CDE Research Archive Summary Title: A Comparison of Colorado School Districts Operating on Four‐Day and Five‐Day Calendars 2011 Author(s): Dianne L. Lefly, PhD, CDE Research & Evaluation & Jhon Penn, CDE Field Services Date of Initial Publication: 11/2011 Abstract/Summary Sixty‐seven Colorado school districts operate all their schools on a four‐day week rather than a five‐day week. Colorado law requires that all districts provide a specified amount of ‘contact time’ for students. Consequently, the shorter week includes longer days so the actual ‘contact time’ is the same as the schools with longer weeks. This report compares the academic achievement and student growth of the four‐
day districts to the academic achievement of five‐day districts of similar size. Overall, the results indicate that both groups of districts perform similarly on the state assessments and that their students show very similar amounts of academic growth as reflected by the Colorado Growth Model. Subject: Education, Educational Administration, Educational Planning, Educational Management, Educational Policy Document Type: Paper Document Archive Number: 0005cdele2011 A COMPARISON OF COLORADO SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPERATING ON FOUR‐DAY AND FIVE‐DAY CALENDARS 2011 Dianne L. Lefly, PhD Director, CDE Research & Evaluation Jhon Penn Executive Director of CDE Field Services 1 Abstract Sixty‐seven Colorado school districts operate all their schools on a four‐day week rather than a five‐
day week. Colorado law requires that all districts provide a specified amount of ‘contact time’ for students. Consequently, the shorter week includes longer days so the actual ‘contact time’ is the same as the schools with longer weeks. This report compares the academic achievement and student growth of the four‐day districts to the academic achievement of five‐day districts of similar size. Overall, the results indicate that both groups of districts perform similarly on the state assessments and that their students show very similar amounts of academic growth as reflected by the Colorado Growth Model. 2 Colorado law requires school districts to schedule 1080 hours per year of instructional time for secondary schools and 990 instructional hours for elementary schools. The 1080 hours equate to six hours per day for 180 days. The 990 hours equate to five and one‐half hours per day. Up to 24 hours may be counted for parent‐teacher conferences, staff inservice programs, and closing for reasons of health, safety, or welfare of students. The law also requires any district offering less than 160 days of school to obtain permission from the Commissioner of Education. One of the duties of local school boards is: C.R.S 22‐32‐109 (n) (I) To determine, prior to the end of a school year, the length of time which the schools of the district shall be in session during the next following school year, but in no event shall said schools be scheduled to have less than one thousand eighty hours of planned teacher­pupil instruction and teacher­pupil contact during the school year for secondary school pupils in high school, middle school, or junior high school or less than nine hundred ninety hours of such instruction and contact for elementary school pupils or less than four­hundred­fifty hours of such instruction for a half­day kindergarten program. In no case shall a school be in session for fewer than one hundred sixty days without the specific prior approval of the commissioner of education. However, if a district plans to offer a four‐day week, they must still meet the instructional time criteria discussed earlier. They simply do it by scheduling more hours on fewer days. In simple terms, those districts using a four day week schedule 7.5 hours per day for 144 days of school instead of the normal six hours for 180 days of school. There are currently 67 districts that use the four‐day week calendar district wide constituting 37.6% of the 178 school districts in Colorado and serving 3.6% of Colorado’s students (See Appendix A for a full list). These 67 districts range in size from 33 students to 8,562 students. One district is located in the Denver metro area, but is a small district in the foothills (Gilpin County). Eleven districts are in the northeast region, six are in the northwest region, 13 are in the Pikes Peak region, 18 are in the southeast region, 11 are in the southwest region, three are in the west central region and four are in the north central region. The 67 districts with district‐wide implementation serve a total of 29,022 students (2,531 are in districts with fewer than 200 students, 3,394 are in districts with 200‐300 students and 23,097 are in districts with more than 300 students). There are another nine districts that have individual schools, but not the entire district, on this calendar. 3 In terms of the 2011 accreditation rubric that incorporates both status and growth, six districts were “Accredited with Distinction”, 41 were “Accredited”, 13 were “Accredited with an Improvement Plan”, six were “Accredited with a Priority Improvement Plan” and one district was “Accredited with a Turnaround Plan”. In terms of the most recent four‐year on‐time graduation rates (2010), 24 districts had four‐year on‐time graduation rates between 90 and 100%, and 30 districts had four‐year on‐time graduation rates between 70 and 89%. Seven districts had four‐year on‐time graduation rates between 50 and 69% and three districts had four‐year on‐time graduation rates well below 50%. In terms of overall CSAP Reading performance in 2011, four‐day districts had 71.4% of elementary students their students in the proficient or advanced categories, while districts of a similar size on a normal five‐day schedule had 71.0% of their elementary students proficient or advanced. Four‐day districts had 68.4% of middle school students in the proficient or advanced categories, while districts of a similar size on a normal five‐day schedule had 69.1% of their middle school students proficient or advanced. Four‐day districts had 68.4% of high school students in the proficient or advanced categories, while districts of a similar size on a normal five‐day schedule had 67.5% of their high school students proficient or advanced. These data are presented in Figure 1. 4 Figure 1: Reading Proficiency by School Level by Calendar Type 5 Figure 2: Reading Proficiency by District Size by School Level* by Calendar Type When comparing results of districts of similar sizes, in the districts with fewer than 300 students and in districts with fewer than 600 students, districts with five‐day calendars scored slightly above those with four‐day week calendars in elementary school reading achievement. In districts with 600 or more students schools utilizing four‐day calendars scored equal to or slightly higher than students in schools with five‐day calendars in reading achievement. These data are presented in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the results by region of the state. The four‐day districts generally have higher reading scores than the five‐day districts in most regions of the state. The notable exceptions are in the Southwest Region and the Pikes Peak Region where the scores for the five‐day districts exceed those for the four‐day districts. 6 Figure 3: Reading Proficiency by Region by School Level and Calendar Type 100%
72.9%
70.6%
70.6%
69.2%
70.1%
72.3%
H
E
M
67.3%
66.7%
73.7%
69.6%
M
61.7%
67.9%
64.0%
78.2%
83.2%
68.7%
68.9%
60.7%
72.1%
H
62.1%
M
71.0%
E
61.1%
H
69.7%
73.6%
M
69.1%
72.5%
E
50%
70.2%
76.1%
H
61.1%
63.5%
66.0%
69.2%
M
62.4%
65.2%
66.0%
70.7%
60%
67.2%
74.6%
70%
70.9%
76.7%
80%
78.5%
73.0%
90%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
E
NE
SE
E
NW
M
H
SW
5‐day calendar
E
M
N Central
H
E
Pikes Peak
W Central
4‐day calendar
Figure 4 and Figure 5 display the median reading growth (SGP) percentiles. The state average for growth is always at the 50th percentile. Scores at the 50th percentile are considered average. Low achieving students will need growth percentiles that are well above 7 H
the state average to take them to high levels of proficiency. The SGP are actual observed growth for a group of students. There appears to be little difference in observed growth based on district size or region. Figure 4: Reading Growth by Size by School Level and Calendar Type 100
90
80
70
43
47
49
50
50
49
46
52
50
49
44
48
49
49
47
50
53
56
55
47
48
45
40
48
50
57
60
30
20
10
0
E
M
300 or less
H
E
M
H
E
301‐600
5‐Day SGP_11
601‐1,200
Series3
H
E
M
H
1,201‐6,000
4‐Day SGP_11
8 M
Figure 5: Reading Growth by Region by School Level and Calendar Type 100
90
80
73
70
53
54
58
52
54
47
46
46
50
49
45
52
58
53
50
44
49
52
48
47
46
50
55
58
52
52
54
51
H
45
M
40
40
49
52
E
43
42
48
51
40
49
46
50
52
56
60
30
20
10
0
NE
E
M
SE
H
E
M
H
E
M
NW
H
E
SW
5‐Day SGP_11
M
N Central
H
E
M
Pikes Peak
H
E
M
H
W Central
4‐Day SGP_11
In terms of overall CSAP Math performance in 2011, 69.9% of elementary students in four‐day districts were in the proficient or advanced categories, while districts of a similar size on a normal five‐day schedule had 69.7% of their elementary students proficient or advanced. Four‐day districts had 49.5% of middle school students in the proficient or advanced categories, while districts of a similar size on a normal five‐day schedule had 52.4% of their middle school students proficient or advanced. Four‐day districts had 28.6% of high school students in the proficient or advanced categories, while districts of a similar size on a normal five‐day schedule had 31.9% of their high school students proficient or advanced. These data are presented in Figure 6. 9 Figure 6: Math Proficiency by School Level by Calendar Type 100%
90%
80%
70%
69.9%
69.7%
60%
52.4%
49.5%
50%
40%
31.9%
28.6%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Elem
MS
5‐Day Calendar
4‐Day Calendar
10 HS
Figure 7: Math Proficiency by District Size by School Level by Calendar Type 100%
90%
70.1%
71.5%
63.7%
69.1%
32.4%
24.8%
28.6%
29.0%
20%
30.5%
32.4%
34.0%
30.9%
30%
46.9%
50.3%
40%
53.1%
49.7%
51.7%
47.4%
50%
50.6%
50.0%
60%
70.7%
68.9%
70%
72.0%
69.1%
80%
10%
0%
E
M
300 or less
H
E
M
H
301‐600
M
601‐1,200
5‐Day Calendar
11 E
4‐Day Calendar
H
E
M
1,201‐6,000
H
30%
20%
10%
E
M
NE
H
E
M
SE
H
E
M
H
E
NW
5‐Day Calendar
12 M
SW
H
E
M
N Central
4‐Day Calendar
H
E
M
Pikes Peak
H
34.7%
38.5%
28.8%
32.0%
27.3%
57.1%
68.7%
68.8%
74.5%
E
71.5%
62.0%
54.0%
52.3%
84.6%
76.1%
72.5%
67.3%
58.7%
51.6%
52.7%
57.3%
52.6%
44.2%
37.2%
37.4%
55.0%
52.3%
44.7%
45.0%
80%
29.9%
35.9%
23.7%
40%
64.1%
68.6%
50%
24.6%
24.3%
28.0%
32.9%
60%
50.0%
46.8%
70%
70.2%
73.0%
Figure 8: Math Proficiency by Region by School Level by Calendar Type 100%
90%
0%
M
W Central
H
Figure 9: Math Growth by District Size by School Level by Calendar 100
90
80
70
59
60
50
53
44
57
54
48
46
44
42
43
45
50
48
54
54
49
49
48
44
41
40
49
40
43
40
30
20
10
0
E
M
300 or less
H
E
M
H
301‐600
M
601‐1,200
5‐Day Calendar
13 E
4‐Day Calendar
H
E
M
1,201‐6,000
H
Figure 10: Math Growth by Region by School Level by Calendar 100
90
80
52
53
45
51
50
45
47
E
47
H
41
48
M
41
E
47
46
50
50
H
47
50
49
54
55
54
54
51
30
M
41
50
48
50
46
43
42
42
47
50
50
38
40
45
49
50
50
55
61
60
58
66
70
20
10
0
E
M
NE
H
E
M
SE
H
E
M
H
E
NW
SW
5‐Day Calendar
14 N Central
4‐Day Calendar
M
Pikes Peak
H
E
M
W Central
H
Overall, there appears to be little difference between four and five day weeks in terms of status as reflected in percent proficient and advanced regardless of content area. There also appears to be little clear difference in terms of median growth percentiles in either content area. There are many other important variables to be considered beyond the achievement and growth data. One of the most prevalent reasons for school districts choosing the four‐day week over the five‐day week is financial. The research question is whether districts actually save money by using this calendar. Primary savings as a result of being closed one day a week would likely be in transportation, custodial and utility services. Because these costs vary by district, the department may not be able to pull firm data without knowing local district variables. 15 Appendix A Districts Using 4‐Day Calendar 2011 by Region Region Metro Northeast Southeast Northwest Southwest October Count 2010 337 District GILPIN COUNTY RE‐1 210 DEER TRAIL 26J 151 91 AGATE 300 33 15 HI‐PLAINS R‐23 102 68 GENOA‐HUGO C113 154 88 LIMON RE‐4J 435 250 KARVAL RE‐23 233 121 FRENCHMAN RE‐3 185 105 PLATTE VALLEY RE‐3 120 71 LONE STAR 101 104 59 WOODLIN R‐104 99 61 PRITCHETT RE‐3 60 43 CAMPO RE‐6 52 21 LAS ANIMAS RE‐1 503 298 MCCLAVE RE‐2 272 166 CROWLEY COUNTY RE‐1‐J 471 298 HUERFANO RE‐1 537 311 LA VETA RE‐2 211 130 EADS RE‐1 167 104 PLAINVIEW RE‐2 76 51 TRINIDAD 1 1352 827 PRIMERO REORGANIZED 2 205 116 HOEHNE REORGANIZED 3 323 218 AGUILAR REORGANIZED 6 97 46 BRANSON REORGANIZED 82 464 266 KIM REORGANIZED 88 56 39 CHERAW 31 204 126 HOLLY RE‐3 266 157 WILEY RE‐13 JT 213 153 WEST GRAND 1‐JT 429 270 EAST GRAND 2 1271 764 NORTH PARK R‐1 185 111 PARK COUNTY RE‐2 520 281 RANGELY RE‐4 435 261 HAYDEN RE‐1 378 215 SANGRE DE CRISTO RE‐22J 296 193 SANFORD 6J 318 204 SOUTH CONEJOS RE‐10 237 145 16 CSAP Testing Count 2011 Region October Count 2010 234 District CENTENNIAL R‐1 North Central Pikes Peak West Central 131 SIERRA GRANDE R‐30 260 162 DOLORES COUNTY RE NO 2 278 150 CREEDE 1 88 42 DEL NORTE C‐7 567 360 MONTE VISTA C‐8 1132 626 MOUNTAIN VALLEY RE 1 106 57 MOFFAT 2 191 116 WELDON VALLEY RE‐20(J) 198 127 BRIGGSDALE RE‐10 142 89 PRAIRIE RE‐11 166 100 CUSTER COUNTY SCH DISTRICT C‐1 426 279 KIOWA C‐2 344 231 BIG SANDY 100J 300 199 ELBERT 200 213 137 CALHAN RJ‐1 585 365 ELLICOTT 22 929 566 PEYTON 23 JT 651 417 HANOVER 28 210 144 EDISON 54 JT 206 81 MIAMI/YODER 60 JT 294 197 COTOPAXI RE‐3 204 118 PUEBLO COUNTY 70 8562 5444 CRIPPLE CREEK‐VICTOR RE‐1 392 217 HINSDALE COUNTY RE 1 80 43 PLATEAU VALLEY 50 442 196 28751 17547 Total 17 CSAP Testing Count 2011