Recently, Ohio policymakers have been mulling making changes to the state’s attendance tracking framework. It wouldn’t be the first time they’ve done so. In 2016, they overhauled student attendance and absenteeism policies via House Bill 410. Among its many provisions, this legislation transitioned the state’s definition of chronic absenteeism from days to hours. Rather than counting how many days of school students missed in a year, the state now requires districts to track the number of hours.
This was a critical change, as it made Ohio’s student attendance data much more accurate. Previously, when schools tracked attendance by days, students could miss significant chunks of instructional time—say, for a morning doctor’s appointment or a family emergency in the afternoon—and still be marked present for the entire day. In the case of infrequent medical appointments or family emergencies, such imprecise tracking isn’t a big deal. But in other instances, it is a big deal. For elementary students who miss the first hour of class twice a week because they’re late to school, or high schoolers who regularly skip their final class of the day because they’re just not feeling it, that time adds up. Tracking attendance by hours makes it possible for educators and parents to recognize the cumulative impact of seemingly small absences and then work to address them.
HB 410 didn’t change the definition of chronic absenteeism just for the sake of data transparency, though. The change aligned attendance policies with the state’s instructional requirements, which were also transitioning from days to hours. Previously, Ohio districts were required to be open for a certain number of days during each school year. To accommodate emergencies like snowstorms or water main breaks, administrators were provided with five “calamity days,” during which they could cancel classes without being required to offer students makeup instructional time. By shifting from days to hours, districts no longer needed calamity days. Instead, they could schedule “excess” hours above the minimum number of hours required by law, and hours missed above the minimum did not have to be made up.
Although this was a well-intentioned reform, it had an unexpected downside. “Excess hours” permitted districts to cancel class or alter their school schedules for questionable reasons. The latest and most ridiculous example is “eclipse fever,” which my colleague Jeff Murray recently discussed. He notes that the total solar eclipse that will occur on April 8 is a “stunning astronomical phenomenon” that offers schools a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to provide students with firsthand science education. Rather than take advantage of this opportunity, however, district leaders across the state have decided to “close their entire districts for the whole day and provide zero educational opportunities whatsoever.” Their reasons range from potential traffic backups and Wi-Fi outages to safety concerns. Upon closer inspection, many of these reasons ring hollow, particularly because kids won’t only be missing out on a rare learning opportunity in science. They’ll be missing out on reading, math, and history, too.
Far more damaging is the spread of four-day school weeks. Over the last few years, this idea has gained traction nationwide. In Missouri, for example, 144 districts operated on a four-day schedule in 2023, adding up to more than 27 percent of the state’s total number of districts. Because the Buckeye State tracks instruction by hours instead of days, it would be fairly easy for Ohio districts to also make this jump. All they need to do is tack on a few instructional hours to the first four days of the week, and they can skip the fifth. In the last year, at least one Ohio district and one charter school have instituted four-day weeks. The transition drew national attention, and plenty of other Ohio districts are eagerly watching to see if they, too, should make the switch.
Administrators typically cite cost savings, teacher recruitment and retention, and improving school climate and attendance as reasons for this shift. The problem, however, is that the research on shorter weeks doesn’t live up to the hype. Cost savings are only about two percent, on average. A 2021 RAND report found that, although teachers viewed a four-day week as a “perk,” most said it was not a factor in deciding to work for their district, and the impact on retention depended on local context. Evidence is mixed on whether shorter weeks improve school climate and student behavior. Studies have not found any effect on attendance rates. But many studies do find negative impacts on achievement that are “roughly equivalent to a student being two to seven weeks behind where they would have been if they had stayed on a five-day week.”
What does all this mean for lawmakers who are considering if and how to revamp Ohio’s attendance tracking framework? Two things.
First, when it comes to tracking attendance for individual students, Ohio needs to keep the focus on hours. Given the lingering effects of the pandemic on student learning, as well as the notable negative impacts of chronic absenteeism, kids can’t afford to miss school. When they do miss class, educators and families need to be able to determine exactly how much time was missed, so they can track the cumulative impact and intervene when necessary. The best way to ensure that teachers and parents have this information is to maintain accurate hours-based determinations for chronic absenteeism, excessive absences, and habitual truancy. Otherwise, too many absences—and too many kids—can fall through the cracks.
Second, lawmakers should consider reverting back to requiring a minimum number of days that districts and schools must be open, while also identifying a minimum number of hours that must make up each day. Administrators would still be able to cancel classes when emergencies arise. But having a set number of calamity days, rather than an open-ended number of “excess hours,” would ensure that classes are only cancelled for true emergencies. Most importantly, districts would have to put a pause on shifting to four-day weeks. If, over the next few years, states like Missouri can show that four-day school weeks have significant positive impacts on student achievement, teacher recruitment and retention efforts, school climate, and district bottom lines, then Ohio lawmakers can reevaluate. But right now, the research isn’t promising on any of those fronts.
Tracking student attendance by hours, while tracking districts by hours and days, might give some folks pause. But the outsized importance of attendance on student outcomes makes this extra measure necessary. The state tried aligning the framework under days, and it didn’t work. Too many kids were missing too much class without anyone noticing. More recently, the state tried aligning under hours. But that didn’t work either. Districts opted to cancel classes for questionable reasons, and some have started to move toward scheduling changes that don’t appear to be in the best interest of kids. Now, all that’s left is to track students and districts by the measures that work best for each—hours for students, and hours plus days for districts.
