Across the country, more school districts are exploring a four-day school week. For some communities, it’s a strategy to address budget pressures. For others, it’s a recruitment tool in a competitive staffing landscape. And for many families and educators, it raises practical questions: Will students learn as much? What happens on the “fifth day”? How will services like special education and related therapies continue without disruption?
A 2018 brief from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), authored by Georgia Heyward, pulls together what the field has learned so far and highlights what we still don’t know. Below is an easy-to-read summary of the key insights, paired with practical considerations that district leaders should keep in mind—especially when planning for students who rely on consistent supports.
How widespread is the four-day school week?
The four-day school week is no longer a niche practice. CRPE reports that:
25 states have at least one district using a four-day school week.
About half of all U.S. states have at least one district on a four-day schedule.
Roughly 550 districts nationwide are estimated to be using the schedule.
While the model is still most common in small, rural, and remote districts, CRPE notes that it has spread into some nonrural areas. In some states, four-day districts may be located within commuting distance of urban centers, and some consolidated rural districts serve thousands of students.
Why are districts adopting it—and why now?
Interest in the four-day week tends to rise during fiscal crises. Historically, it has appeared during:
the 1930s
the late 1970s
the late 2000s (and the years following the Great Recession)
CRPE describes how certain states saw adoption accelerate after the Great Recession (including Idaho, Missouri, South Dakota, and Montana), while other states saw more recent adoption (such as Florida, Iowa, and Texas in the 2010s).
In practice, districts often consider the schedule to manage costs, stabilize staffing, or respond to community preferences. But the “why” matters, because motivation influences implementation—especially how districts use the fifth day and how they protect instructional quality.
Accountability is increasing in some states
As the four-day week becomes more common, some states have responded with tighter accountability measures. CRPE highlights examples such as:
California: Legislation requiring districts that don’t meet benchmarks to abandon the four-day schedule.
Minnesota: State action requiring several districts to return to five days due to inadequate academic progress, and later limiting new applications.
Oklahoma: Requirements for districts to submit a plan detailing goals when considering the schedule, paired with state-commissioned research.
New Mexico: A moratorium announced in 2018 tied to state funding policy.
Other states, such as Washington and Utah, use waiver processes and periodic reviews. The big takeaway for district leaders is that a four-day week is increasingly treated not as a local scheduling preference, but as a model that must be justified with outcomes.
Charter schools are using four-day schedules too
CRPE notes that some charter schools—often in urban areas—operate on four-day schedules as part of their charter terms. Because the schedule is embedded in the authorization process, these schools may face clearer performance expectations tied to renewal and oversight.
This is an important reminder: the schedule itself is not the strategy. The strategy is how time is used, how instruction is strengthened, and how student supports are delivered consistently.
Do districts ever go back to five days?
Yes. Although early interviews suggested the change could feel “permanent” in some communities, CRPE documents multiple examples of districts returning to a five-day week. Reasons include academic concerns, parent dissatisfaction, and state intervention when progress was insufficient.
From a governance standpoint, this matters. Districts considering a four-day week should treat it as a change that requires:
clear goals and success metrics
ongoing monitoring
a realistic plan for course-correction if results don’t match expectations
What does the research say about academic outcomes?
CRPE emphasizes that for many years, studies were largely nonexperimental, making it difficult to draw causal conclusions. More recent quasi-experimental studies provide a clearer (though still incomplete) picture for elementary grades in rural settings.
Two key studies cited by CRPE found:
Overall long-term impacts were net neutral on student performance.
Short-term effects differed: one study saw initial gains that faded after two years, while another saw initial declines that later returned to baseline.
Effects appeared strongest in math proficiency (whether trending positive or negative).
CRPE also underscores a critical implementation point: districts do not all “do” the four-day week the same way. Some tighten instructional practice and differentiate supports; others provide limited support for teachers to redesign curriculum for longer class periods. That variation may help explain why outcomes differ.
What about students who need additional support?
One of the most important contributions highlighted by CRPE is emerging research that begins to look at subgroup impacts. Using student-level data, one study found long-term impacts were neutral overall, but some groups experienced declines in math scores (including some minority students and male students). Advanced students were not impacted in the same way, while students near low-performing and proficiency thresholds were more affected.
For special education leaders, this is a central caution: even when the “average” impact looks neutral, schedule changes can shift risk onto students who depend on consistent, well-coordinated instruction and related services.
From an implementation standpoint, districts should proactively plan for:
IEP service minutes and how they will be delivered across a compressed week
therapy scheduling (speech-language, occupational therapy, physical therapy, counseling) when student days are longer
make-up sessions when students are absent on one of only four days
provider availability, especially in areas already facing staffing shortages
This is one area where teletherapy can be a stabilizing option for districts—helping maintain continuity of services, reduce cancellations due to travel constraints, and expand access to qualified clinicians when local hiring is difficult.
Attendance, discipline, and community impacts: mixed evidence and open questions
Many earlier reports suggested attendance improves and discipline declines under a four-day week. However, CRPE notes that the more rigorous studies did not find statistically significant changes in absences, and discipline reductions were slight.
Community impacts remain a major concern, with limited long-term research. CRPE cites findings and concerns including:
Family satisfaction is often reported, but frequently based on anecdotal evidence.
In one Missouri survey, parents of elementary and special education students were less satisfied and more likely to prefer a return to five days.
A Colorado study found property crime increased after districts moved to a four-day schedule.
Food insecurity is a recurring concern in communities where students rely on school meals five days per week, yet research on long-term solutions is limited.
Do four-day weeks actually save money?
Districts often pursue a four-day week for financial reasons, but CRPE cautions that savings may be modest. Teacher salaries—typically the largest budget line—do not decrease simply because the calendar changes. Savings tend to come from:
transportation
utilities
some classified staffing costs
CRPE references prior analysis suggesting average savings of roughly 0.4% to 2.5% of total budget. In some districts, that may be meaningful; in others, it may not offset the operational complexity and potential unintended consequences.
The “fifth day” opportunity—and the sustainability challenge
One of the most promising ideas is using the fifth day for enrichment, intervention, internships, or professional development. CRPE notes there is some evidence that select districts use the fifth day creatively to address rural challenges and expand opportunities.
But CRPE also reports a common pattern: fifth-day activities may fade over time as funding runs out or complacency sets in. There is limited research on how fifth-day programming is structured, sustained, and evaluated for effectiveness.
For districts considering the model, a key leadership question is whether the fifth day will be:
a planned, funded, equitable learning extension, or
an unstructured day that unintentionally widens gaps for students who need support most
What we still need to know
CRPE closes with a set of important unanswered questions—many of which are highly relevant as four-day weeks spread beyond rural settings:
Why does interest persist, and what tensions (rural and nonrural) are driving adoption?
What are the impacts on high school students and postsecondary outcomes (enrollment, persistence, career attainment)?
How do impacts vary by student characteristics and services (including special education)?
What does high-quality, equitable fifth-day programming require, and how can it be sustained?
How should states and authorizers hold four-day schools accountable over time?
Final thoughts for district decision-makers
A four-day school week is a major systems change. The research to date suggests academic impacts may be neutral on average in certain contexts, but implementation quality and subgroup effects matter. For district leaders, the most responsible approach is to define clear goals, monitor outcomes, and protect access to essential supports—especially for students with disabilities and those who rely on school-based services.
For more information, please follow this link.
