A Time for Change? Exploring Four-Day School Weeks Through an Autistic Lens
Before we dive into a recent article exploring the growing trend of four-day school weeks, I want to take a moment to address an important issue that lies at the heart of this discussion: teacher well-being. Just as airline safety instructions remind us to secure our own oxygen masks before assisting others, we must recognise that teachers cannot effectively support their students if they themselves are not well-supported.
As a non-verbal autistic public school teacher, I have seen firsthand the impact of relentless schedules and the burden of unpaid off-hours work on educators. The constant demands and pressures of the job can lead to burnout, leaving teachers feeling drained, disconnected, and unable to provide the high-quality instruction and support that our students need and deserve.
This is where the concept of a four-day school week comes in. As the article we will be reviewing highlights, a growing number of school districts across the United States are adopting this model as a way to address teacher recruitment and retention challenges. By providing teachers with an extra day off each week, and without reducing their pay, the four-day school week offers an opportunity for educators to rest, recharge, and attend to their own well-being.
It’s important to note that this extra day off is not intended for teachers to perform work off-site. Rather, it is a dedicated time for rest and restoration, allowing teachers to return to the classroom refreshed and better equipped to meet the diverse needs of their students.
However, as we explore this trend, we must also consider the implications for students, particularly those with disabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. As we navigate this new landscape, it is crucial that we approach the four-day school week through a lens of inclusivity and accessibility, ensuring that the needs of all students are taken into account.
In the following sections, we will delve into the article’s findings, examining the motivations behind the shift to four-day school weeks, the impact on teachers and students, and the broader implications for inclusive education practices. By engaging in this discussion with empathy, understanding, and a commitment to equity, we can work towards a system that supports the well-being of both educators and learners, ultimately leading to better outcomes for all.
Overview of the Four-Day School Week Trend
The article, “Districts increasingly turn to 4-day school weeks to recruit, retain staff,” delves into the growing trend of school districts adopting a four-day school week. According to the article, approximately 2,100 schools across 900 districts had implemented this model as of the 2022-23 school year, up from 1,600 schools and 650 districts in 2019-20. This rapid growth highlights the increasing popularity of the four-day school week among school districts nationwide.
The primary motivation behind this shift, as emphasised in the article, is the need to address teacher recruitment and retention challenges. School districts, particularly those in rural areas or with limited budgets, are turning to the four-day school week as a means to attract and retain educators in a competitive job market. By offering a more flexible schedule and a better work-life balance, districts hope to make teaching positions more appealing to potential candidates and encourage current teachers to stay in their roles.
However, it is essential to approach this trend with a critical eye and consider the potential underlying motives. In an era of neo-liberal austerity measures and the creeping influence of fascist ideologies in public education, we must ask ourselves, “What's the catch?” Whilst the four-day school week is presented as a solution to teacher recruitment and retention issues, it is crucial to examine whether this model is being used as a cost-cutting measure in disguise.
By reducing the number of school days per week, districts may be able to save on operational costs such as transportation, utilities, and support staff wages. Whilst the article mentions that the shift to a four-day school week is not accompanied by a reduction in teacher pay, it is important to investigate whether this holds true across all districts implementing the model. Furthermore, we must consider the potential long-term impact on student learning and achievement, as well as the burden placed on working families who may struggle to find affordable childcare options on the days when school is not in session.
Another concerning aspect of the four-day school week trend is its potential to exacerbate existing inequalities in education. As the article notes, the model has been adopted primarily by rural districts and those with limited financial resources. This raises questions about the equity of educational opportunities for students in these districts compared to their peers in more affluent, urban areas. We must be vigilant in ensuring that the four-day school week does not become a tool for perpetuating systemic disparities and marginalising already disadvantaged communities.
In light of these concerns, it is crucial that we approach the four-day school week trend with a critical and discerning eye. Whilst the model may offer some benefits in terms of teacher recruitment and retention, we must not overlook the potential drawbacks and hidden agendas that may be at play. As educators, policymakers, and community members, it is our responsibility to interrogate the motivations behind this shift and ensure that any changes to the education system prioritise the well-being and success of all students, regardless of their background or socioeconomic status.
Impact on Teachers and Staff
The article highlights the potential of the four-day school week to positively influence teacher recruitment and retention. By offering a more flexible schedule and an additional day off each week, this model is meant to appeal to educators seeking a better work-life balance. For teachers who often find themselves overworked and undervalued, the prospect of having an extra day to rest, recharge, and attend to personal matters can be incredibly attractive. This is particularly true for those in the early stages of their careers or those with families, as the four-day schedule allows for more quality time outside of the classroom.
As an autistic teacher myself, I can attest to the potential benefits of a four-day school week for educators with disabilities. Many autistic people thrive on structure and routine, but also benefit from having ample time to decompress and engage in self-care activities. The additional day off provided by the four-day model could allow us to better manage our energy levels, reduce sensory overload, and maintain a healthier work-life balance. Furthermore, the shorter school week may help alleviate some of the social and communication challenges that autistic teachers often face, as there would be fewer days of intense interaction with students and colleagues.
However, it is crucial to consider the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences of the four-day school week for teachers, particularly those with disabilities. Whilst the extra day off may be appealing, it is essential to ensure that the workload and expectations for teachers remain reasonable. If the shift to a four-day schedule results in longer school days or an increased burden of lesson planning and grading during the off day, it could negate the intended benefits and lead to greater stress and burnout among educators.
Moreover, the implementation of a four-day school week could create a bait-and-switch scenario that pits certificated and classified staff against each other during contract negotiations. Whilst the model may be presented as a way to improve teacher recruitment and retention, it could also be used as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from educators in other areas, such as salary, benefits, or working conditions. This is particularly concerning for classified staff, such as paraprofessionals, who may not have the same level of job security or bargaining power as certificated teachers.
For example, districts could use the appeal of a four-day school week to pressure teachers into accepting lower pay raises or reduced benefits, arguing that the improved work-life balance compensates for these losses. At the same time, classified staff may be expected to work longer hours or take on additional responsibilities to make up for the reduced school week, without receiving commensurate increases in pay or support. This could lead to resentment and division among school staff, undermining the collaborative and supportive environment that is so essential for student success.
To mitigate these risks, it is crucial that the implementation of a four-day school week be accompanied by robust protections and guarantees for all school staff, including classified employees. This should include clear language in contracts that ensures fair compensation, reasonable workloads, and adequate support for all educators. Additionally, districts must be transparent about their motivations for adopting the four-day model and engage in good-faith negotiations with teachers’ unions and other stakeholders to ensure that the needs and well-being of all staff members are prioritized.
Ultimately, while the four-day school week may hold promise for improving teacher recruitment and retention, particularly for those with disabilities, it is essential that we approach this trend with caution and a commitment to fairness and equity for all school employees. By working together to craft policies and contracts that support the success and well-being of both certificated and classified staff, we can create a more inclusive, sustainable, and effective educational system for all.
Educational Outcomes and Student Well-being
The article touches upon the potential impact of the four-day school week on student achievement and graduation rates. It cites the example of Colorado’s 27J Schools, where the superintendent, Chris Fiedler, noted that the district’s overall graduation rates rose from 77.4% to 90.9% between 2017 and 2022, following the implementation of the four-day school week in 2018. While this improvement is certainly noteworthy, it is crucial to approach such data with caution, as the article itself acknowledges that the four-day model may not be directly correlated to student achievement rates.
When considering the implications of the four-day school week for students with special needs, including autistic students, several important questions arise. One of the primary concerns is whether these students will receive the full range of services and supports outlined in their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). As you know if you’ve been a supporter for a while, IEPs are legally binding documents that specify the accommodations, modifications, and specialised instruction that students with disabilities are entitled to receive to ensure their academic progress and overall well-being.
In a traditional five-day school week, students with IEPs typically receive their required services and support minutes spread out across the week. However, with a four-day model, it is unclear how these services would be compressed into fewer school days. Would students still receive the same total number of minutes per week, or would their service time be reduced proportionally to fit the shorter schedule? If the latter is the case, it could have significant consequences for the learning and development of students with special needs, who often require consistent and intensive support to make meaningful progress.
Moreover, if the four-day school week results in longer school days to compensate for the reduced number of days, it could pose additional challenges for students with disabilities. Many autistic students, for example, may struggle with the increased demands of extended instructional time, as they often require frequent breaks and opportunities to regulate their sensory input and emotional state. Longer school days could lead to heightened stress, anxiety, and behavioural challenges, ultimately undermining their ability to engage in learning and benefit from their educational experience.
Another concern is the potential shift in expectations for homework and independent learning outside of school hours. If teachers attempt to compensate for the reduced instructional time by assigning more homework, it could disproportionately impact students with IEPs, who may not have the same level of support and resources at home as they do in the classroom. Many students with disabilities rely on the specialised instruction, accommodations, and modifications provided by trained educators and support staff to access and engage with the curriculum. Without this direct support, they may struggle to complete assignments and keep pace with their peers, leading to frustration, disengagement, and potential learning gaps.
To address these concerns, districts considering the implementation of a four-day school week must engage in careful planning and collaboration with special education teams, families, and students themselves. It is essential to ensure that IEPs are reviewed and revised as necessary to guarantee that students with disabilities continue to receive the full range of services and supports they are entitled to, regardless of the school schedule. This may require creative solutions, such as offering additional support sessions on the off day, providing virtual or remote services, or restructuring the school day to allow for more flexible and individualised learning opportunities.
Furthermore, districts must be proactive in communicating with families and providing resources and guidance to support students with disabilities in completing homework and engaging in independent learning activities outside of school. This could include offering parent training sessions, providing access to assistive technology and online resources, and fostering strong school-home partnerships to ensure that students have the necessary support and accommodations to succeed.
As such, the impact of the four-day school week on students with special needs will depend on how thoughtfully and comprehensively districts address these challenges. By prioritizing the unique needs and rights of students with disabilities, engaging in ongoing collaboration and problem-solving, and committing to the full implementation of IEPs, districts can work towards ensuring that all students have equitable access to a high-quality education, regardless of the school schedule.
Community and Legislative Response
The article highlights the mixed reactions from state legislators and the community regarding the growing trend of four-day school weeks. Whilst some districts have embraced this model as a way to address teacher recruitment and retention challenges, others have expressed concerns about its potential impact on student learning and well-being. In several states, such as Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Missouri, legislators have introduced bills aimed at slowing down or regulating the adoption of four-day school weeks, citing the need for further research and oversight.
As a natural skeptic, I find it challenging to trust the motives of many legislators when it comes to education policy. Far too often, we have seen elected officials prioritise the interests of corporate donors and privatisation efforts over the genuine needs of students, teachers, and public schools. The influence of these corporate interests has led to a concerning trend of education policies that emphasise cost-cutting measures, standardised testing, and a narrow focus on job-market preparation, rather than the holistic development and well-being of students.
In the case of the four-day school week, it is crucial to examine the underlying motives of legislators who oppose this model. Are they genuinely concerned about the potential negative impact on student learning and well-being, or are they simply bowing to pressure from corporate interests that stand to benefit from maintaining the status quo? For example, some legislators may be influenced by the lobbying efforts of textbook publishers, testing companies, or other education-related businesses that fear a reduction in their profits if the traditional five-day school week is disrupted.
Moreover, the opposition to the four-day school week from some legislators may be rooted in a broader ideological agenda that seeks to undermine public education and promote privatisation. By painting the four-day model as a failure or a threat to student achievement, these legislators may be laying the groundwork for further attacks on public schools and teachers’ unions. This could include efforts to expand charter schools, voucher programs, or other market-based “solutions” that siphon resources away from public education and exacerbate inequities in the system.
As educators and advocates for inclusive education practices, we must approach the legislative response to the four-day school week with a critical eye. Whilst it is important to consider the concerns raised by some legislators and community members, we must also be vigilant in identifying and challenging any hidden agendas or corporate influences that may be driving the opposition to this model. This requires a commitment to transparency, accountability, and the prioritisation of student and teacher well-being over narrow economic or political interests.
To ensure that IF the four-day school week is implemented, it is done so in a way that supports inclusive education practices. Thus, it is essential that educators, families, and community members have a strong voice in the decision-making process. This means advocating for policies and practices that prioritise the needs of all students, including those with disabilities, English language learners, and students from marginalised backgrounds. It also means demanding that any cost savings generated by the four-day model be reinvested in the classroom, rather than diverted to other priorities or used to justify further budget cuts.
Content Warning: This section discusses the challenges faced by autistic parents of high-support-needs autistic students and the potential impact of school scheduling decisions on their well-being. Please be aware that this content may be sensitive for some readers.
Personal Insights and Professional Experience
As an autistic teacher working in special education, I feel it is essential to acknowledge the diverse perspectives and experiences within the autistic community, particularly when it comes to the impact of school scheduling decisions on students and their families. One often overlooked group in these discussions is autistic parents of high-support-needs autistic students, whose voices are sometimes drowned out by the more prominent narratives of autistic self-advocates.
For many of these parents, school serves as a crucial respite from the constant vigilance and care required when raising a child with significant support needs. The structured school day provides a break from the 24/7 “on-duty” responsibilities, allowing parents to attend to their own self-care, work obligations, and other family needs. In a sense, school acts as a lifeline for these families, offering a temporary reprieve from the intense demands of caregiving and enabling them to recharge and maintain their own well-being.
When considering the potential impact of a four-day school week on special education programs and services, it is crucial to take into account the unique challenges faced by these families. A reduced school week could place an additional burden on autistic parents who are already stretched thin, as they would need to find alternative care arrangements or take on more direct support responsibilities on the days when school is not in session. This could lead to increased stress, burnout, and potential negative impacts on the mental health and overall functioning of these families.
Moreover, it is important to recognise that the needs and preferences of autistic students and their families are not monolithic. Whilst some autistic self-advocates may argue for the benefits of a four-day school week, such as reduced sensory overload and more time for pursuing personal interests, these perspectives may not necessarily reflect the realities of high-support-needs students and their caregivers. For these individuals, the consistency, structure, and support provided by a traditional five-day school week may be essential for their learning, development, and overall well-being.
As educators and policymakers consider the potential adoption of a four-day school week, it is crucial that they engage in meaningful dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders within the autistic community, including parents of high-support-needs students. This requires creating safe and inclusive spaces for these families to share their experiences, concerns, and priorities, and ensuring that their voices are given equal weight in the decision-making process.
Furthermore, if a four-day school week is implemented, it is essential that districts provide additional supports and resources to mitigate the potential negative impacts on high-support-needs students and their families. This could include offering extended school year services, providing access to respite care or in-home support services on the off day, and collaborating with community partners to develop inclusive and accessible programming options for students with disabilities.
Indeed, the decision to adopt a four-day school week must be made with careful consideration of the diverse needs and perspectives within the autistic community, as well as the broader student and educator population. By engaging in open, empathetic dialogue and prioritising the well-being of all stakeholders, we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable education system that supports the success and flourishing of every individual, regardless of their unique challenges and circumstances.
Conclusion and Recommendations
To conclude this discussion, the four-day school week is a complex and multifaceted issue that has significant implications for the education sector, particularly for the special education community and autistic individuals. Whilst the model may offer potential benefits, such as improved teacher recruitment and retention, and increased flexibility for students and families, it also raises important concerns about equity, inclusivity, and the well-being of vulnerable populations.
As school districts consider adopting a four-day school week, it is essential that they approach the decision-making process with a commitment to inclusive planning and stakeholder engagement. This means actively seeking out and amplifying the voices of often-marginalised groups, such as autistic parents of high-support-needs students, and ensuring that their unique challenges and perspectives are meaningfully addressed in the implementation of any new scheduling model.
Moreover, districts must prioritise the development of robust support systems and resources to mitigate the potential negative impacts of a reduced school week on students with disabilities and their families. This may include investing in extended school year services, collaborating with community partners to provide accessible programming options, and offering targeted support for families who may struggle with the additional caregiving responsibilities on non-school days.
To ensure the success of a four-day school week model, it is also crucial that districts maintain a strong focus on instructional quality and student outcomes. This requires careful planning and coordination to ensure that students receive the full range of services and supports outlined in their IEPs, and that any potential learning gaps or challenges are proactively addressed through targeted interventions and accommodations.
Furthermore, districts must remain vigilant in monitoring the impact of the four-day school week on teacher well-being and job satisfaction, recognizing that the long-term sustainability of the model depends on the ability to attract and retain high-quality educators who are equipped to meet the diverse needs of all students.
Ultimately, the decision to adopt a four-day school week should not be made lightly or in isolation, but rather as part of a comprehensive, equity-focused approach to education reform. By engaging in ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and problem-solving with all stakeholders, and by prioritising the needs and rights of the most vulnerable members of our school communities, we can work towards a more inclusive, responsive, and effective education system that truly serves the needs of all learners.