 . Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** significant at the 5% level; *** significant at the 1% level.

Table 4 shows results from similar models estimated using the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on fourth-grade reading tests. The impact of the four-day week is generally smaller and less precisely estimated, but even when all covariates are included, we still find a positive point estimate of over 3 percentage points. 37

In table 5 , we present regression results designed to provide some insight into the dynamic pattern of test scores prior to and following the change to a four-day school week. Specifically, we replace the Four-day week variable with two lead indicators, an indicator for the year of the schedule change, and three lag indicators. The omitted category is three-plus years before a schedule change occurred. This specification is similar to the model used to produce figures 2 and 3 , with the exception that the covariates are included. Column 1 shows results for the math scores. The estimated coefficients prior to the policy change are positive, though not statistically significant, whereas the point estimates post-change are much larger and estimated with precision. The results for the leads, to an extent, quell concerns that academic adjustments were made in anticipation of schedule changes. Further analysis of the sensitivity of our baseline results to pre-existing trends is included in the subsequent robustness checks. The results in column 2 provide some evidence that performance in reading goes up after schools switch to a four-day week, although only the estimates for the final two lags are individually statistically significant at conventional levels. The indicator for the year of the schedule change and the three lag indicators are weakly jointly significant.

Notes: Each column represents the results from a separate OLS regression. The dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students within a school scoring proficient or advanced; the covariates are listed in table 1 . The omitted category is “3+ years before four-day week.” Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

Because our results indicate the percentage of students achieving proficient or advanced scores increases when schedules are changed, it is interesting to consider which group of students accounts for the improvement. As mentioned earlier, the Colorado Department of Education tabulates student scores according to four possible achievement levels: unsatisfactory, partially proficient, proficient, and advanced. Table 6 shows results where each achievement level is considered as a separate outcome and is regressed against the policy indicator and the full set of covariates. For math, we find that the biggest share of the improvement comes from the students formerly classified as partially proficient. Our results indicate a 4.6 percentage point decrease in the fraction of students scoring at this level. In consequence, we see a large and statistically significant increase in the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level. For reading, the only statistically significant results occur in the lowest and the highest categories. These results show that the percentage of students rated unsatisfactory fell by nearly 2.5 percentage points after the schedule change whereas the percentage of students in the advanced category rose by over two percentage points. Of course, this probably does not imply that formerly unsatisfactory students are now scoring at the advanced level. It is more likely the four-day week resulted in a relatively uniform shift upward in test scores across all achievement levels.

Notes: Each cell represents the results from a separate OLS regression. The dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students within a school scoring in one of the following four indicated categories: unsatisfactory, partially proficient, proficient, advanced. The covariates are listed in table 1 . Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

To some degree, these results mitigate concerns that the improved scores result from more affluent parents placing their children in high quality child care on the fifth day where they receive additional instruction. The percentage of students rated unsatisfactory fell by substantial amounts for both reading and math for four-day-week schools. If additional instruction in high quality child care accounted for the improvement in scores, the usual correlation between family income and test scores might lead one to expect the effect to occur primarily in the partially proficient category.

Because the data do not allow us to directly examine whether additional instruction from quality child care accounts for rising scores, we also estimate a specification that interacts the schedule change variable with the percentage of students receiving free lunch. These results are provided in table 7 . For both math and reading scores, the estimated coefficient on the interaction term is positive, although it is only statistically significant for the math sample. These results suggest the four-day week may be particularly important for students from poorer areas. 38 Although we cannot pin down the mechanism driving these effects, the positive association between socioeconomic status and academic achievement has been documented for quite some time (Sirin 2005 ). Perhaps students from low-socioeconomic-status households are more likely to benefit from four-day week advantages, such as fewer long commutes and longer, uninterrupted blocks of instructional time devoted to complete lessons.

* Statistically significant at 10% level.

Robustness Checks and Potential Mechanisms

We first perform a robustness check based on Luallen ( 2006 ) that examines whether the positive policy effects we measure can be reproduced by random assignment of four-day-week schedules to schools. If the positive and significant effects are easily replicated by random policy assignment, then this raises the concern that our results are spurious. Specifically, we create a placebo Four-day week indicator using a random number generator based on the uniform distribution. Because fourteen schools switched to a four-day week during our sample period for math performance, we assign fourteen placebo policies for each of 1,000 trial runs. For the reading sample, we assign fifteen placebo policies. 39

Table 8 illustrates the average coefficient estimates for the placebo Four-day week on the percentage of fifth graders scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics and the percentage of fourth graders scoring proficient or advanced in reading. In both regressions, the average estimate is very small in magnitude. Furthermore, in 1,000 trials, only 5 estimates are positive and statistically significant at the 5 percent level for math performance and only 31 estimates are positive and statistically significant at the 5 percent level for reading performance. These estimates demonstrate our results cannot be easily reproduced by random assignment of the four-day-week schedule.

Notes: Each column represents the results from a series of OLS regressions. The dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students within a school scoring proficient or advanced; the covariates are listed in table 1 .

As discussed earlier, schools on the four-day-week schedule differ from schools on traditional schedules along several margins. In reality, the four-day week is not a randomly assigned policy and the chief threat to the validity of our results is the selection of school districts into these schedules. The inclusion of school fixed effects controls for time-invariant heterogeneity across schools and the clustering of our standard errors enables us to take into account some unobserved heterogeneity. Another method that allows us to deal with selection on observables is a propensity score matching technique used in conjunction with the difference-in-differences estimator. 40 This method essentially amounts to re-estimating equation ( 1 ) on a matched sample, a subset of the original sample. 41

The goal for matching is to find a group among the comparison population (i.e., the schools that remained on the traditional schedule) that looks as similar as possible to the schools that changed schedules. Thus, we predict whether a school switches to a four-day week during our sample period based on observable characteristics from 2001. Appendix table A.3 presents descriptive statistics for the propensity score matching analysis and Appendix table A.4 presents the probit results. Consistent with anecdotal evidence, schools with higher transportation expenditures are more likely to switch to a four-day week.

Table 9 illustrates results from the estimation of equation ( 1 ) on the propensity score matched samples. The k -nearest neighbor matching algorithm was used to construct the counterfactual. 42 For math, the estimates are smaller than those shown in table 3 , although they are still relatively large in magnitude and two of the three estimates are statistically significant at the 5 percent level even though the sample has shrunk considerably. Although the estimate for the case where k = 5 is positive and substantial in size, it is not statistically significant at conventional levels ( p = 0.101). Given these results, it is probably best to view the estimates from table 3 as upper bounds. For reading, the magnitudes of the estimates are on par with those from table 4 and two of the three estimates are weakly statistically significant.

Notes: Each cell represents the results from a separate OLS regression. The dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students within a school scoring proficient or advanced; the covariates are listed in table 1 . Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

* Statistically significant at the 10% level; ** significant at the 5% level.

For completeness, we perform the following additional robustness checks. The sensitivity analyses for the math results are reported in table 10 . In column 1, the baseline estimate for the fully specified model (see column 5 of table  3 ) is reported for comparison. Column 2 of table 10 reports results from a model where the school fixed effects are replaced with district fixed effects. Not surprisingly, the coefficient estimate on the Four-day week indicator is larger in magnitude and highly statistically significant. As expected, the model with district fixed effects explains less variation in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced. This implies that school-level time-invariant unobserved characteristics explain much of the variation in test performance across schools.

Notes: Each column represents the results from a separate OLS regression. The dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students within a school scoring proficient or advanced; the covariates are listed in table 1 . With the exception of the estimate in column 3, standard errors are corrected for clustering at the school district level.

** Statistically significant at the 5% level; *** significant at the 1% level.

As mentioned previously, the reason we cluster our standard errors at the school district level is due to the fact that schedule changes are generally district-wide policies. Column 3, however, provides results where the standard errors are adjusted for correlation at the school level rather than the district level. The standard error for the Four-day week indicator increases but the coefficient remains significant at the 1 percent level.

The results in column 4 come from a regression weighted by the school-level student population. This robustness check examines whether our positive coefficients result from improvements in small schools wherein larger swings in scores are easier to achieve. Here, the coefficient estimate remains relatively large in magnitude and is statistically significant at the 5 percent level.

Column 5 shows results from a specification that controls for a cohort's previous year's test performance. As long as cross-district migration is limited, this helps to account for variation in cohort ability. Unfortunately, for the math results, this specification requires that we drop five years of data. This is due to the fact the math exams were not administered to fourth-grade students until 2006. As a result, we lose much of the policy variation in our sample. 43 These results yield a smaller point estimate of the impact of the schedule change and, not surprisingly, show a much larger estimated standard error.

For the results in column 6, we restrict the sample to only schools that were on traditional schedules at the beginning of our sample period. Identification in our difference-in-differences framework comes from the schools that we observe switching schedules. Consequently, our results should change little from baseline when excluding schools that enter our sample already on the four-day week. The estimate in column 6 confirms this is the case.

Lastly, column 7 shows results where school district-specific linear time trends are added to the right-hand-side of equation ( 1 ). The district-specific trends more effectively account for potential selection issues and control for the influence of difficult-to-measure factors at the district level that evolve smoothly over time. Although the coefficient estimate remains relatively large in magnitude, it is measured with less precision and is no longer statistically significant at conventional levels. 44 Of course, because this model uses up degrees of freedom, less precision is to be expected.

To push the issue of selection bias further, we subjected the estimate from the specification with district-specific trends to the method developed by Altonji, Elder, and Taber ( 2005 ). The approach is based on estimating the ratio of selection on unobservables to selection on observables required to attribute the entire four-day week effect to selection. Implementing this method suggests that selection on unobservable dimensions would need to be roughly twice as strong as selection on observable dimensions to explain away the effect reported in column 7 of table 10 . 45 The estimate of bias is imprecisely measured, however, so it is probably best to interpret the findings in this paper as high-end estimates. 46

The results from the sensitivity analyses for the reading scores are provided in table 11 . Although the reading results are more sensitive than the math results to model specification and sample selection, all coefficient estimates remain positive in sign. With the exception of the column 7 result, the magnitudes of the coefficient estimates remain substantial. When district-specific trends are added, the estimate becomes much smaller and is not measured precisely. Note that for the reading results, the specification that controls for the cohort's previous year's test performance yields a positive and statistically significant effect of the policy change. Unlike for math, this specification requires that we drop only two years of data. Because reading exams were first administered to third-grade students in 2002, we retain all of the policy variation in the sample.

* Statistically significant at the 10% level; ** significant at the 5% level; *** significant at the 1% level.

Table 12 provides results for a further examination of the potential for selection bias arising from parents choosing schools because they prefer the four-day-week schedule. We regress the following school-level student characteristics on the full set of fixed effects plus the policy variable: Percent free lunch , Percent of Hispanic students , Percent of white students . In each of the three regressions, the coefficient on the policy variable is small in magnitude and statistically indistinguishable from zero, yielding no evidence that student composition is influenced by the schedule change. 47

Notes: Each column represents the results from a separate OLS regression. In column 1, the dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students receiving free lunch. In column 2, the dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students who are Hispanic. In column 3, the dependent variable is equal to the percentage of students who are white. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district-level, are in parentheses.

Finally, we use some limited data to consider two of the possible mechanisms through which the four-day week could affect performance. These results are presented in table 13 . If transportation or overhead expenditures decrease when the school week is shortened, then schools could redirect those funds to instruction. Thus, we estimate whether instructional expenditures per student within a school increase as a result of the schedule change, conditioning on all control variables used in the previous models. 48 The point estimate on the policy variable is actually negative, although very imprecisely estimated, making it unlikely that academic gains result from increased instructional expenditures. The second mechanism we consider is the students’ attendance rate. Here, we find weak evidence that attendance improves following the schedule change. Our point estimate indicates about a 0.6 percent improvement for four-day week schools, although the estimate is not statistically significant at conventional levels ( p = 0.117). Richer data and further work in this area are clearly needed. 49

Notes: Each column represents the results from a separate OLS regression. In column 1, the dependent variable is equal to the natural log of instructional expenditures per student. In column 2, the dependent variable is equal to the natural log of the school attendance rate. The covariates are listed in table 1 . Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district-level, are in parentheses.

In a time of tough budget situations for most public school systems, a variety of cost-saving measures have been adopted. To relieve financial pressures, a growing number of smaller and more rural school districts are switching from the traditional Monday through Friday school week to a four-day-week schedule. One concern, however, is that student academic performance may be compromised by such a switch.

Using data from the Colorado Department of Education, we find a positive relationship between the four-day school week and the percentage of students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on math and reading achievement tests. These positive effects, combined with robustness checks designed to address selection bias, suggest there is little evidence that switching to a four-day week harms student performance. Policy makers and school administrators will want to take these findings into consideration when weighing the costs and benefits associated with the four-day school week.

Our discussion in section 2 considered a variety of channels through which the four-day week may impact student performance. Our school-level data provided little guidance as to which mechanisms are most important, however. Future work should determine the contribution of factors such as teaching methods, teacher satisfaction, or student time use towards improving student achievement.

There are a number of other possible implications of this schedule change that merit examination. In particular, this study looked only at fourth and fifth grades math and reading scores. One might conjecture that this policy change could have an even greater influence on older students. For high school students, four-day-school weeks may make it easier to handle part-time jobs. An interesting line of inquiry would be the impact of this alternative schedule on dropout rates.

Lastly, a key issue for consideration is whether our results generalize to larger and more urban districts. Our empirical results are limited to impacts for smaller and more rural districts—a wider adoption of the policy across more densely populated areas would be required to allow for a broader understanding of the effects. A further caveat is that the policy has been adopted mostly in less affluent school districts. There has been some discussion that the four-day school week would not work as well in urban areas because of issues concerning the increased demand for child care, special needs students, and delinquency (Fager 1997 ).

Bowen ( 2011 ), Weston ( 2012 ), and Seattle Times Staff ( 2011 ) describe the current public debate surrounding the proposed schedule change.

Usually, no classes are held on Friday; a small number of schools operating on the four-day week take Monday as their day off, however.

For additional evidence on financial savings, see Blankenship (1984) and Grau and Shaughnessy ( 1987 ).

If buildings are closed and placed on a weekend cycle, then savings equivalent to a three-day weekend are possible. It is often the case, however, that buildings are kept open for extra activities and for staff use (Dam 2006 ). A recent report by Griffith ( 2011 ) suggested the savings from moving to a four-day week are modest, although it is worth noting this report was based only on six school districts from four different states.

Jacob and Lefgren ( 2003 ) and Luallen ( 2006 ) estimated the relationship between school attendance and crime by exploiting variation in teacher in-service days and teacher strike days, respectively. Both found that juvenile property crime rates increased on days when school is not in session, but violent crime rates decreased on these days. The authors speculated that incapacitation effects caused the increase in property crimes, and concentration effects likely accounted for the decrease in violent crimes.

Daly and Richburg ( 1984 ), Sagness and Salzman ( 1993 ), Feaster ( 2002 ), Lefly and Penn ( 2009 ), and Hewitt and Denny ( 2011 ) found little evidence that the four-day week had an impact on test performance. On the other hand, McCoy ( 1983 ), Grau and Shaughnessy ( 1987 ), and Yarborough and Gilman (2006) found some evidence of higher test scores.

Cimarron School District in New Mexico has the longest history of the four-day-week schedule; they switched to the shortened week in 1973–74 and have used it consistently since (Feaster 2002 ).

Although most of the schedule changes occurred after this amendment, some schools were allowed to pilot the four-day week prior to 1985 (Dam 2006 ).

See Gaines ( 2008 ) for a list of these states. In addition, Hawaii recently implemented seventeen mandatory “Furlough Fridays” for state public schools and the Peach County district in 2010 was the first in Georgia to switch to the four-day week (Herring 2010 ).

All four-day-week schools in Colorado regularly hold school on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The majority of these schools conduct no classes on Friday, but some choose Monday as their day off (Dam 2006 ). The change to a four-day week usually occurs at the district level, but there are a few Colorado districts that have individual schools, but not the entire district, on the shortened week (Lefly and Penn 2009 ). Colorado schools on the four-day week generally lengthen their school days by ending around 4:00 pm. For an example of detailed daily schedules, see the following link to West Grand Elementary School: www.westgrand.k12.co.us/District/Class/83–5th-Grade-Mrs-Crosby ).

It has also been shown that the compressed workweek can lead to decreased employee absenteeism (Pierce et al. 1989 ).

Sixty-five percent of secondary school students from the Shelley School District in Idaho reported they had more time to complete school work and to prepare for class after their district switched to the four-day school week (Sagness and Salzman 1993 ).

Sixty-three percent of fourth through seventh graders from the Shelley School District in Idaho reported that they felt they “learned more in school” after their district switched to the four-day school week (Sagness and Salzman 1993 , p. 11).

Some schools have helped elementary students adjust to the longer school days by providing breakfast and serving lunch later in the day (Hazard 1986 ). A relevant line of research has studied whether students retain subject material better in the morning or the afternoon. The evidence from these studies is generally mixed (see, e.g., Dunn 1984 ; Davis 1987 ; Barron, Henderson, and Spurgeon 1994 ; Muyskens and Ysseldyke 1998 ; Robinson 2004 ).

The same argument applies to teacher absenteeism. Decreases in teacher absenteeism have been reported as a source of financial savings in terms of substitute teacher costs (Grau and Shaughnessy 1987 ).

This is especially pertinent for rural areas because students at these schools are more likely to participate in school-sponsored sports activities than students who attend urban schools (Lippman, Burns, and McArthur 1996 ).

One school district estimated that students were in school approximately one week more per year after switching to the four-day school week (Richburg and Sjogren 1983 ).

Related to research on year-round schooling, others have examined the effects of mandatory summer schooling on subsequent achievement. For example, Matsudaira ( 2008 ) used a regression discontinuity design based on cutoff scores on year-end exams to show small improvements in academic performance for those attending summer classes.

Graves ( 2010 , 2011 ) specifically focused on multi-track, year-round school calendars. These calendars have the potential to mitigate school overcrowding by serving more students within the same facility than is possible under traditional or single-track, year-round calendars.

Along these lines, research has also considered the effects of full-day as opposed to half-day kindergarten (DeCicca 2007 ; Cannon, Jacknowitz, and Painter 2011 ).

These data are available from the Colorado Department of Education.

Additional details on the test schedules are available at www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/coassess-assessmentwindow .

Although not our primary focus, we also consider results for all four possible test outcomes (see table 6 ). If the proficiency cutoffs for the four categories have changed over time (e.g., because of less or more strict grading), then the effects of this “re-norming” is likely absorbed by the year effects included in our empirical models.

For math, the exams were first administered in elementary schools in 2001 to fifth-grade students. For reading, the exams were first administered in elementary schools in 1997 to fourth-grade students. We do not present reading results for the period 1997–2010 because some of the covariates were not available for the 1990s. It should be noted, however, that reading results from models with school fixed effects and year effects for the period 1997–2010 are similar to those presented in this paper.

More specifically, the poverty measure represents the percentage of people aged 0 to 17 years in families living in poverty. This variable was imputed for 2010. The poverty and population density data are from the U.S. Census Bureau.

All district-level data are from the Colorado Department of Education.

Some research has found that teacher demographic characteristics such as gender and race directly influence student achievement (Dee 2005 ; Hoffman and Oreopoulos 2009 ).

The school-level data are from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data (see http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ ).

Frontier Academy is the largest four-day-week school, with 1,108 students in 2010. Ellicott Elementary is the four-day-week school in the most densely populated county, with over 290 persons per square mile in 2010. We also drop observations from schools that have fewer than five years of available test performance data. Appendix table A.2 lists the Colorado elementary schools in our sample that changed to a four-day week schedule during the period 2000–10. It is important to note that we examined the sensitivity of our results to alternative sample selection criteria. In particular, when we restricted our sample based on the U.S. Census's definition of “rural” the results changed little from baseline. According to the census, a “rural” county has a population density of fewer than 1,000 persons per square mile (Ricketts, Johnson-Webb, and Taylor 1998 ). Results based on specifications with no sample restrictions were also similar to our baseline estimates reported herein.

Marcotte ( 2007 ), Marcotte and Hemelt ( 2008 ), and Papke ( 2005 ) used a similarly defined dependent variable to evaluate student performance at the school level.

In fact, fourteen of the fifteen schedule changes in our sample were a part of a district-wide policy change. Frontier Charter Academy was the lone exception. Inference is similar when standard errors are adjusted for correlation at the school level, see tables 10 and 11 for these results.

Higher income households, families with a stay-at-home parent, or farm and ranch households may find the four-day-week schedule appealing.

Within our data, we found little evidence that student enrollments increased after schools switched schedules.

Absent restrictions on within-district transfers, parents would still be limited in their ability to choose their child's schedule because the four-day week is usually implemented at the district level.

Grinols and Mustard ( 2006 ) used this approach to analyze the effects of casinos on crime.

For example, the first of the two lead dummies takes on a value of one two years prior to a schedule change for a particular school, and is equal to zero otherwise.

It is fairly common to find stronger effects on math scores than on reading scores; see, for example, Dee and Jacob ( 2011 ).

We also computed the marginal impacts of the schedule change at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles for free lunch percentages. The estimated impact of the four-day week on math scores increased from just under 4 percentage points at the lower poverty schools to over 8 percentage points at schools where the free lunch percentage is at the 75th percentile. For the reading sample, the impact of the schedule change was between 3 and 4 percentage points, as poverty levels rise. On a related note, Graves ( 2011 ) found that low-socioeconomic-status students experienced a larger fall in performance due to year-round schooling than the general population of students.

A year for a schedule change was randomly selected between 2000 and 2010 for the reading test regressions and 2001 and 2010 for the math test regressions.

For a practical discussion on propensity score matching, see Becker and Ichino ( 2002 ).

For research employing similar methods, see Heckman, Ichimura, and Todd ( 1997 ), Sabia ( 2006 ), Gilligan and Hoddinott (2007) , and Debaere, Lee, and Lee ( 2010 ).

Specifically, the k -nearest neighbor algorithm matches each four-day-week school to multiple schools from the comparison group. We consider values of k = 25, k = 10, and k = 5; the choice of k involves a trade-off between reduced variance and increased bias. That is, variance is reduced when a higher value of k is chosen because more information is used to construct the counterfactual for each treated unit but increased bias results from poorer matches on average (Caliendo and Kopeinig 2005 ).

Appendix table A.2 illustrates when schools switched to a four-day week.

Results based on district-specific trends are presented as opposed to results based on school-specific trends because the policy change almost always occurs at the district level. As a result, it is conceivable that unobserved time-varying characteristics that drive the decision to switch to the four-day week are more likely to be district-level factors. Nevertheless, it is important to note that results are similar when controlling for school-specific linear time trends (coefficient estimate on Four-day week = 5.95; standard error = 4.33).

The Altonji, Elder, and Taber ( 2005 ) method is estimated under the assumption that the selection on observables equals the selection on unobservables. However, as Krauth ( 2011 ) points out, this argument is unlikely to hold because researchers do not select their control variables at random. This might lead us to expect the selection on unobservables to be less than the selection on observables.

Specifically, under the assumption that the selection on observables equals the selection on unobservables, our bias estimate is 2.26, with a standard error of 3.35. The Altonji, Elder, and Taber ( 2005 ) method is summarized nicely in Elder and Jepsen ( 2014 ). We are thankful to Todd Elder who provided the code used to implement the method.

We also looked at simple descriptive statistics to observe whether student characteristic means differed before and after schools switched to a four-day week. The only characteristic that was statistically significantly different after the schedule change was the percentage of Hispanic students. Upon closer examination of the data, however, this simply reflected a Colorado-wide trend where the percentage of Hispanic students has increased across all schools in the sample.

The literature on the relationship between expenditures and student performance is extensive. For examples, see Hanushek ( 1986 ), Dolan and Schmidt ( 1987 ), Lopus ( 1990 ), and Papke ( 2005 ).

The data on instructional expenditures and school attendance are from the Colorado Department of Education. The expenditure data cover the period 2000–10. The school attendance data cover the period 2005–10. We also requested data on teacher absences from the Colorado Department of Education, but were informed that these data are not collected at the school or district level by the state.

We would like to thank Rachana Bhatt, Jennifer Graves, Dave Marcotte, Tim Sass, Leanna Stiefel, Wendy Stock, and seminar participants at the 2012 Association for Education Finance and Policy Annual Meeting, Montana State University, and the University of Washington for comments and suggestions. We also owe a special thanks to the Colorado Department of Education for providing data used in this paper.

Notes: These data are based on 76 school administrator responses from a Colorado Department of Education survey that was conducted in 2010. Of the responses, 10 districts were applying to switch their schedule to a four-day school week and 66 districts were applying to renew their current four-day-week status. The total number of responses sum to greater than 76 because respondents were allowed to list multiple reasons. These data were supplied through correspondence with the Colorado Department of Education.

Note: Only schools that met the sample selection criteria described in the text are listed in this table.

Note: Means for the independent variables are based on data from 2001.

Notes: Each column represents the results from a separate probit regression. Descriptive statistics are presented in Appendix table A.3 . Standard errors are in parentheses.

Email alerts

Related articles, related book chapters, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 1557-3079
• Print ISSN 1557-3060

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

• About MIT Press Direct

Information

• Accessibility
• For Authors
• For Customers
• For Librarians
• Direct to Open
• Open Access
• Media Inquiries
• Rights and Permissions
• For Advertisers
• About the MIT Press
• The MIT Press Reader
• MIT Press Blog
• Seasonal Catalogs
• MIT Press Home
• Give to the MIT Press
• Direct Service Desk
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Crossref Member
• COUNTER Member  
• The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Shorter School Weeks: An Unproven Experiment

• Share article

Four-day schools represent a dramatic trend in Idaho education.

And an unproven experiment.

This year, 9.1 percent of Idaho’s public school student body, or 26,881 students, will spend just four days per week in school. Their days run 45 minutes to an hour longer than a five-day school.

These students live, by and large, in small towns. They span the state, from the Boundary County district that borders British Columbia to the Preston district on the Utah line, from Riggins’ Salmon River district to Blackfoot’s Snake River district. Nearly two out of every five districts in Idaho use a four-day calendar, 43 districts in all. In 2006-07, that number was 10.

Those trends are clear.

The effects on students are less clear.

No one can say with certainty whether the four-day schedule helps or hinders student growth. Nor does the concentrated schedule seem to save districts much money.

Opinions are rampant. Hard statistics are scarce.

And yet Idaho’s political leaders have shown little interest in seeking out answers.

A Complicated Reality

Four-day schools often provide a convenient metaphor for larger issues.

Special Series

No one can say with certainty whether the four-day schedule helps or hinders student growth. Nor does the concentrated schedule seem to save districts much money. Opinions are rampant. Hard statistics are scarce. And the state’s political leaders have done little to find answers.

Those are the findings from an in-depth four-month examination by Idaho Education News and Idaho Public Television. Read more here.

To critics, four-day schools symbolize the state’s failure to support public education, despite language in the Constitution requiring adequate funding. To advocates, four-day schools embody local control — even innovation.

The realities are less tidy.

Here are some key findings from an in-depth four-month examination by Idaho Education News and Idaho Public Television:

• The academic statistics are inconclusive, but troubling. This spring, students in four-day schools struggled on on new online tests aligned to Idaho Core Standards. Students in four-day schools scored lower on the SAT , a college entrance exam. Most four-day schools lag well behind on Idaho’s overarching education goal: boosting a meager college attendance rate .
• Many districts adopted the four-day schedule to stay afloat during the recession, but saved little money in the process. Some districts balked at cutting staff hours — always a difficult decision in rural communities, where jobs are often scarce.
• Many teachers have grown to like the four-day schedule, and administrators have adjusted to a changing labor market. Many superintendents see the four-day calendar as a key to recruiting teachers to small-town Idaho, and keeping experienced teachers on the job.
• The four-day calendar has freed up Fridays across a wide swath of the state. Some four-day schools use this day for regimented and focused teacher training — considering this a key to improved student achievement. In other districts, teachers and students are on their own on Fridays.

A Popular Option

At the height of the recession, the four-day calendar was seen — and spun — as a money-saver. The storyline has changed over time, as proponents tout other benefits less easily quantified.

Skeptics might chalk this up to a human tendency to put the best face on a challenging situation. Regardless, support for the four-day schedule is palpable, albeit based on anecdotal information. The support runs counter to conventional wisdom: the assumption that schools were forced into adopting a four-day schedule and cannot wait to go back.

“It’s a mental block for some people, to understand how the four-day school week gets you more instruction at a cheaper cost,” said Shoshone district Superintendent Rob Waite, an ardent backer of the four-day approach .

Steve McClain, a 37-year teacher at Notus High School, said he was pleasantly surprised to see he could cover his social studies and history lessons in a four-day week. He also sensed a change in energy.

“I thought the students were a lot fresher coming in on Monday mornings,” he said. “When I came back on Mondays, I was actually ready to go.”

Preston High School senior Berkli Knapp would not want to give up three-day weekends, because they help her juggle classes, volleyball matches and track and field meets and her job at a local fast-food restaurant, Arctic Circle.

“Personally, I think it’s really nice to have a day to do homework,” she said.

When Boise’s Sage International School opened in 2010-11, Libby Adams’ second-grade son was sold from the start on the charter’s four-day schedule. He’s still at Sage, joined by two younger siblings. Adams sees no downside to the schedule. “We’ve been able to find a nice balance with our family.”

Even opponents concede they are hitting a headwind of public opinion.

Mary Ann Cox believes the four-day calendar disrupts family life. Her three school-age children are tired all week, and spend Fridays scrambling to catch up on chores. “Fridays are not this relaxing luxury day that I thought they were going to be.” She lobbied the Preston district to return to a five-day schedule. Even before trustees voted on Nov. 18 to keep the four-day schedule, Cox wasn’t optimistic about the prospects.

Gary Pflueger is in his first year as superintendent in Boundary County. His predecessor, Dick Conley, was an enthusiastic four-day school supporter . Pflueger prefers a five-day schedule, because he believes the Fridays off are bad for at-risk students. But he doesn’t think his district has the money or the inclination to switch.

“It’s clearly not up to me,” he said.

Otter: ‘What Am I Going to Ask Them?’

A PowerPoint presentation on the State Department of Education’s website dodges the central question surrounding four-day schools. “There is a lack of evidence that the four-day school week helps or hurts student achievement,” it says.

The document is significant not for findings, but for its age. It was completed in 2008. Seven years later, the department has no follow-up research in the works, said Jeff Church, a spokesman for state superintendent Sherri Ybarra.

In a Nov. 3 interview, Gov. Butch Otter acknowledged the lack of data, but expressed no interest in having his appointed State Board of Education look into the matter.

“But I haven’t purposely not asked the State Board,” he said. “What am I going to ask them?”

A day later, Otter changed his position . In a public meeting, he suggested a review of four-day school academic performance — and State Board member Richard Westerberg agreed to work with Ybarra’s department.

Otter and Ybarra aren’t alone in their hands-off attitude. Rod Gramer, CEO of Idaho Business for Education, is one of Otter’s K-12 confidantes. His statewide group of business leaders has not studied four-day issues.

The legislative branch has shown scant interest as well. Its auditing arm, the Office of Performance Evaluations , has completed exhaustive reports on several intricate educational issues, at lawmakers’ behest. OPE has never been asked to look at four-day schools, director Rakesh Mohan said.

Steven Thayn, vice chairman of the Senate Education Committee, has spent 10 years in the Legislature. He has pushed for dual credit and pushed back against Common Core. His sprawling legislative district has six four-day districts and a four-day charter school. But he has no strong opinion about scheduling. “I just think there are lots of other factors that are more important,” he said.

House Education Committee Chairman Reed DeMordaunt is encouraged by the anecdotal evidence, which suggests four-days may have “stumbled” onto something that works.

“I’d love to have some of those questions answered, but in fairness, we haven’t asked them yet,” said DeMordaunt, R-Eagle.

A Shortage Of Answers

Like Pflueger, Greg Alexander is in his first year as superintendent in a four-day district. He was hired by the Garden Valley district in May , days after Ybarra eliminated his state job as director of school improvement and support.

The four-day schedule is an adjustment, providing less after-school time to meet with parents and kids. “Initially, I’m not sure about it,” he said. “I feel like I’m missing a few things.”

When it comes to his old boss, Alexander chooses his words carefully. But he says it would help if the state would provide districts with more data about financial and academic impacts.

Unsupported by data, overlooked by policymakers, four-day schools may be Idaho’s biggest education change that no one talks about. Yet the number of four-day schools continues to swell. The four-day schedule is at once an unproven concept and a growing trend.

“Rescheduled Education” is the product of a partnership between Idaho Education News and Idaho Public Television. Reporting on the series are Kevin Richert and Clark Corbin of Idaho Education News and Seth Ogilvie and Melissa Davlin of Idaho Public Television. Video producers are Andrew Reed of Idaho Education News and Troy Shreve of Idaho Public Television. Idaho Education News data analyst Randy Schrader compiled data for the series.

This story was produced by Idaho Education News , an independent, online source for comprehensive news, information, commentary, and data about K-12 education in Idaho.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

The Red Ledger

• For story suggestions contact us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @theredledgerlhs

Editorial: Introducing a shorter school week

The five-day school week has been the standard for education for as long as students can remember. Although, many schools such as Dime Box ISD are adopting the new standard of four-day school weeks. The district should implement a four day school week to benefit the mental health of students and staff, alleviate financial stress on the district and improve academic performance. 

Offering students a shorter school week reduces students’ and teachers’ stress. This gives them more time to complete homework assignments, spend time with family, friends and recharge. According to the CDC, roughly 4.4 million kids from age 3-17 have been diagnosed with anxiety disorder and 1.9 million have been diagnosed with depression. Many teens find that academic pressure contributes to their stress and poor mental health. By giving students lengthened weekends and time away from school, this academic pressure can be lifted.  Additionally, a number of teachers in the district have over 100 students to not only teach, but grade minor and major projects for. Shortening the school week gives teachers more time to grade and plan lessons, along with giving them more down time. 

Some schools are considering this option because of the considerable financial benefits. By shortening the average school week from five to four days, schools can save four day’s with of money on heating, air conditioning and bussing fees each month. By reducing the school week by 20%, roughly 20% of costs will be saved. While the district searches for alleviating financial decisions, cutting costs from a day each week could be advantageous.

In addition to better student mental health and financial benefits, the shorter school week can improve academic performance. In 2015, a study completed by Georgia State and Montana State University found neutral to positive effects of a shorter week. School districts in California that have adopted the four day school week have recorded an increase in attendance and test scores, especially in mathematics. By giving students an extra day to study and complete homework assignments, their academic performance will increase. 

Many school weeks are already shortened with the abundance of national and student holidays. October and January contain three scheduled shortened weeks with the current academic calendar. If the district strategically redistributes the remaining break days, they could successfully implement a four day week for future academic years. This alternative schedule is not flawless, especially for students with troubling home lives; however, with implementations of school support programs for students, a four day week is an excellent solution to financial and mental health challenges the high school faces.

Comments (0)

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Literary Terms and Techniques › Russian Formalism

Russian Formalism

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on October 19, 2020 • ( 1 )

Russian Formalism, a movement of literary criticism and interpretation, emerged in Russia during the second decade of the twentieth century and remained active until about 1930. Members of what can be loosely referred to as the Formalist school emphasized first and foremost the autonomous nature of literature and consequently the proper study of literature as neither a reflection of the life of its author nor as byproduct of the historical or cultural milieu in which it was created. In this respect, proponents of a formalist approach to literature attempted not only to isolate and define the “formal” properties of poetic language (in both poetry and prose) but also to study the way in which certain aesthetically motivated devices (e.g., defamiliarization [ ostranenie ]) determined the literariness or artfulness of an object.

From its inception, the Russian Formalist movement consisted of two distinct scholarly groups, both outside the academy: the Moscow Linguistic Circle, which was founded by the linguist Roman Jakobson in 1915 and included Grigorii Vinokur and Petr Bogatyrev, and the Petersburg OPOJAZ ( O bščestvo izučenija PO ètičeskogo JAZ yka , “Society for the Study of Poetic Language”), which came into existence a year later and was known for scholars such as Viktor Shklovsky, Iurii Tynianov, Boris Eikhenbaum, Boris Tomashevskii, and Victor Vinogradov. (It should be noted that the term “formalist” was initially applied pejoratively to the Moscow Linguistic Circle and OPOJAZ.) Although the leading figures in the Russian Formalist movement tended to disagree with one another on what constituted formalism, they were united in their attempt to move beyond the psychologism and biographism that pervaded nineteenth-century Russian literary scholarship. Although the Symbolists had partially succeeded in redressing the imbalance of content over form, they “could not rid themselves of the notorious theory of the ‘harmony of form and content’ even though it clearly contradicted their bent for formal experimentation and discredited it by making it seem mere ‘aestheticism'” (Eikhenbaum, “Theory” 112).

Viktor Shklovsky/The Daily Star

In many ways, however, the Formalists remained indebted to two leading nineteenth-century literary and linguistic theoreticians, Aleksandr Veselovskii (1838- 1906) and Aleksander Potebnia (1835-81). Veselovskii’s work in comparative studies of literature and folklore as well as in the theory of literary evolution attracted the attention of the Formalists (particularly Shklovsky, Eikhenbaum, and Vladimir Propp), who found much of interest in his positivist notions of literary history and the evolution of poetic forms. More specifically, as Peter Steiner argues, “mechanistic Formalism was in some respects a mirror image of Veselovskii’s poetics” insofar as both stressed the “genetic” aspect in their theories of literary evolution.

Like the Formalists, Potebnia made a careful distinction between practical and poetic language. But his wellknown maxim that “art is thinking in images” (an idea, it should be noted, that was promoted earlier by midnineteenth- century literary critics Vissarion Belinskii and Nikolai Chemyshevskii) made him an object of derision in Formalist writings. Shklovsky categorically objected to Potebnia’s notion of the image, arguing that since the same image could be found in various writers’ works, the image itself was less important than the techniques used by poets to arrange images. Shklovsky further noted that images were common in both prosaic (common, everyday language) and poetic language; hence, the image could not be considered uniquely essential to verbal art. Potebnia’s theories led to “far-fetched interpretations” and, what is more important, knowledge about the object itself rather than the poetic de vice(s) that enabled one to perceive the object (Shklovsky, “Art” 6). Above all, it was “literariness,” rather than either image or referent, that the Formalists pursued in their studies of poetry and prose. With slight variations, literariness in Formalism denoted a particular essential function present in the relationship or system of poetic works called literature.

The personal and intellectual cooperation of the Moscow Linguistic Circle and OPOJAZ yielded several volumes of essays (Sborniki po teorii poeticheskogo iazyka [Studies in the theory of poetic language], 6 vols., 1916- 23). Given that many of the Formalists had been students of the Polish linguist Jan Baudoin de Courtenay and were well apprised of the latest developments made in linguistics by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure , it is not surprising that most of the essays in these volumes reflect a predominant interest in linguistics (see Jakubinskii, “O zvukakh stikhotvomago iazyka” [On the sounds of poetic language], 1916; and Brik, “Zvukovye povtory” [Sound repetitions], 1917). But while members of the Moscow Linguistic Circle considered the study of poetics to fall under the broader category of linguistics, OPOJAZ Formalists (such as Eikhenbaum or Viktor Zhirmunskii in “Zadachi pofetiki” [The tasks of poetics], Nachala, 1921) insisted that the two be kept distinct. Shklovsky, for instance, remained predominantly concerned with literary theory (the laws of expenditure and economy in poetic language, general laws of plots and general laws of perception) rather than with linguistics, while Eikhenbaum and Tynianov are best known for their work as literary historians. Other Formalists, such as Tomashevskii (who was also interested in prose) and Jakobson, approached meter and rhythm in verse with a statistical approach and attempted to isolate the metrical laws in operation.

More specifically, the Formalists understood poetic language as operating both synchronically and, as Tzvetan Todorov notes, in an autonomous or “autotelic” fashion. The Formalists consistently stressed the internal mechanics of the poetic work over the semantics of extraliterary systems , that is, politics, ideology, economics, psychology, and so on. Thus, Roman Jakobson’s 1921 analysis of futurist poet Velemir Khlebnikov, and especially his notion of the samovitoe slovo (“self-made word”) and zaum (“transrational language”), serves essentially to illustrate the proposition that poetry is an utterance directed toward “expression” ( Noveishaia russkaia potziia [Recent Russian poetry]). Indeed, the futurist exploration of the exotic realm of zaum parallels the Formalist preoccupation with sound in poetic language at the phonemic level. In a similar way, essays such as Eikhenbaum’s “How Gogol’s ‘Overcoat’ Is Made” (1919, trans., 1978), which examined narrative devices and acoustic wordplay in the text without drawing any extraliterary, sociocultural conclusions, emphasized the autonomous, selfreferential nature of verbal art. One of the most important of the devices Eikhenbaum described in that essay was skaz. Skaz , which in Russian is the root of the verb skazat’, “to tell,” may be compared to “free indirect discourse” (in German, erlebte Rede ), which is marked by the grammar of third-person narration and the style, tone, and syntax of direct speech on the part of the character.

Certain Formalists were not quite so eager to dismiss issues of content, however: Zhirmunskii maintained an interest in the thematic level of the poetic work; Tynianov considered an understanding of byt , the content of everyday, common language and experience as opposed to consciously poetic language, essential to any analysis of a poetic work. Rather than resolving the issue of form versus content, the Formalists tended instead to downplay it or to reframe it in new terms. For example, Eikhenbaum asserted the need to “destroy these traditional correlatives [form and content] and so to enrich the idea of form with new significance” (Eikhenbaum, “Theory” 115). “Technique,” continued Eikhenbaum in the same essay, is “much more significant in the long-range evolution of formalism than is the notion of ‘form'” (115). In his defense of the primacy of form, Shklovsky explained that “a new form appears not in order to express a new content, but in order to replace an old form, which has already lost its artistic value” (“Connection” 53).

Rejecting the subjectivism of nineteenth-century literary scholarship, the Formalists insisted that the study of literature be approached by means of a scientific and objective methodology. Their emphasis upon the scientific study of poetic language may be viewed in four ways. First, it may be traced to the more general nineteenth- century West European turn toward classification, genealogy, and evolution in the human sciences. In his best-known work, Morphology of the Folktale (1928, trans., 1958), Propp, a somewhat more peripheral yet not unimportant figure in the Formalist movement, employed the rhetoric and methodology of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Georges Cuvier in his attempt to isolate certain regularly recurring features of the folktale. Second, the Russian Formalists viewed their work as a direct challenge to what they perceived as the subjectivism and mysticism inherent in the Symbolist movement (i.e., the literature and criticism of Aleksander Blok, Bely, and Viacheslav Ivanov, among others). Tomashevskii went so far as to denounce the futurists as well as the Symbolists, claiming that it was futurism, especially, that “intensified to a hyperbolic clarity those features which had previously appeared only in hidden, mystically masked forms of Symbolism” (“Literature” 54). Third, Formalism sought to create a professional discipline independent of nineteenth-century configurations of university scholarship. And fourth, the Formalist shift toward science may also be considered as a response to the broader (and more radical) social, economic, and political transformations that the influx of industry and new technology helped to precipitate throughout early twentieth-century Russia. Not surprisingly, the poetic fetishization of the machine found in futurist poetics and avant-garde aesthetics quickly made its way into Formalist thought. Shklovsky’s analyses of poetic works are distinguished by his reliance upon the metaphor of the machine (Steiner 44-67) and the rhetoric of technology to account for such poetic devices and formal laws as automatization and defamiliarization. Ironically, objectives of scientificity in Formalist literary study were held up as an ideal, but only insofar as the Formalists believed scientificity would shield their theory from external influences, since everything outside the poetic system could only corrupt and obfuscate data extrapolated from the text. By 1930 it was clear that this was not to be the case.

For Shklovsky, “literariness” is a function of the process of defamiliarization, which involves “estranging,” “slowing down,” or “prolonging” perception and thereby impeding the reader’s habitual, automatic relation to objects, situations, and poetic form itself (see “Art” 12). According to Shklovsky, the difficulty involved in the process is an aesthetic end in itself, because it provides a heightened sensation of life. Indeed, the process of “laying bare” the poetic device, such as the narrative selfreflexiveness of Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and its emphasis on the distinction between story and plot (see Theory of Prose ), remained for Shklovsky one of the primary signs of artistic self-consciousness.

The notion that new literary production always involves a series of deliberate, self-conscious deviations from the poetic norms of the preceding genre and/or literary movement remained fundamental to Shklovsky’s and other Formalists’ theories of literary evolution. Tynianov’s and Jakobson’s notion of the “dominant” approximates Shklovsky’s emphasis on defamiliarization, albeit as a feature of the diachronic system, inasmuch as it demands that other devices in the poetic text be “transformed” or pushed to the background to allow for the “foregrounding” of the dominant device. The function of the dominant in the service of literary evolution included the replacement of canonical forms and genres by new forms, which in turn would become canonized and, likewise, replaced by still newer forms.

Toward the end of the Formalist period, the emphasis on the synchronic nature of poetic devices was gradually mediated by a growing realization that literature and language should be considered within their diachronic contexts as well. Some critics— Krystyna Pomorska, Fredric Jameson , Jurij Striedter— regard this later shift in Formalist theory (as described particularly in the works of Tynianov) toward establishing a set of systemic relations between the internal and external organization of the poetic work as protostructuralist. However, newly emerging literary groups such as the Bakhtin Linguistic Circle ( M.M. Bakhtin , Pavel Medvedev, Valentin Voloshinov) and Prague School of Structuralism (Jan Mukarovsky) found the Formalists’ attempts to incorporate a diachronic view of the literary work insufficient. Critics (e.g., Medvedev) attacked the Formalists for refusing to address social and ideological concerns in poetic language. The same criticism, of course, was leveled at the Formalists by the Soviet state (especially by Anatolii Lunacharskii and Lev Trotskii), and with much more serious consequences. Various individuals and groups advocating or at least incorporating a Marxist perspective on literature, including members of the “sociological school” as well as the Bakhtin school in the 1920s, attacked the Formalists for neglecting the social and ideological discourses impinging upon the structure and function of the poetic work. In The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928), Medvedev dismisses the Formalists primarily for failing to provide an adequate sociological and philosophical justification for their theories. While many critics (e.g., Victor Erlich) approach Bakhtin’s work as distinct from that of the Formalist school, others (e.g., Gary Saul Morson and Striedter) view Bakhtin’s work as historically connected to the broader aims and implications of the Russian Formalist movement. Despite Tynianov and Jakobson’s attempt to connect the aims of Formalism to the broader issues of culture (as an entire complex of systems), Russian Formalism remained committed to the idea that “literariness” alone, rather than the referent and its various contingencies, historical and otherwise, was the proper focus of literary scholarship.

Perhaps the ongoing, seemingly irresoluble debate over what constitutes Formalism (both then and now) arises in part from what Jurij Striedter describes as the “dialogic” nature of Formalism itself. The Formalists, especially Tynianov, based their theories of literary evolution (and their own role therein) largely upon Hegel ‘s dialectical method. In his summary of the contributions of the Formalist movement, Eikhenbaum ironically concluded that “when we have a theory that explains everything, a ready-made theory explaining all past and future events and therefore needing neither evolution nor anything like it—then we must recognize that the formal method has come to an end” (“Theory” 139). Eikhenbaum’s vision of a type of Formalist dialectics suggests the dynamic character of the movement as a whole, though external political pressure was surely also a factor by the time Eikhenbaum wrote his essay in 1926.

Shklovsky’s 1930 denunciation of Formalism signaled not just that political pressures had worsened but that the de facto end of the Formalist movement had arrived. Even before Shklovsky was forced to abandon Formalism to political exigencies, the Moscow Linguistic Circle and OPOJAZ had already dissolved in the early 1920s, the former in 1920 with the departure of its founder, Roman Jakobson, for Czechoslovakia, the latter in 1923. With the banning of all artistic organizations (including the various associations of proletarian writers) and the introduction of “socialist realism” as the new, official socialist literature of the Soviet Union in 1932, the Russian Formalist movement came to an official close.

The Formalist approach continued to make itself felt, however, in European and, later, American literary scholarship (though, it should be noted, the formalism of new criticism possessed no direct relation to Russian Formalism). The immediate heirs to the Formalist legacy were the Prague Linguistic Circle (founded in 1926 by Jakobson and a group of Czech linguists) and the Bakhtin Linguistic Circle. The contributions of the Prague Linguistic Circle (especially of Mukarovsky) eventually made their way into the literary discourses of French structuralism. The work of French structural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss echoes and acknowledges the work of Propp and, to a lesser extent, Tynianov’s interest in cultural and literary systems. The Bakhtin Linguistic Circle’s work (which first attracted the attention of Western scholars in the 1970s) extends several Formalist concerns, not the least of which deal with narrative theory and discourse in the novel. The development of structural-semiotic research and the emergence of the Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School in the 1960s (see the writings of such scholars as Viacheslav Ivanov, Iurii Lotman, Vladimir Toporov, Boris Gasparov, and Boris Uspenskii, to name just a few) may also be viewed as an extension of the aims and interests of both formalism and structuralism. Specifically, semiotic research continues to renew in various ways the Formalist emphasis upon language and the devices therein that function to generate meaning as sign systems.

In the United States, the Formalist approach found a sympathetic cousin in New Criticism, which emphasized, though in organic forms actually reminiscent of Russian Symbolism, the literary text as a discrete entity whose meaning and interpretation need not be contaminated by authorial intention, historical conditions, or ideological demands. Poststructuralism (and  Deconstruction ) in the 1970s and 1980s, though a partial critique of the organic notions of form in much American New Criticism, nevertheless extended certain Formalist assumptions. Figures as diverse as Roland Barthes , Paul de Man , Juia Kristeva , and Fredric Jameson are all heavily indebted to the aims and strategies of Russian Formalism.

Further Reading Stephen Bann and John E. Bowlt, eds., Russian Formalism: A Collection of Articles and Texts in Translation (i973); Osip Brik, “Zvukovye povtory” [Sound repetitions], Sbomiki po teorii poeticheskago iazyka 2 (1917); Boris Eikhenbaum, “Kak sdelana ‘Shinel” Gogolia” (1919, “How Gogol’s ‘Overcoat’ Is Made,” Gogol from the Twentieth Century: Eleven Essays, ed. and trans. Robert A. Maguire, 1974), “Teoriia ‘formalnogometoda'” (1927, “TheTheory of the ‘Formal Method,”‘ Lemon and Reis [appeared first in Ukrainian in 1926]); Roman Jakobson, “The Dominant” (Matejka and Pomorska), Noveishaia russkaia potziia [Recent Russian poetry] (1921, Selected Writings, vol. 5,1979); Lev Jakubinskii, “O zvukakh stikhotvornago iazyka” [On the sounds of poetic language], Sbomiki po teorii poeticheskago iazyka 1 (1916); Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, eds. and trans., Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (1965); Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska, eds., Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views (1978); P. N. Medvedev, Formal’nyi metod v literaturovedenii (Kriticheskoe wedenie v sotsiologicheskuiu poetiku) (1928, The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics, trans. Albert J. Wehrle, 1978 [sometimes attributed also to M. M. Bakhtin]); Christopher Pike, ed. and trans., The Futurists, the Formalists, and the Marxist Critique (1979); Vladimir Propp, Morfologiia skazki (1928, Morphology of the Folktale, trans. Laurence Scott, 1958, 2d ed., ed. Louis A. Wagner, 1968); Victor Shklovsky, “Iskusstvo kak priem” (1917,”Art as Technique,” Lemon and Reis), “On the Connection between Devices of Siuzhet Construction and General Stylistic Devices” (1919, Bann and Bowlt), 0 teorii prozy (1927, Theory of Prose, trans. Benjamin Sher, 1990), “Tristram Shendi: Sterna i teoriia romana” [Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and the theory of the novel] (1921, “Sterne’s Tristram Shandy: Stylistic Commentary,” Lemon and Reis); B. V. Tomashevskii, “Literatura i biografiia” (1923, “Literature and Biography,” Matejka and Pomorska), Teoriia Literatury [Theory of literature] (1928); Iurii Tynianov, “O literaturnoi evoliucii” (1929, “On Literary Evolution,” Matejka and Pomorska), The Problem of Verse Language (1924, ed. and trans. Michael Sosa and Brent Harvey, 1981); Iurii Tynianov and Roman Jakobson, “Problemy izucheniia literatury i iazyka” (1928, “Problems in the Study of Literature and Language,” Matejka and Pomorska). Victor Erlich, Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine (1955, 3d ed., 1981); Aage A. Hansen-Löve, Der russische Formalismus (1978); Robert Louis Jackson and Stephen Rudy, eds., Russian Formalism: A Retrospective Glance (1985); Fredric Jameson, The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism (1972); Daniel P. Lucid, ed., Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology (1977); L. Μ. O’Toole and Ann Shukman, eds., Formalism: History, Comparison, Genre (1978), Formalist Theory (1977); Krystyna Pomorska, Russian Formalist Theory and Its Poetic Ambience (1968); Peter Steiner, Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics (1984); Jurij Striedter, Literary Structure, Evolution, and Value (1989); Ewa Μ. Thompson, Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism (1971); Tzvetan Todorov, Critique de la critique (1984, Literature and Its Theorists: A Personal View of Twentieth-Century Criticism, trans. Catherine Porter, 1987); Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution (trans. Rose Strunsky, 1975). Source: Groden, Michael, and Martin Kreiswirth. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Share this:

Categories: Literary Terms and Techniques , Russian Formalism

Tags: Defamiliarization , Grigorii Vinokur , Linguistics , Literary Criticism , Literary Theory , Moscow Linguistic Circle , OPOJAZ , ostranenie , Petr Bogatyrev , Roman Jakobson , Society for the Study of Poetic LanguageSociety for the Study of Poetic Language

• Series on Art Movements and their influence on Cinema – Part II – Formalism – Talking Films Online

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

University of the Arts students file lawsuit just hours before their school is set to close

H ours before it was set to close its doors for good, the beleaguered University of the Arts was hit with another lawsuit Thursday — this time from students who say the school breached its enrollment contracts, leaving them without degrees and short tens of thousands of dollars.

The suit — the first filed by students since the nearly 150-year-old institution’s abrupt announcement last week that it would permanently shut down on Friday — was brought on behalf of 14 plaintiffs and seeks class-action status to represent the university’s wider 1,300-member student body.

It came a day after two groups of faculty and staff separately filed their own suits against the school, alleging it failed to provide them sufficient notice that they would be imminently losing their jobs .

The mounting list of legal claims is only likely to grow in the coming weeks as students, staff, accrediting institutions, state regulators, and City Council sort through the school’s sudden, unexpected, and barely explained collapse.

“The closure of the university leaves students with great uncertainty about the future of their education and careers as well as severe financial hardship from having spent effort, time and money to attend the university and live in the Philadelphia area,” Daniel C. Levin and Nicholas J. Elia, attorneys for the students, wrote in their complaint.

University officials did not respond to requests for comment Thursday on the students’ lawsuit, continuing the silence they’ve largely maintained for days.

Most of the plaintiffs in the newest suit were pursuing master’s degrees in performance arts. Many of them specifically moved to Philadelphia to pursue their studies at University of the Arts. And nearly all were enrolled in classes at the Pig Iron School, through a nearly decade-old partnership the university forged with the Olde Kensington theater company.

Almost all, their attorneys said in court papers, had only one semester to finish before earning their degrees.

Like all of the school’s enrollees, they were caught off guard by the announcement last week of the school’s imminent closure. Most of them learned of it through reading news articles. Each one remains frustrated by the lack of explanation from university administrators about what went wrong, Levin and Elia wrote.

According to the attorneys, none of the plaintiffs has received what are known as “teach-out plans” from the school, assistance that universities that are closing are required to provide to help affected students transition to other institutions.

Their lawsuit asks a federal judge to award them full reimbursement of all tuition they’ve paid since enrolling at University of the Arts as well as compensation for all expenses they incurred to attend the school, including money paid for textbooks, rent, moving costs, and student fees.

They’re also seeking punitive damages, alleging that University of the Arts — which was accepting applications for enrollment up until last week — deceived them by portraying itself as a financially and academically stable school.

“The consequences of the university’s poor financial position were foreseeable to university leadership,” Levin and Elia wrote. Its “lack of explanation [shows] that the university simply waited for this inevitable outcome until the last minute while failing to provide reasonable notice to students and faculty.”

The judge overseeing lawsuits against the university has not yet set a hearing in any of the cases.

©2024 The Philadelphia Inquirer. Visit inquirer.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Stand out. In school or out.

Create what’s true to you, whatever you’re into. Save over 60% on the Creative Cloud All Apps plan if you’re a student.

          See terms

Dream Bigger.

Quickly create, add to, remove or replace images with simple text prompts right in Adobe Photoshop with Generative Fill.  Learn more

Make spectacular images. Get noticed.

Create and edit photos, stories, icons, infographics, and more for social media, promotion, or hobbies with Adobe Photoshop. Learn more

Always. Be. Collaborating.

Adobe Acrobat helps you cruise through your projects. Edit, organize, and share PDFs, notes, and illustrations. Learn more

From merch to memes, artboards to blogs.

Whether your projects are for school, work, or fun, Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator will help you knock them out of the park. Learn more about Illustrator

See all Creative Cloud mobile and desktop apps

Inspiration can’t wait till you get home.

Try these free mobile apps today..

Lightroom for mobile

Grab one or more photos and make quick social posts, snaps, tweets, and memes that get noticed — while you’re still out and about. Learn more

Adobe Express

Quickly and easily make standout content from thousands of beautiful templates.  Learn more

Acrobat Reader

Reliably view, print, sign, and comment on PDFs no matter where you are. Learn more

Explore Adobe’s creativity and design apps.

Edit and combine images for posters, flyers, social collages, and websites.

Acrobat Pro

Create, comment, highlight, share and do more with your PDFs.

Illustrator

Create graphics and illustrations like logos, infographics, and t-shirt designs.

Premiere Pro

Create pro-quality videos like documentaries, short films, and more.

Design page layouts for print and digital campus flyers, magazines, and eBooks.

Edit and share photos anywhere for social posts, club websites, and blogs.

After Effects

Cinematic visual effects and motion graphics.

Photoshop Express

Edit and transform your photos on the go.

Easily make standout graphics, photos and more in no time.

Adobe Fresco

Rediscover the joy of drawing and painting anywhere.

Substance 3D Collection apps for students

Model, texture, and render 3D assets and scenes. Free for eligible students and teachers. Not included in Creative Cloud All Apps.  See what’s included.

Design and share interactive experiences in augmented reality.

See all Creative Cloud desktop and mobile apps

To stand out, jump in.

Try creative cloud today..

After your free trial, your Adobe Creative Cloud membership is only         .  See terms

Purchase by phone:  800-585-0774

Student eligibility

Terms and conditions

Terms and Conditions

Students and teachers.

Introductory Pricing Terms and Conditions

    Creative Cloud Introductory Pricing

Eligible students 13 and older and teachers can purchase an annual membership to Adobe® Creative Cloud™ for a reduced price of     for the first year. At the end of your offer term, your subscription will be automatically billed at the standard subscription rate, currently at    (plus applicable taxes), unless you elect to change or cancel your subscription. This pricing is valid for purchases of an annual plan, which requires a 12-month contract. This pricing is available for first time membership only and limited to eligible education customers who purchase directly from the Adobe Store or by calling Adobe Sales. This pricing is not available to OEM, commercial or volume licensing customers. This pricing is limited to one (1) purchase of one (1) Creative Cloud annual membership per customer. Offer may not be assigned, exchanged, sold, transferred, or combined with any other discount or offer, or redeemed for cash or other goods and services. This pricing is subject to change without notice. Void where prohibited, taxed or restricted by law.

One Year Prepaid Creative Cloud Introductory Pricing

Eligible students 13 and older and teachers can purchase an annual membership to Adobe® Creative Cloud™ for a reduced price of     for the first year. At the end of your offer term, your subscription will be automatically billed at the standard subscription rate, currently at     (plus applicable taxes), unless you elect to change or cancel your subscription. This pricing is available for first time membership only and limited to eligible education customers who purchase directly from the Adobe Store or by calling Adobe Sales. This pricing is not available to OEM, commercial or volume licensing customers. This pricing is limited to one (1) purchase of one (1) Creative Cloud annual membership per customer. Offer may not be assigned, exchanged, sold, transferred, or combined with any other discount or offer, or redeemed for cash or other goods and services. This pricing is subject to change without notice. Void where prohibited, taxed or restricted by law.

What's included

Language Navigation

Substance 3D Collection for students

Substance 3D apps for students

What’s included:

1-208-882-4534

Our Facility

Why Choose Us

Privacy Policy

• Pre-Arrangements
• Pre-Arrangements Form
• The Talk of a Lifetime
• Veterans Overview
• Veterans Headstones
• Veterans Burial Flags
• Making Arrangements
• Grief Support
• When Death Occurs
• Funeral Etiquette
• Social Security Benefits
• Frequent Questions
• Links of Interest

The caring and experienced professionals at Short's Funeral Chapel are here to support you through this difficult time. We offer a range of personalized services to suit your family’s wishes and requirements. You can count on us to help you plan a personal, lasting tribute to your loved one. And we’ll carefully guide you through the many decisions that must be made during this challenging time.

You are welcome to call us at any time of the day, any day of the week, for immediate assistance. Or, visit our funeral home in person at your convenience. We also provide a wealth of information here on our web site so you can learn more from the privacy of your own home.

Joseph Stalin’ Show Trials: A Short Summary

Joseph Stalin’s show trials were common during his political repressions, such as the Moscow Trials of the Great Purge period (1937–38). The Soviet authorities staged the actual trials meticulously.

The trials were held against Stalin’s political enemies, such as the Trotskyists and those involved with the Right Opposition of the Communist Party. The trials were shams that led to the execution of most defendants. Every surviving member of the Lenin-era part was tried, and almost every important Bolshevik from the Revolution was executed. Over 1,100 delegates to the party congress in 1934 were arrested.  The killings were part of Stalin’s Great Purge, in which opportunists and Bolshevik cadres from the time of the Russian Revolution who could rally opposition to Joseph Stalin were killed. He did so at a time of growing discontent in the 1930s for his mismanagement of the Soviet economy, leading to mass famines during periods of rapid and poorly executed industrialization and farm collectivization.

Prominent Americans could even be found to defend Stalin show trials, a spectacle of political theater so transparent that it would have taken genuine effort not to see through it. In order to terrorize Communist Party members into absolute submission and at the same time eliminate potential rivals, Stalin put on a series of high-profile trials in which prominent Communists confessed to treachery against the Soviet Union. In some cases, people were coaxed into making these confessions by threats against their families if they refused. One by one some of the most loyal Communists , dating back to the days of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, solemnly admitted to counterrevolutionary activity. George Orwell could hardly have improved on this eerie and macabre spectacle.

Yet there were those on the American Left who supported Stalin and vouched for the authenticity of the trials. In 1938, some 150 Americans prominent in the entertainment industry signed a statement in support of the verdicts reached in “the recent Moscow trials.” According to the expert opinion of these Broadway stars and assorted glitterati, the trials had “by sheer weight of evidence established a clear presumption of the guilt of the defendants.” As if this weren’t bad enough, people who knew better said the same thing. The U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies , insisted to the American government that the trials were genuine, a claim he stood by in his 1941 book Mission to Moscow. He told the New Republic, “We see no reason to take the trial at other than its face value.” The proceedings, he said, had uncovered the “virus of a conspiracy to overthrow the [Soviet] government.” Duranty, for his part, described it as “unthinkable” that Stalin could have sentenced his friends to death “unless the proofs of guilt were overwhelming,” and wrote of his conviction that “the confessions are true.”A

After Stalin’s death, Soviet premier Nikita Khruschev repudiated the trials in a speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Russian Communist Party:

The commission has become acquainted with a large quantity of materials in the NKVD archives and with other documents and has established many facts pertaining to the fabrication of cases against Communists, to glaring abuses of Socialist legality which resulted in the death of innocent people. It became apparent that many party, Government and economic activists who were branded in 1937–38 as ‘enemies,’ were actually never enemies, spies, wreckers, etc., but were always honest Communists … They were only so stigmatized and often, no longer able to bear barbaric tortures, they charged themselves (at the order of the investigative judges – falsifiers) with all kinds of grave and unlikely crimes.

Additional Resources About Cold War

The cold war timeline, what was the iron curtain and how did it collapse, the origins of the cold war timeline, cold war detente — us/soviet enmity cools, cite this article.

• How Much Can One Individual Alter History? More and Less...
• Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? We Have Some Answers
• Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb
• Is Russia Communist Today? Find Out Here!
• Phonetic Alphabet: How Soldiers Communicated
• How Many Americans Died in WW2? Here Is A Breakdown

• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• United Kingdom
• United States
• The Great Reboot
• Reuters Next
• Aerospace & Defense
• Autos & Transportation
• Environment
• Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals
• Media & Telecom
• Retail & Consumer
• Sustainable Business
• Future of Health
• Future of Money
• Reuters Impact
• Legal Industry
• Transactional
• Asian Markets
• Carbon Markets
• Commodities
• Emerging Markets
• European Markets
• Global Market Data
• Rates & Bonds
• U.S. Markets
• Macro Matters
• Reuters Momentum
• Motor Sports
• Oddly Enough

THE WIDER IMAGE

In albania, two women take on a nation with a rooftop wedding.

Edlira Mara (left), Alba Ahmetaj (centre), 44, and their twin daughters get ready for their wedding ceremony in central Tirana, Albania, May 19, 2024. REUTERS/Florion Goga

By Florion Goga

Filed May 31, 2024, 11:09 a.m. GMT

Photography by Florion Goga

Writing by Fatos Bytyci and Florion Goga

Filed June 03, 2024, 08:00 a.m. GMT

In many ways Alba Ahmetaj and Edlira Mara lead an ordinary life. They brush their twin daughters’ hair before school and play fight with them in their flat on weekend mornings. They have matching shoulder tattoos that mark their 14 years together.

But in their fight to be treated like other families, the lesbian couple did something extraordinary.

At dusk on Sunday, May 19, friends cheered as they stood out on the rooftop of the mayor’s office in central Tirana, kissed, exchanged rings and got married.

Their marriage is not acknowledged by the state - Albanian law does not recognise same-sex civil unions. It has prompted outrage from the political right and the powerful religious community.

But for Alba and Edlira, it was a real expression of love, a cry for equality and, as far as they know, the first wedding of its kind in the Muslim-majority Balkan country.

“There are two people in love ... and now they have finalised it with this beautiful ceremony,” Edlira said after the wedding. “Society will never be ready ... What does this mean? That I cannot live?”

While much of western Europe has made strides towards marriage equality, governments in much of the centre and east oppose change.

In Albania, religion was prohibited for half a century under communism. Today, the country is known for its tolerance among Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox Christians. These faiths are united in their opposition to same-sex marriage.

When plans for the couple’s wedding became public, social media was flooded with thousands of threatening comments. Police officers guarded the building during the ceremony.

Two days later, opposition parties held a protest against the mayor over separate corruption allegations. But the speakers turned on Alba and Edlira too, accusing them of destroying family values.

The furore over the wedding was just the latest stage in what the couple say has been a long struggle to get the same rights as heterosexual couples.

When their daughters were born three years ago, the couple said they both wanted to be registered as parents, but that was not allowed under law. The children are registered under Edlira, the biological mother.

“Our society is very patriarchal and homophobic,” Alba said before the wedding. “If you see comments on Facebook or Instagram ... you will see how little tolerance we have as a nation.”

One of her twin daughters hugs Edlira as their dog Rainy looks at her empty plate, during breakfast at home in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024. REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba does her daughter’s hair at home in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024.  REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba, Edlira and their twin daughters have breakfast at home in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024. REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba and one of her twin daughters play at home in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024.  REUTERS/Florion Goga

Edlira and one of her twin daughters feed their cat Pufi through the window of their apartment, in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024. REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba and Edlira pick up their twin daughters from nursery in Tirana, Albania, May 17, 2024. REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba picks up one of her twin daughters, at a park in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024.  REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba inflates balloons for her twin daughters as Edlira laughs, a day before their wedding ceremony, at home in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024. REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba and Edlira make arrangements for their wedding, a day before the ceremony, at home in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024.  REUTERS/Florion Goga

Alba and Edlira’s twin daughters play at their apartment in Tirana, Albania, May 18, 2024.  REUTERS/Florion Goga

Amid the struggle, the wedding became a bright spot. To prepare, the family blew up balloons in their apartment. On the evening of the ceremony, friends helped the couple into their big white wedding dresses.

They walked, holding their daughters’ hands, towards the altar through a crowd of friends who threw white rose petals. Around them were the sights of downtown Tirana and mountains beyond, covered in mist.

They were wed by two British pastors.

“We are fighting against 90 percent of the population,” Edlira said. “Both of us are changing a lot of things.”

The Wider Image

Photography: Florion Goga

Writing: Fatos Bytyci and Florion Goga

Photo editing and design: Marta Montana Gomez and Maye-E Wong

Text editing: Edward McAllister and Andrew Heavens

LICENSE THIS STORY

• Follow Reuters Investigates

Other Reuters investigations