The Effects of Four Day School Weeks on Retention for Non-Teaching Staff

• In Event: Comparing the Old with the New: Exploring 4DSW Adoption and its Effects on Teachers and Staffing

Abstract

In recent years, school districts across the United States have increasingly adopted four-day school weeks (4DSW). The pace of this growth has been striking, with 850 districts operating on the 4DSW calendar in 2023 as compared to approximately 600 in 2019 (Morton et al., 2024). Anecdotal accounts and limited peer reviewed evidence indicate that the primary motivation for adopting the calendar is to improve teacher recruitment and retention (Barnes & McKenzie, 2025). Districts that adopt the 4DSW calendar are more likely to be located in rural communities (Anglum & Park, 2021) and administrators view the shorter work week as an alternative to increasing compensation. While a growing literature documents the effects of 4DSW calendars on teacher retention (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 2024; Camp, 2024; Morton & Dewil, 2024), only one study to our knowledge examines the impacts of the shorter workweek on retention for non-teachers (Ainsworth et al., 2024).

There are strong reasons to believe, a priori, that retention effects will vary between teaching and non-teaching staff. Non-teaching staff are less likely to be included in collective bargaining agreements, leading to more flexibility in work responsibilities, assignments, and compensation. These flexibilities may lead non-teaching staff to redistribute their workloads or otherwise alter time-work strategy as has been documented in four-day workweeks in other professions (Moen & Chu, 2023).

We contribute to this growing 4DSW literature by examining the impact of 4DSW calendar adoption on non-teacher teacher retention in Missouri, a setting that is uniquely well-suited to study the policy, using a rigorous causal identification strategy and detailed individual-level data. We use a difference-in-differences design that compares non-teaching staff in early adopting schools to similar staff in schools that have not yet adopted the 4DSW calendar. Two aspects of our analysis – the large take-up rate of the 4DSW in Missouri and our access to detailed staff-level mobility data before 4DSW adoptions began – allow us to provide the most precise estimates to date of the impacts of the 4DSW on non-teacher recruitment retention.

Our preliminary results indicate mixed findings and a surprising amount of heterogeneity surrounding who benefits from 4DSW calendar adoption. While analysis is still ongoing, we find positive effects of the adoption on retention for those in positions that are not student-facing, such as central office staff, and null effects for positions that have higher levels of student-interactions. Future planned analyses will examine this heterogeneity in more detail as well as examine changes in compensation and the rate at which compensation increases, relative to non-adopting districts. Together, these provide insights into a policy that has experienced significant growth in popularity despite a lack of a sound evidence base.

Author

• Hannah Kistler, University at Albany
  Presenting Author