Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Calendar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee rejects measure to freeze 4‑day week rules amid wide testimony for and against
Summary
A proposal to codify Department of Education rules on four‑day school weeks and limit future rule changes failed in committee after heavy testimony from rural superintendents praising the model and researchers urging a statewide minimum instructional calendar.
Senate Education Committee members debated and ultimately rejected legislation that would have codified the Department of Education’s rules governing four‑day school weeks and curtailed the agency’s ability to alter those rules without legislative approval.
Sponsor Representative Steven Walker said the bill was aimed at preserving local control and giving school boards and communities certainty about the rules that govern a four‑day schedule. "The one size fits all approach is archaic," Walker said, arguing school calendars should reflect local needs.
Supporters included multiple rural superintendents and school leaders who described recruitment and retention benefits, improved staff morale, and early interim assessment gains after switching calendars. Ouachita River, Bismarck, Mulberry‑Pleasant View and other district leaders said their first‑year data shows improved attendance, staff retention and short‑term growth on interim ATLAS measures. Bismarck Superintendent Tristan Knoedel reported double‑digit interim growth in math and ELA in several cohorts during the district’s first year on the model.
Opponents and some researchers urged caution. Jacob Alleva of the Department of Education said the national research shows four‑day calendars yield some gains but generally less learning than five‑day calendars; Alleva told the committee, "students do learn going four days a week, but they do not learn as much as they go five." Several senators pressed for a statewide minimum (a figure raised in committee is 178 days/1,068 instructional hours) and expressed concern about dramatically shorter school years in some four‑day implementations.
Committee debate centered on whether local flexibility outweighs the need to set minimum statewide instructional time and whether statute should lock in the agency’s current rules. The sponsor said the bill would simply move existing rule language into statute and require legislative approval for future changes; supporters characterized the measure as a protection for districts already operating four‑day calendars.
Outcome: The motion to adopt the measure failed on a committee voice/roll procedure in the transcript (the clerk recorded that the bill failed). The transcript records extensive testimony for and against but not a roll‑call tally.
