(EDITOR’S NOTE: The four-day school schedule was once an anomaly, restricted to rural schools in Idaho and other Western states. This fall, about 100,000 Idaho’s students will attend a four-day school, and the Nampa School District will be the largest district to adopt the schedule. Idaho EdNews senior reporter Kevin Richert will spend the 2024-25 school year taking an in-depth look at the four-day phenomenon — and how it affects students, taxpayers and communities. Share your comments, questions and story ideas via email: [email protected].)

An international firm came to Idaho in the fall of 2019 to try to fill in the gaping holes in research into four-day schools.

Local stakeholders attached a variety of benefits to the four-day schedule. But the research didn’t back up those claims, and instead found a gap between perception and reality.

“Despite relatively limited evidence that the (four-day school week) is able to deliver what proponents promise, stakeholder satisfaction with it is generally very high,” researchers with the Santa Monica, Calif.-based RAND Corporation said in an October 2021 report.

Lamenting the limited research into four-day schools – comprising “a relatively small number of articles in the popular press, a handful of policy briefs, and less than a dozen statistical analyses” — RAND dug deep into 36 four-day districts, 12 apiece in Idaho, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

RAND surveyed parents and students in all 36 districts. RAND researchers then came in-person to 12 of these 36 districts, and interviewed 465 people, including students, teachers and administrators.

Here’s what RAND heard from respondents from the three states — and what the data actually shows:

Student performance. “Most stakeholders believe the (four-day school week) has no effect on academic achievement,” researchers wrote. But the data instead suggests a small achievement gap — but one likely to grow over time.

Student attendance. Stakeholders believe the move to the four-day schedule improves attendance rates. Researchers found no “statistically discernable difference” between  four- and five-day schools.

School climate. Stakeholders believe the four-day schedule makes for a healthier school climate, “primarily because students and school staff were happier.” Survey data doesn’t back up the claim.

Behavioral health. Researchers heard a “near consensus” from stakeholders, who were convinced the shorter schedule improved students’ emotional and behavioral health. But data from surveys of elementary school parents and students found no differences between four- and five-day schools.

Cost savings. Some administrators said they believed the switch to a four-day calendar could allow them to trim 4% to 12% — savings that are not possible, according to RAND research. Cost savings has long been a key selling point for the four-day schedule.

Teacher recruitment and retention. This is one of the rising arguments for the four-day calendar, with supporters saying it allows schools to keep their most coveted teachers. “District and school leaders, school board members, and teachers agreed the (four-day school week) was a competitive advantage for teacher retention and, to a lesser degree, recruiting,” RAND researchers wrote. RAND said the four-day calendar has limited value as a retention tool — except with teachers nearing retirement age, or with teachers who commute long distances to their school.

The difference between perception and reality wasn’t always a negative, according to RAND.

In focus groups and interviews, many stakeholders said they were worried about food insecurity — and were worried about what students would do without school breakfast and lunch during the longer weekend. RAND’s survey data suggested those fears were unfounded.

More coverage: 76 districts, 19 charters and (roughly) 100,000 students. The four-day phenomenon continues to spread across Idaho.