4 day school weeks...who really benefits?

I have already posted this link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-04-shorter-school-week_N.htm?csp=usat.me) to my twitter (never thought I would say that) but I can't believe this is a growing trend to cut costs. I have been following several education blogs, and they all seem to be saying the same thing; four day school weeks are a growing trend as one of the only ways left to cut budgets. I still can't believe this. In a time when the U.S. is competing with so many nations, how can we afford to educate our kids less? It's not even the matter of competition with other nations either, it's within our own. These days it's nearly impossible to find a decent job without college, and even then the job hunt isn't that great. Why would we give some students the disadvantage?

The article talks about evidence of children improving their test scores...but who is actually evaluating these 4-day weeks? Is it the teachers who actually see the progress of students, or is it people who simply administer tests and count numbers? As educators, we all know that a student should not be measured by a number. Maybe a student struggles with reading comprehension, but is insanely artistic. Maybe a student needs to work on drastically improving their social skills before addition and subtraction can even enter their mind. Maybe a student scores almost perfectly on these exams, but isn't able to express him/herself in any other way except the numbers that are printed on their exams because all of the school's short 4-day classes are geared towards teaching only the material will be tested. When does individuality and creativeness trump AYP, or will it never? Standardized tests may prove that students are being better educated...but then again, it could be that they are just learning what bubbles to fill in.

If these test administrators truly believe that students are getting enough formal education in 4 days, then why can't the 5th day be used for performing arts, gym, foreign language, etc.? It seems that when trying to cut budgets, the definition of education is becoming a much more well-defined term. In my opinion, education should be a much looser term where formal education is of course taught, but where students also have the option of expanding their interests to more than a bubble sheet. How are kids going to find things to be passionate about if art, music, sports, etc. are slowly taken out of public schools, the only place that many students are able to be introduced to them?