A new review of 74 scientific studies concludes that no parent (and any rational human being) would be shocked at all. Students who spend more time in school score higher on tests than students who spend less time in school..
HEDCO Institute of the University of Oregon Summary released (PDF file), synthesis work by Matthew Craft of Brown and Sarah Novikoff of Stanford. Somewhere, a school board member is updating PowerPoint slides…
Sarcasm aside, the real numbers matter – because they tell policymakers what kind of “overtime” is worth paying for and what kind isn’t. Because adding time just for the sake of adding time is not useful. This is increasing time in key areas.
why it matters: State and district leaders are still grappling with pandemic-era achievement gaps, experiments with the four-day school week and proposals to extend the school day or year. This review tells them clearly which interventions really move the needle and which interventions are a rounding error.
by numbers
Of the 74 studies the researchers reviewed, they found:
- A 10% increase in total time The extent to which schools are most likely to produce measurable benefits.
- schools that collapsed multiple changes Math gains seen from (long days, long years, tuition) 0.09 to 0.38 standard deviationTaking an average student from the 50th to the 65th percentile.
- Schools just added one day for the school year observed the mathematical effect of 0.003 to 0.019 SD.
- 31 states Requires 180+ school days. a state There is no minimum.
To compare the United States to the world stage:
- China: 245 days
- South Korea: 220 days
- Japan: 200 days
- Singapore: 200 days
- Finland: 190 days
What the study found: Total time in school helps, but the size of the benefit depends largely on how you combine it. Bundled changes work best.
A review of New York and Massachusetts charter schools and a study of Texas public schools found that the strongest gains came from schools that expanded the day, expanded the year, and leveled up tuition at the same time.
Single-lever makes huge changes. Adding a day to the calendar in Colorado, Maryland and Minnesota barely registered. Extending days in Massachusetts produced mixed multi-year results, with some grades making gains in math and science and others losing gains in ELA.
Returns are also decreasing. Pushing an already long 7-hour day to 8 hours is unlikely to provide the same benefits as moving an already long 5-hour day to 6 hours.
The reduction in time has clearly reduced educational outcomes. Schools in Maryland and Massachusetts that cut back a day saw declining math and reading passing rates, and the four-day-school-week trend is not working academically.
How it connects: A time-in-time policy in a K-12 school ultimately shows up on the college success ledger.
Students who arrive at college less prepared are required to take remedial courses, take longer to graduate, and incur additional federal student loan debt (currently $1.7+ trillion remaining nationally).
Weak K-12 results also lead to an increasing share of high school graduates dropping out of college altogether.
What to look forward to: Watch state legislatures debating four-day weeks (the number of districts on the schedule is increasing in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Colorado), districts weighing extended-day pilots with federal grant money, and the next round of NAEP results to see whether time-related interventions are visible nationally.
Don’t miss these other stories:
