‘What happens to the learning time?’: expert queries feasibility of four-day school weeks

CQUniversity’s Head of Education Neuroscience Professor Ken Purnell says Australian schools should be careful not to sacrifice valuable learning time and that international research shows the impact on student achievement can be mixed.

“Four-day school weeks are not necessarily a bad idea, but the critical question is what happens to the learning time?” Purnell says.

In the United States, more than 2100 public schools in 26 states have switched to a four-day school week, according to research. It’s believed many school leaders hope it will aid in the recruitment of more teachers, save money on the budget and boost student attendance.

In Texas, the number of schools adopting the condensed schedule has soared from 30 schools during the 2020-21 academic year to 506 in 2024-25, according to the Texas Tribune.

This time last year, the ACTU called for a four-day week in sectors that can support it, arguing that this will allow workers to benefit from productivity gains and technological advances.

It further argued that reducing working hours, from a standard five days a week, is key to lifting living standards.

A Monash University survey of 8000 AEU members found only 30 per cent of teachers reach retirement, and that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said a four-day working week “would support them to better deliver high-quality education”.

There were strong reservations, however, for students and the difficulty of timetabling a shorter school week.

“Making sure that it’s not just less time with the same expectations is important,” Monash researcher Dr Fiona Longmuir said at the time.

She pointed to widespread trials of four-day school weeks in the US, which had shown a reduction in bullying and fighting among students, but there was no conclusive evidence that the arrangement improved teacher retention.

Professor Purnell says the question should not be whether a four-day week sounds attractive, it should be whether a particular model produces better outcomes for students while also creating a sustainable environment for teachers.

The US experience gives us a useful warning, Purnell says.

“Overall, the research shows null or negative effects on student achievement, with some studies finding small declines in maths and reading.

Where the number of teaching hours has been maintained at a high level, the differences are much smaller, the academic says.

“So, it is not simply about whether a school operates over four or five days – it is about how much quality learning time students actually receive.”

Four-day school weeks have been adopted predominantly by rural school districts in the US, often with the aim of reducing costs or attracting staff.

Research has found some potential benefits, including improved staff appeal, reports of less bullying and fighting and more sleep for younger students.

However, there is no clear evidence that four-day weeks improve teacher retention, while concerns remain around learning loss, childcare and equity for families who continue to work five days a week.

Purnell says the Australian conversation is somewhat different, with many proposed models retaining five days of school for students while giving teachers greater flexibility.

“We need to be careful about calling every flexible school model a four-day school week,” he says.

“In some Australian proposals, students still attend school five days a week while teachers have one day without classes for planning, collaboration, professional development or other work.

“That could potentially deliver some of the workforce benefits of a four-day week without reducing students’ classroom time.”

Some Queensland schools are also trialling more flexible arrangements for students, including earlier finishes on Fridays, while teacher interest in flexible working arrangements is reportedly strong.

Purnell says these models could provide an opportunity to rethink how schools structure the week, but needed to be evaluated carefully.

“There are potentially real benefits in giving teachers more time to plan, collaborate and do the work that happens outside the classroom,” he says.

“Better working conditions may also help schools attract staff, particularly in areas where teacher recruitment is difficult.

“But we should not assume that flexibility for teachers automatically translates into better outcomes for students. We need to test that proposition.”

Purnell says schools also needed to consider the impact of shorter or altered school weeks on families.

“For families working five days a week, a day without school can create significant childcare and supervision issues.”

That can create an equity problem, he says, because some families will have the resources to manage the change while others will not.

“We also need to make sure that any compressed timetable does not simply squeeze the same amount of learning into longer, more demanding days.”

With Australian schools beginning to explore different approaches, Purnell says local trials could provide valuable evidence about what works.

“We don’t need to simply copy what has happened overseas,” he says.

“Australia can design models around the needs of students, teachers and families, then evaluate them properly against schools operating under conventional arrangements.

“The question should not be whether a four-day week sounds attractive. The question should be whether a particular model produces better outcomes for students while also creating a sustainable environment for teachers.”