How about instead:

Full draft here: edre.uark.edu/_resources/p...

As a side note, props to this reporter for a very astute observation about the internal validity of a study.

... which can be hard!

But, I think the need for evidence and this reminder that there are real tradeoffs on how those $s are spent highlights the importance of rigorous research. Esp. in a post-ESSER world where federal dollars are being held up.

To be clear, I fully believe that districts want to do what's best for kids. I think that's (probably) what administrators here were trying to do.

But I think they also felt a lot of push and pull in different directions. They have to weigh evidence from industry and academia...

This highlights an information problem - districts think the 4DSW will help them, and so they adopt the calendar. Leaders may then over-attribute regular changes in the labor market to be benefits from the 4DSW.

So what's our recommendation for rural schools? I think this participant said it best:

When we look at districts in MO, however, we see essentially no evidence that 4DSWs have a significant impact on teacher recruitment or retention. The point estimates are so small, in fact, that if taken at face value, would correspond to (on average) < 1 teacher retained per district per year.

We conduct a series of semi-structured interviews to better understand districts' motivations for adopting the 4DSW. Consistent with much of the media coverage surrounding this topic, staying competitive in the teacher labor market was a major driver of adoption.

From small positives in AR to nulls in CO and negative impacts in OR, the 4DSW doesn't seem to help recruit and retain teachers. This is especially surprising given the rapid growth in 4DSWs recently.

In Missouri, where this study takes place, growth in 4DSWs has been rapid since the pandemic

Facts are very 20th Century. To be successful in today's interconnected world LLMs need 21st Century skills like creativity.