Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Idaho should study four-day school week’s effect on learning

Wed., July 22, 2015

Idaho has 42 school districts that have switched to a four-day week as a way to stretch precious dollars from a stingy Legislature. But a study that looked at them found that the conversion hasn’t been a big money-saver, and its impact on learning has gone largely unexamined.

So now what?

The four-day school week has become popular in some areas for nonacademic reasons, namely a steady supply of three-day weekends. Gifted students can use Fridays for independent study or to check out colleges. Teachers can give their students meaningful assignments to be turned in Monday. But the review, conducted by the Rural Opportunities Consortium of Idaho and funded by the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation, shows that most districts don’t pursue some of these possible advantages. Some teachers say it’s more difficult to kick-start learning each Monday.

The effects of “Gone Fishing” Fridays need some study.

At the very least, the state should conduct an in-depth analysis of how the four-day week has affected teaching and learning, especially since the expected financial advantages have been largely illusory.

We can’t blame school boards for giving the shorter week a try. The Legislature, even with this year’s spending increase, has yet to return to the per-pupil funding levels of 2009. Plus, most of the districts with four-day weeks are in rural areas where passing a levy is a long shot.

But, as the study shows, it’s difficult to save much money when the main cost is teachers’ pay, and they put in the same number of hours. Districts could cut the pay of its hourly workers, but they’ve been reluctant to do so. Understandable, in small communities where good-paying jobs are scarce. The savings on utilities haven’t been as great as hoped for.

The best candidates for four-day weeks would appear to be rural districts with especially long bus rides.

Some school boards and superintendents might be reluctant to participate in fact-finding on the academic impact because they know the four-day week is popular. But education, not recreation, should be the priority. If districts are confident the four-day week is just as effective, they shouldn’t flinch at helping the state gather the data to prove it. And the state’s top education leader should crave that information.

As a candidate, Superintendent for Public Instruction Sherri Ybarra pointed to the four-day week as a sign of inadequate funding. But in response to the study, she said, “This is a local decision by schools boards, and we at the department will support districts regardless of their decision.”

Any decision?

Surely, the state has a stake in the quality of education in every district. Four-day weeks may be a smart move for some districts, but the state shouldn’t be afraid to test the premise.