Does Shortening the School Week Impact Student Performance?

Evidence from the Four-Day School Week

D. Mark Anderson Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics Montana State University [email protected]

Mary Beth Walker Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Georgia State University [email protected]

March 2012

Abstract Public schools face difficult decisions on how to pare budgets. In the current financial environment, school districts employ a variety of policies to close budget gaps and stave off teacher layoffs and furloughs. An increasing number of schools are implementing four-day school weeks hoping to reduce overhead and transportation costs. The four-day-week policy requires substantial schedule changes as schools must increase the length of their school day to meet state-mandated minimum instructional hour requirements. Although some schools have indicated that this policy eases financial pressures, it is unknown whether the restructured schedule has an impact on student outcomes. In this study, we use school-level longitudinal data from the state of Colorado to investigate the relationship between the four-day school week and academic performance among elementary school students. We exploit the temporal and spatial variation in the four-day school week using a difference-in-differences empirical strategy. Our results suggest that student academic achievement has not been hurt by the change in schedule. Instead, the evidence indicates that the adoption of a four-day school week shares a positive and often statistically significant relationship with performance in both reading and mathematics; the math results in particular are generally robust to a range of specification checks. These findings have policy relevance to the current U.S. education system, where many school districts must cut costs. The four-day school week is a strategy currently under debate.

Theres no way a switch like that wouldnt negatively affect teaching and learning. -Tim Callahan, spokesman for the Professional Association of Georgia Educators (Wall Street Journal) 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 (TIME Magazine)

1. Introduction
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 Although there are alternative ways to implement the policy, typically 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, Kentuckys 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 four1

Newspaper articles from the Tampa Bay Times (December 18, 2011), the NewsPress NOW in St. Joseph, Missouri (December 25, 2011), and the Seattle Times (December 27, 2011) describe the current public discussion of a proposed schedule change.
2

Generally, no classes are held on Friday; however, a small number of schools operating on the four-day week take Monday as their day off.
3

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

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 the shorter week harms students academically (Herring 2010), while 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 empirical research on the four-day week generally supports the notion that student achievement is not adversely affected by the alternative schedule.6 This research is entirely descriptive in nature, however, and often consists of case studies focusing on only one or a few school districts. There has been no research on the relationship between the four-day school week and academic performance that uses rigorous empirical methods.
4

If buildings are closed and placed on a weekend cycle, then savings equivalent to a three-day weekend are possible. However, it is often the case that buildings are kept open for extra activities and for staff use (Dam 2006). A recent report by Griffith (2011) suggests the savings from moving to a four-day week are modest. Yet, it is worth noting that the report is based only on six school districts from four different states.
5

Jacob and Lefgren (2003) and Luallen (2006) estimate the relationship between school attendance and crime by exploiting variation in teacher in-service days and teacher strike days, respectively. Both illustrate that juvenile property crime rates increase on days when school is not in session, but violent crime rates decrease on these days. The authors speculate that incapacitation effects explain the increase in property crimes, while concentration effects likely account for the decrease in violent crimes.
6

Daly and Richburg (1984), Sagness and Salzman (1993), Feaster (2002), Lefly and Penn (2009), and Hewitt and Deny (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.

This study estimates the impact of the four-day school week on student achievement using 4th grade reading and 5th grade mathematics test scores from the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP). Over a third of 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 suggest that student academic achievement has not been compromised by the change in schedule. Instead, the evidence indicates that the adoption of a four-day school week shares a positive and often statistically significant relationship with performance in both reading and mathematics; the math results in particular are generally robust to a range of specification checks. 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; Section 6 concludes.

2. Background
2.1 Background of the four-day week

It is 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). It was not until the energy crisis of the early 1970s, however, 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 legislatures decision in 1985 to alter the minimum school year requirement from 180 days to 1080 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 17 states have 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% of the school districts in Colorado, only about 3% of the states student population is covered by the alternative schedule, reflecting the fact that most four-day-week schools are in rural and sparsely populated districts

Cimarron School District in New Mexico has the longest history of the four-day-week schedule; they switched to the shortened week in 1973-1974 and have used it consistently since (Feaster 2002).
8

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).
9

See Gaines (2008) for a list of these states. In addition, Hawaii recently implemented 17 mandatory Furlough Fridays for state public schools and the Peach County district in 2010 was the first in the state of Georgia to switch to the four-day week (Herring 2010).
10

All four-day schools in Colorado regularly hold school on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The majority of these schools conduct no class 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; however, there are a few Colorado districts that have individual schools, but not the entire district, on the shortened week (Lefly and Penn 2009).

(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. A 2010 survey conducted in Colorado by the Department of Education solicited information from school administrators who had applied to either switch their schools schedule to a four-day week or to renew their current four-day-week status. The responses are tabulated in Table A1; more than two thirds of the respondents stated that financial savings were a motivation for the altered schedule, with another third citing community support.

2.2 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 particular lessons more effectively and incorporate more varied teaching methodologies (Rice et al. 2002). Yarbrough and Gilman (2006) reported that teachers claimed the four-day week cut out wasted time and forced them to focus their instruction more successfully. Durr (2003) found that teachers actually reported covering more content under the shortened school week. 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). While 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 (Chamberlain and Plucker 2003). Lastly, a different effect could be that teachers are happy with the four-day weeks, and this leads to higher productivity while on the job. This

would be in accordance with the literature from psychology on the relationship between the fourday 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 change of schedule (Chamberlain and Plucker 2003). A survey from an Idaho school district indicated that 24% 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 might 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). All of these factors have the potential to improve academic performance.12 In addition, students with long commutes might fare better on a schedule with fewer trips (Ryan 2009). On the other hand, the four-day school week has potential disadvantages from a student perspective. For example, some worry that it is more difficult for students to retain subject matter when given an extra day off (Gaines 2008). Perhaps the biggest concern is that the longer

11

It has also been shown that the compressed workweek can lead to decreased employee absenteeism (Pierce et al. 1989).
12

Sixty-three percent of 4th through 7th 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).

school day requires extended focus and attention, and this could be especially relevant for younger students (Dam 2006; Gaines 2008; Ryan 2009).13 Aside from the possible advantages and disadvantages listed above, there are several reasons why the alternative schedule might actually 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 schools 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 (Richberg and Sjogren 1983; Dam 2006).14 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 extracurricular activities on their day off (Dam 2006).15 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 our research because the CSAP tests are administered during the spring. As a result, if school is cancelled due to winter weather,

13

Some schools have helped elementary students adjust to the longer school days by providing breakfast and serving lunch later in the day (Hazard 1986).
14

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).
15

This is especially relevant for rural areas because students at these schools are more likely to participate in schoolsponsored sports activities than students who attend urban schools (Lippman et al. 1996).

then students will generally make up lost time before taking the standardized tests rather than afterward.16 Although the data used in this study do not allow us to identify the mechanisms through which the changed schedule may affect academic performance, it is useful to delineate the possibilities in the hopes that future research can confirm or reject these hypotheses.

2.3 Relevant literature on school schedule changes While none of the schedule changes that have been rigorously empirically scrutinized match precisely with the schedule 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 et al. 2002; Hughes Jr. 2004). This educational policy change is appealing because overall class hours are not increased, so no new resources are required. However, the evidence is mixed regarding the ability of block scheduling to enhance student performance (Rice et al. 2002; Hughes Jr. 2004). Second, other research has examined the impacts of year-round schooling.17 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
16

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).
17

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

alternative school calendar simply consists of a set number of instructional hours spread over the entire year. While past reviews of the research on year-round schooling are inconclusive (Merino 1983; Cooper et al. 2003), recent work by Graves (2010, 2011) indicates the year-round calendar may have detrimental effects on academic performance.18 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).19 Generally, this research suggests that a positive relationship exists between instructional time and academic achievement, and that instructional time is subject to diminishing returns.

3. Data
3.1 Data on test scores We use test score data from the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) to measure student performance.20 The CSAP tests are administered each spring and every public school student within specified grades is required to take the exams.21 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

18

Graves (2010, 2011) specifically focuses 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.
19

Along these lines, research has also considered the effects of full-day as opposed to half-day kindergarten (DeCicca 2007; Cannon et al. 2011).
20

These data are publicly available from the Colorado Department of Education.

21

Schools are required to administer the tests during the period beginning on the second Monday in March and ending on the third Monday in April. Additional details on the test schedules are available at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/co_law.html#Bullet3.

10

in reading and the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics.22 These measures represent some of the achievement benchmarks used to evaluate school performance under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In particular, we focus on 4th grade reading and 5th 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 2000-2010 and 2001-2010 for reading and mathematics, respectively.23 Because there are many more elementary schools than middle or high schools, these data are perhaps the most appropriate for examining the causal 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 to those for schools on traditional schedules indicates that schools on the four-day week have lower percentages of 5th graders scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics. The mean percentage of 4th 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. Table 2 illustrates test score results for the schools that changed their schedules to the four-day week during our sample period. For the 5th grade math and 4th grade reading samples we observe 14 and 15 schedule changers, respectively. We report means for the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced for the two years prior to the schedule change, the year in

22

Although not our primary focus, we also consider results for all four possible test outcomes (see Table 6).

23

For math, the exams were first administered in elementary schools in 2001 to 5 th grade students. For reading, the exams were first administered in elementary schools in 1997 to 4 th grade students. We do not present reading results for the period 1997-2010 because some of the covariates were not available for the late 1990s. However, it should be noted that reading results from models with school fixed effects and year effects for the period 1997-2010 are similar to those presented below.

11

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. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate pre- and post-schedule change trends for the schools that switched to a four-day week in our sample.24 Because the level of performance varies across schools, the figures are expressed in terms of changes in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced, using two years prior to the schedule change as a baseline.25 For comparison, the figures also report simple averages of changes in test score performance for traditional-schedule schools (i.e. control schools) for the appropriate years.26 For schools that switched to a four-day week, 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. For reading scores, there also appears to be a discontinuous increase in performance for the four-dayweek schools, but this occurs one year after switching schedules.

3.2 Covariates 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.

24

In each figure, a vertical line distinguishes the years before the schedule change from the year of the schedule change and the years after the schedule change.
25

Because schools switch schedules at different times, the horizontal axis represents pre- and post-schedule change years.
26

See footnote 15 in Ayres and Levitt (1998) for a more thorough description of how to construct the counterfactual in this manner.

12

At the county level, we control for the percent living in poverty and population density.27 Given that four-day-week schedules are implemented primarily for financial reasons in rural areas, these variables are of particular importance. We also control for several variables measured at the school district level. Instructional expenditures per student are included as a standard input to the education production function.28 Other district-level controls include the percentage of teachers who are male, the percentage who are white, and the percentage who are Hispanic.29 These demographic characteristics vary across districts and are likely to be correlated with unobservables that influence academic outcomes.30 Lastly, we control for the following school-level variables: total enrollment, pupil-toteacher ratio, percentage of students who receive free lunch, percentage of students who are white, and percentage of students who are Hispanic.31 While 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-dayweek 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
27

More specifically, the poverty measure represents the percentage of people aged 0 to 17 in families living in poverty. This variable was imputed for 2010. The poverty and population density data are from the U.S. Census Bureau.
28

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).
29

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

30

Some research suggests that teacher demographic characteristics such as gender and race directly influence student achievement (Dee 2005; Hoffman and Oreopolous 2009).
31

The school-level data are from the National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data.

13

Total students values that are less than the maximum values for these variables for the four-dayweek schools. Specifically, we restrict our focus to schools with enrollments not exceeding 1,100 students and that are in counties with less than 300 persons per square mile.32 We evaluate the sensitivity of our results to alternative sample selection criteria in the robustness checks below. 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.

4. Empirical Strategy
A standard difference-in-differences (DD) approach is used to estimate the effect of the four-day school week on student performance. This method allows us to exploit the panel nature of our data by estimating a model that includes school fixed effects and year effects. The baseline estimating equation is:

(1)

% Proficient/Advancedst = 0 + 1Four-Day Weekst + Xsdct2 + s + t + st,

32

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 5 years of available test score data.

14

where % Proficient/Advanced is the percentage of students in a specific grade at school s and year t who score proficient or advanced in a particular test subject (math or reading).33 The variable Four-Day Week indicates whether a four-day-week schedule was in place in school s and year t. The coefficient of interest, 1, represents the marginal effect of switching to a fourday week. Standard errors are adjusted for correlation at the district level (Bertrand et al. 2004).34 The vector X is comprised of the time-varying school (s), district (d), and county (c) characteristics described above. The school fixed effects and year effects are represented by s and t, respectively. The school fixed effects control for differences across schools that are time-invariant, while 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 child 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.35 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.36 School selection is also limited by restrictions on within-district

33

Marcotte (2007), Marcotte and Hemelt (2008), and Papke (2005) use a similar dependent variable to evaluate student performance at the school level.
34

Inference is similar when standard errors are adjusted for correlation at the school level.

35

Higher income households, families with a stay-at-home parent, or farm and ranch households may find the fourday-week schedule appealing.
36

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

15

transfers. School fixed effects account for this type of bias for schools that used the four-dayweek schedule throughout the sample period. A second selection bias could result from the fact that school districts choose their schedule. If only schools with financial issues change to a four-day-week schedule, then an observed relationship between the four-day week and test scores might simply reflect the financial situation of the school. School fixed effects would purge our estimates of this type of bias. School fixed effects cannot account for unobserved time-varying factors that simultaneously influence student performance and the schools 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 time trends in a sensitivity analysis below.

5. Results
5.1 Primary results Table 3 presents our baseline OLS estimates of the relationship between the four-day school week and the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on 5th grade math tests. Each column illustrates results from a separate regression and all models include schoollevel fixed effects. These results are striking; even when controlling for county-, district- and school-level differences in socio-economic characteristics, the four-day school week is associated with an increase of over seven percentage points in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the math achievement tests, and this result is estimated with precision. This

16

represents roughly a 12 percent increase from the mean test scores for schools on traditional schedules (7.43/63.2 = 0.12). Table 4 contains the results of similar models estimated using the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on 4th grade reading tests. The estimated 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 three 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 3+ years before a schedule change occurred. 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. These results, 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 robustness checks below. 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. Because our results indicate that the percentage of students achieving proficient or advanced scores increases when schedules are changed, it is interesting to consider which group

37

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

17

of students accounts for the improvement. As mentioned above, the Colorado Department of Education tabulates student scores according to four possible achievement levels: unsatisfactory, partially proficient, proficient, and advanced. Table 6 shows results of regressions where each achievement level is considered as a separate outcome and is regressed against the policy indicator and the full set of covariates. These results tell an interesting story. For math, we find that the biggest share of the improvement comes from the students formerly classified as partially proficient, test scores for this group fall by an estimated 4.6 percentage points following the schedule change. 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. The 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 does not necessarily imply that formerly unsatisfactory students are now scoring at the advanced level. It could simply be that the four-day week resulted in a relatively uniform shift upward in test scores across all achievement levels. To some extent, these results mitigate concerns that the improved scores result from more affluent parents placing their children in high quality childcare on the fifth day where the children 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 childcare 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.

18

5.2 Robustness checks We first perform a robustness check based on Luallen (2006). Specifically, we create a placebo Four-Day Week indicator using a random number generator based on the uniform distribution. Because 14 schools switched to a four-day week during our sample period for math scores, we assign 14 placebo policies for each trial run. For the reading sample, we assign 15 placebo policies.38 We run 25 trials for each test score outcome. Table 7 illustrates the average coefficient estimates for the placebo Four-Day Week on the percentage of 5th graders scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics and the percentage of 4th graders scoring proficient or advanced in reading. In both regressions, the average estimate is very small in magnitude. Furthermore, in 25 trials, only one estimate was positive and statistically significant at the 5 percent level for math performance and no estimates were positive and statistically significant at the 5 percent level for reading performance. 39 These results provide evidence that random assignment of the four-day-week schedule cannot generate our results. As discussed above, the schools on the four-day-week schedule are different than schools on traditional schedules along several margins. In reality, the four-day week is not a randomly assigned policy. While the inclusion of school fixed effects controls for time-invariant heterogeneity across schools, it is useful to consider a propensity score matching technique used in conjunction with our 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
38

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.
39

For math performance, one estimate was negative and statistically significant at the 5 percent level. For reading performance, no estimates were negative and statistically significant at the 5 percent level.
40

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

19

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.42 Thus, we predict whether a school switches to a four-day week during our sample period based on observable characteristics from 2001. Table A3 presents the probit results. Consistent with anecdotal evidence, schools with higher transportation expenditures are more likely to switch to a four-day week. Table 8 illustrates results from the estimation of equation (1) on propensity score matched samples. The k-nearest neighbor matching algorithm was used to construct the counterfactual. 43 For math, the estimates are smaller than those shown in Table 3; however, 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. While the estimate for the case where k = 5 is positive and substantial in size, it is not statistically significant at conventional levels (p-value = 0.101). 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. For completeness, we perform the following additional robustness checks. The sensitivity analyses for the math results are reported in Table 9. 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 9 reports results from a model where the school fixed effects are replaced

41

For research employing similar methods, see Heckman et al. (1997), Sabia (2006), Gilligan and Hoddinott (2007), and Debaere et al. (2010).
42

Table A2 presents descriptive statistics for the propensity score matching analysis.

43

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).

20

with district fixed effects. Not surprisingly, the coefficient estimate on the Four-Day Week indicator is larger in magnitude and highly statistically significant.44 Column (3) illustrates results where school district-specific linear time trends are added to the right-hand-side of equation (1). The district-specific trends are intended to control for the influence of difficult-to-measure factors at the district level that evolve smoothly over time. Although the coefficient size remains relatively large, it is measured with less precision and is no longer statistically significant at conventional levels.45 Of course, because this model uses up degrees of freedom, less precision is to be expected. The results in column (4) come from a regression weighted by the school-level student population.46 Here, the coefficient estimate remains relatively large in magnitude and is statistically significant at the 5 percent level. For the results in column (5), we restrict the sample to only schools that were on traditional schedules at the beginning of our sample period. Identification in our difference-indifferences 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 (5) confirms that this is the case.

44

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 scores across schools.
45

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. However, 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).
46

Weighted least squares helps to deal with heteroskedasticity that may arise because smaller schools are more likely to see greater swings in their percentage of students scoring proficient of advanced.

21

Finally, we restrict our sample based on the U.S. Censuss definition of rural. While this selection criterion increases our sample size by over 80 percent, the results change little from baseline.47 The results from the sensitivity analyses for the reading scores are provided in Table 10. While 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 (3) result, the magnitudes of the coefficient estimates remain large. When districtspecific trends are added, the estimate becomes much smaller and is not measured precisely.

6. Conclusion
In a time of tough budget situations for most public school systems, a variety of costsaving 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. The results presented in this paper illustrate that academic outcomes are not sacrificed under the four-day week; in fact, we provide some evidence that math and reading achievement scores in elementary schools actually improve following the schedule change. The math results in particular are robust to a number of alternative specifications and checks. Specifically, using data from the Colorado Department of Education, we find that scores on math achievement tests increase by roughly 12 percent after the switch to a four-day-week schedule. The estimated impact of the four-day week on reading achievement is always positive
47

According to the Census, a rural county has a population density of less than 1,000 persons per square mile (Ricketts et al. 1998). Though not reported for the sake of brevity, it is important to note that results based on specifications with no sample restrictions are similar to the baseline estimates.

22

in sign but is generally smaller in magnitude and estimated with less precision. Policy-makers and school administrators will want to take these potential gains in academic performance into consideration when weighing the costs and benefits associated with the four-day school week. Although we discussed a variety of channels through which the four-day week may impact student performance, our school-level data leaves us silent as to which mechanisms are most important. It will be valuable for future work to determine whether factors such as teaching methods, teacher satisfaction, or student attendance account for 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 4th and 5th grade 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 parttime 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 less rural districts. There has been some discussion that the four-day school week would not work as well in more urban areas due to issues concerning the increased demand for child care, special needs students, and delinquency (Fager 1997).

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Rachana Bhatt, 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

23

suggestions. We also owe a special thanks to the Colorado Department of Education for providing data used in this paper.

References
Ayres, Ian and Steven Levitt. 1998. Measuring Positive Externalities from Unobservable Victim Precaution: An Empirical Analysis of Lojack. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 43-77. Baltes, Borris; Briggs, Thomas; Huff, Joseph; Wright, Julie and George Neuman. 1999. Flexible and Compressed Workweek Schedules: A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Work-Related Criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 496-513. Becker, Sascha and Andrea Ichino. 2002. Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Based on Propensity Scores. Stata Journal 2: 358-377. Bellei, Cristian. 2009. Does Lengthening the School Day Increase Students Academic Achievement? Results from a Natural Experiment in Chile. Economics of Education Review 28: 629-640. Bertrand, Marianne; Duflo, Esther and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. How Much Should we Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics 119: 249276. Blankenship, Ted. 1984. Update: These School Systems Swear by the Four-Day School Week Because Students Work Harder and Face Fewer Distractions. American School Board Journal 171: 32-33. Brown, Byron and Daniel Saks. 1986. Measuring the Effects of Instructional Time on Student Learning: Evidence from the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. American Journal of Education 94: 480-500. Brown, Byron and Daniel Saks. 1987. The Microeconomics of the Allocation of Teachers Time and Student Learning. Economics of Education Review 6: 319-337. Caliendo, Marco and Sabine Kopeinig. 2005. Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1588. Cannon, Jill; Jacknowitz, Alison and Gary Painter. 2011. The Effect of Attending Full-Day Kindergarten on English Learner Students. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30: 287-309. Chamberlin, Molly and Jonathan Plucker. 2003. The Four-Day School Week. Education
24

Policy Briefs 1: 1-3. Coates, Dennis. 2003. Education Production Functions Using Instructional Time as an Input. Education Economics 11: 273-292. Cooper, Harris; Valentine, Jeffrey; Charlton, Kelly and April Melson. 2003. The Effects of Modified School Calendars on Student Achievement and on School and Community Attitudes. Review of Educational Research 73: 1-52. Daly, Joseph and Robert Richburg. 1984. Student Achievement in the Four-Day School Week. Office for Rural Education, Colorado State University. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS earch_SearchValue_0=ED252346&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED2523 46. Dam, Ai. 2006. The 4 Day School Week. Colorado Department of Education. Available at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeedserv/download/pdf/4dayweek06.pdf. Darden, Edwin. 2008. The Four-Day School Week: A Fuels Paradise? Forecast 6: 1-4. Debaere, Peter; Lee, Hongshik and Joonhyung Lee. 2010. It Matters Where You Go: Outward Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Employment Growth at Home. Journal of Development Economics 91: 301-309. DeCicca, Philip. 2007. Does Full-Day Kindergarten Matter? Evidence from the First Two Years of Schooling. Economics of Education Review 26: 67-82. Dee, Thomas. 2005. A Teacher like Me: Does Race, Ethnicity, or Gender Matter? American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 95: 158-165. Dee, Thomas and Brian Jacob. 2011. The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30: 418-446. Dolan, Robert and Robert Schmidt. 1987. Assessing the Impact of Expenditure on Achievement: Some Methodological and Policy Considerations. Economics of Education Review 6: 285-299. Donis-Keller, Christine and David Silvernail. 2009. A Review of the Evidence on the FourDay School Week. Center for Education Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine. Available at: http://www2.umaine.edu/mepri/sites/default/files/CEPARE%20Brief%20on%20the%204 -day%20school%20week%202.10.pdf. Durr, Greta. 2003. Four-Day School Week? State Legislatures 29: 21. Ehrenberg, Ronald; Ehrenberg, Randy; Rees, Daniel and Eric Ehrenberg. 1991. School District
25

Leave Policies, Teacher Absenteeism, and Student Achievement. Journal of Human Resources 26: 72-105. Fager, Jennifer. 1997. Scheduling Alternatives: Options for Student Success. Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Feaster, Rebecca. 2002. The Effects of the Four-Day School Week in Custer, South Dakota. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota. Gaines, Gale. 2008. Focus on the School Calendar: The Four-Day School Week. Southern Regional Education Board. Available at: http://publications.sreb.org/2008/08S06_Focus_sch_calendar.pdf. Gilligan, Daniel and John Hoddinott. 2007. Is There Persistence in the Impact of Emergency Food Aid? Evidence on Consumption, Food Security, and Assets in Rural Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89: 225-242. Grau, Elnabeth and Michael Shaughnessy. 1987. The Four Day School Week: An Investigation and Analysis. Eastern New Mexico University. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS earch_SearchValue_0=ED317337&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED3173 37. Graves, Jennifer. 2010. The Academic Impact of Multi-Track Year-Round School Calendars: A Response to School Overcrowding. Journal of Urban Economics 67: 378-391. Graves, Jennifer. 2011. Effects of Year-Round Schooling on Disadvantaged Students and the Distribution of Standardized Test Performance. Economics of Education Review 30: 1281-1305. Griffith, Michael. 2011. What Savings are Produced by Moving to a Four-Day School Week? Education Commission of the States. Available at: http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=9369. Hanushek, Eric. 1986. The Economics of Schooling. Journal of Economic Literature 24: 1141-1177. Hazard, Louise. 1986. What About the Four-Day School Week? Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 52: 56-57. Heckman, James; Ichimura, Hidehiko and Petra Todd. 1997. Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme. Review of Economic Studies 64: 605-654. Herring, Chris. 2010. Schools New Math: The Four-Day Week. Wall Street Journal. 8

26

March. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704869304575104124088312524.html. Hewitt, Paul and George Denny. 2011. The Four-Day School Week: Impact on Student Performance. Rural Educator 32: 23-31. Hoffman, Florian and Philip Oreopoulos. 2009. A Professor Like Me: The Influence of Instructor Gender on College Achievement. Journal of Human Resources 44: 479-494. Hughes Jr., Woodrow. 2004. Blocking Student Performance in High School? Economics of Education Review 23: 663-667. Jacob, Brian and Lars Lefgren. 2003. Are Idle Hands the Devils Workshop? Incapacitation, Concentration, and Juvenile Crime. American Economic Review 93: 1560-1577. Kingsbury, Kathleen. 2008. Four-Day School Weeks. TIME. 14 August. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1832864,00.html. Koki, Stan. 1992. Modified School Schedules: A Look at the Research and the Pacific. Pacific Region Educational Lab. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS earch_SearchValue_0=ED354630&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED3546 30. Lefly, Dianne and Jhon Penn. 2009. A Comparison of Colorado School Districts Operating on Four-Day and Five-Day Calendars. Colorado Department of Education. Available at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/res_eval/2009_Colorado_districts_4day _school_week.pdf. Link, Charles and James Mulligan. 1986. The Merits of a Longer School Day. Economics of Education Review 5: 373-381. Lippman, Laura; Burns, Shelley and Edith McArthur. 1996. Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 96-184. Lopus, Jane. 1990. Do Additional Expenditures Increase Achievement in the High School Economics Class? Journal of Economic Education 21: 277-286. Luallen, Jeremy. 2006. Schools OutForever: A Study on Juvenile Crime, At-Risk Youths and Teacher Strikes. Journal of Urban Economics 59: 75-103. Marcotte, Dave. 2007. Schooling and Test Scores: A Mother-Natural Experiment. Economics of Education Review 26: 629-640.

27

Marcotte, Dave and Steven Hemelt. 2008. Unscheduled School Closings and Student Performance. Education Finance and Policy 3: 316-338. Matsudaira, Jordan. 2008. Mandatory Summer School and Student Achievement. Journal of Econometrics 142: 829-850. McCoy, Jack. 1983. A Summary Report on the Four-Day School Week in New Mexico. New Mexico State Department of Education, Evaluation, Testing, and Data Management. Merino, Barbara. 1983. The Impact of Year-Round Schooling: A Review. Urban Education 18: 298-316. Papke, Leslie. 2005. The Effects of Spending on Test Pass Rates: Evidence from Michigan. Journal of Public Economics 89: 821-839. Pierce, Jon; Newstrom, John; Dunham, Randall and Alison Barber. 1989. Alternative Work Schedules. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Rice, Jennifer; Croninger, Robert and Christopher Roellke. 2002. The Effect of Block Scheduling High School Mathematics Courses on Student Achievement and Teachers Use of Time: Implications for Educational Productivity. Economics of Education Review 21: 599-607. Richberg, Robert and Douglas Sjogren. 1983. The Four-Day Week What Are the Advantages for Schools? NASSP Bulletin 67: 60-63. Ricketts, Thomas; Johnson-Webb, Karen and Patricia Taylor. 1998. Definitions of Rural: A Handbook for Health Policy Makers and Researchers. Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. Available at: http://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/rural/pubs/report/ruralit.pdf. Ronfeldt, Matthew; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna and James Wyckoff. 2011. How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. NBER Working Paper No. 17176. Ryan, Molly. 2009. Four-Day School Week. Education Commission of the States. Available at: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/82/94/8294.pdf. Sabia, Joseph. 2006. Does Sex Education Affect Adolescent Sexual Behaviors and Health? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25: 783-802. Sagness, Richard and Stephanie Salzman. 1993. Evaluation of the Four-Day School Week in Idaho Suburban Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Education Research Association. Available at:

28

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS earch_SearchValue_0=ED362995&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED3629 95. Shoemaker, Michael (ed.). 2002. Effects of Four-Day School Schedule Undecided. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 73: 8-9. Toppo, Greg. 2002. In Rural Areas, the Four-Day School Week is Growing in Popularity. Christian Science Monitor. 20 August. Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0820/p14s02-lecs.html. Turner, Dorie. 2010. No Class: 4-Day School Weeks Gain Popularity Nationwide. USA Today. 4 June. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-04-shorter-school-week_N.htm. Yarborough, Rachel and David Gilman. 2006. From Five Days to Four. Educational Leadership 64: 80-85.

29

Figure 1 Colorado School District Map

Indicates a district where at least one school is on a four-day school week. Data source: Colorado Department of Education.

30

Figure 2 Math Performance and the Four-Day School Week Four-Day-Week Schools versus Traditional-Schedule Schools
18 16 Cumulative change in % Proficient/Advanced 14 12

10
8 6 Four-Day-Week Schools Traditional-Schedule Schools

4
2 0 t-2 t-1 First year of four-day school week t+1 t+2

31

Figure 3 Reading Performance and the Four-Day School Week Four-Day-Week Schools versus Traditional-Schedule Schools
4.5 4 Cumulative change in % Proficient/Advanced 3.5 3 2.5 2 Four-Day-Week Schools 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 t-2 t-1 First year of four-day school week t+1 t+2 Traditional-Schedule Schools

32

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

(1) Four-day week: 5th grade math sample Mean Std. Dev. Test scores Percent scoring proficient or advanceda County-level variables Percent poverty a, b 60.3 16.8 (2) Traditional schedule: 5th grade math sample Mean Std. Dev. 63.2 17.0 (3) Four-day week: 4th grade reading sample Mean Std. Dev. 66.1 15.6 (4) Traditional schedule: 4th grade reading sample Mean Std. Dev. 66.9 15.5

18.7

9.8 92.1

14.4 122

6.2 108

18.5 50.1

9.7 91.6

14.4 120

6.1 108

Population density (per sq. mile)a, b 51.2 School district-level variables Instructional expenditures per student per yeara, b Percent of male teachersa, b Percent of Hispanic teachersa Percent of white teachersb School-level variables Total studentsa, b Pupil-teacher ratioa, b Percent free lunch Percent of Hispanic studentsa, b Percent of white studentsa, b N

4566 29.7 7.6 91.4

630 10.0 15.8 16.1

4135 26.4 6.5 90.3

501 5.20 6.5 10.7

4575 29.2 7.2 91.9

661 9.2 15.2 15.5

4110 26.4 6.4 90.5

511 5.1 6.5 10.7

228 14.2 39.9 21.2 75.4 282

156 2.9 21.9 22.3 222

399 16.2 37.3 24.8 67.7 3759

150 10.2 23.9 21.1 22.0

225 14.1 39.8 20.3 76.4 326

152 2.9 21.0 21.3 21.2

399 16.3 37.2 24.8 67.9 4304

149 10.7 23.8 21.2 22.0

Notes: a Means are statistically different at 5% level for 5th grade math sample. b Means are statistically different at 5% level for 4th grade reading sample. Unweighted means for the 5th grade math sample are based on data from 2001-2010. Unweighted means for the 4th grade reading sample are based on data from 2000-2010.

33

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Schedule Changers: (1) (2) 2 years before 1 year before change to a change to a four-day week four-day week Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. th 5 grade math 53.2 17.4 55.5 19.2 4th grade reading 60.8 15.7 61.5 14.5

Mean Percentages of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced (3) (4) (5) Year of 1 year after 2 years after change to a change to a change to a four-day week four-day week four-day week Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 63.1 16.2 62.3 16.8 67.6 14.2 58.9 17.4 66.5 16.3 68.6 15.0

Notes: Unweighted means for the 5th grade math sample are based on data from 2001-2010; fourteen schools changed their schedule to a four-day week during this period. Unweighted means for the 4th grade reading sample are based on data from 2000-2010; fifteen schools changed their schedule to a four-day week during this period.

34

Table 3: Four-Day School Week and Student Performance: Baseline 5th Grade Math Results (1) (2) (3) (4) % Proficient/ %Proficient/ % Proficient/ % Proficient/ Advanced in Math Advanced in Math Advanced in Math Advanced in Math Four-Day Week 13.15*** 7.44*** 7.43*** 7.22*** (1.48) (1.68) (1.77) (1.70) N R2 School fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables 4041 0.659 Yes No No No No 4041 0.707 Yes Yes No No No 4041 0.707 Yes Yes Yes No No 4041 0.708 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

(5) % Proficient/ Advanced in Math 7.43*** (1.72) 4041 0.711 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

35

Table 4: Four-Day School Week and Student Performance: Baseline 4th Grade Reading Results (1) (2) (3) (4) % Proficient/ %Proficient/ % Proficient/ % Proficient/ Advanced in Reading Advanced in Reading Advanced in Reading Advanced in Reading Four-Day Week 5.96** 3.32 3.64 3.68 (2.54) (2.49) (2.47) (2.42) N R2 School fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables 4630 0.709 Yes No No No No 4630 0.726 Yes Yes No No No 4630 0.726 Yes Yes Yes No No 4630 0.727 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

(5) % Proficient/ Advanced in Reading 3.76* (2.24) 4630 0.733 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

36

Table 5: Four-Day School Week and Student Performance: Policy Timing (1) (2) % Proficient/ % Proficient/ Advanced in Math Advanced in Reading 2 years before four-day week 1.50 2.06 (2.50) (5.54) 1 year before four-day week 4.67 2.58 (3.68) (4.19) Year of schedule change 10.37*** 0.60 (2.52) (3.26) 1 year after four-day week 7.99*** 5.24 (2.54) (3.62) 2 years after four-day week 11.62*** 8.23** (3.87) (4.16) 3+ years after four-day week 5.78* 5.97* (2.94) (3.22) N R2 School fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables 4041 0.711 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4630 0.733 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

*Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2. The omitted category is 3+ years before four-day week. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

37

Table 6: Four-Day School Week and Student Performance: All Test Score Categories (1) (2) (3) % Unsatisfactory % Partially Proficient % Proficient in Math in Math in Math Math Four-Day Week -2.48* (1.49) 4041 0.593 (1) % Unsatisfactory In Reading -2.43* (1.39) 4630 0.638 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -4.61*** (1.12) 4041 0.549 (2) % Partially Proficient in Reading -0.67 (1.69) 4630 0.580 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.80** (1.87) 4041 0.332 (3) % Proficient in Reading 1.63 (1.99) 4630 0.651 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(4) % Advanced in Math 3.63 (2.38) 4041 0.693 (4) % Advanced in Reading 2.14*** (0.799) 4630 0.554 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

N R2

Reading Four-Day Week

N R2 School fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

38

Table 7: Random Four-Day Week Assignment (1) % Proficient/ Advanced in Math Average Four-Day Week -0.91 coefficient estimate Number of trials Number of Four-Day Week estimates that were positive and significant at 5% level School fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables 25 1

(2) % Proficient/ Advanced in Reading -0.73

25 0

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

*Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2.

39

Table 8: Four-Day School Week and Student Performance: Matched Samples (1) (2) (3) % Proficient/ % Proficient/ % Proficient/ Advanced in Math Advanced in Math Advanced in Math Math Four-Day Week 5.32** (2.35) k = 25 1042 0.711 (1) % Proficient/ Advanced in Reading 4.02* (2.22) k = 25 1129 0.704 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.44** (2.48) k = 10 822 0.713 (2) % Proficient/ Advanced in Reading 3.60* (2.01) k = 10 777 0.720 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.32 (2.57) k=5 569 0.687 (3) % Proficient/ Advanced in Reading 2.75 (1.84) k=5 607 0.731 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

k-nearest neighbors N R2

Reading Four-Day Week

k-nearest neighbors N R2 School fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

40

Table 9: Four-Day School Week and Student Performance: Sensitivity of Math Results (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Baseline results for comparison Replace school fixed effects with district fixed effects Add district trends Weight regression by school size Restrict sample to schools on traditional schedule at baseline (2001)

(6)
Restrict sample based on the Census definition of rural

Four-Day Week

7.43*** (1.72) 4041 0.711 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

8.19*** (1.38) 4041 0.586 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

5.10 (3.77) 4041 0.742 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

5.58** (2.27) 4041 0.746 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

7.33*** (1.79) 3807 0.720 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

7.91*** (1.78) 7335 0.787 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

N R2 School fixed effects District fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

41

Table 10: Four-Day School Week and Student Performance: Sensitivity of Reading Results (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Replace school fixed effects with district fixed effects Add district trends Restrict sample to schools on traditional schedule at baseline (2000)

(6)
Restrict sample based on the Census definition of rural

Baseline results for comparison

Weight regression by school size

Four-Day Week

3.76* (2.24) 4630 0.733 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

6.18** (2.74) 4630 0.640 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1.45 (2.90) 4630 0.759 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

5.84*** (2.14) 4630 0.773 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

3.85* (2.22) 4377 0.746 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

3.72 (2.27) 8169 0.807 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

N R2 School fixed effects District fixed effects Year effects County variables District variables School variables

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. 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 2. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the school district level, are in parentheses.

42

Table A1: Reasons for Four-Day School Week Application/Renewal in Colorado (1) (2) (3) (4) Community support, Increased Financial savings parent support, or Improved academic of some form tradition attendance performance Number of school 51 administrator reports 26 17 6

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.

43

Table A2: Descriptive Statistics for Propensity Score Analysis (1) 5th Grade Math Sample Mean Std. Dev. Dependent variable Eventual Four-Day Week 0.05 0.22 Independent variables Percent poverty (County-level) Instructional expenditures per student (District-level)

(2) 4th Grade Reading Sample Mean Std. Dev. 0.05 0.22

13.1 3911

5.4 522 86.8 142 112 2.8 22.2

13.1 3898 191 613 339 16.0 36.9 303

5.4 481 97.7 128 109 2.6 22.3

Transportation expenditures per student (District-level) 190 Operational expenditures per student (District-level) Total students (School-level) Pupil-teacher ratio (School-level) Percent free lunch (School-level) N 616 337 16.1 36.5 303

Notes: Means of the independent variables are based on data from 2001.

44

Table A3: Probit Models for Propensity Score Analysis (1) Eventual Four-Day Week (Math Sample) Total students (100s) 0.18 (0.18) Pupil-teacher ratio 0.03 (0.07) Percent free lunch 0.00 (0.01) Instructional expenditures per student (100s) 0.05* (0.03) Transportation expenditures per student (100s) 0.40** (0.20) Operational expenditures per student (100s) 0.00 (0.10) Percent poverty 0.10*** (0.04) N 303

(2) Eventual Four-Day Week (Reading Sample) 0.12 (0.17) 0.06 (0.08) 0.01 (0.01) 0.06** (0.03) 0.34** (0.18) 0.04 (0.10) 0.09** (0.03) 303

* Statistically significant at 10% level; ** at 5% level; *** at 1% level. Notes: Each column represents the results from a separate probit regression. The variables are listed in Table A1. Standard errors are in parentheses.

45