Discussions

Just a thought:  
I believe in some countries, the younger students attend school during the days and the older students attend the same school after that.  
The older students can help around the farm, business, home looking after non school aged siblings while mom and dad are at work.  
For instance, kindergarten to grade 6 can go to school from 9-2 and the higher grades can go to that same school from 2-7.  
The younger kids can still go to bed early and the older kids can sleep in (if family dynamics allow it). The older kids can still have time for friends in the evening.  
 
Win win:  
-no need for new schools  
-day care given by siblings (paid would be nice)  
 
Any thoughts?

And where is the family time? Most families only get from 5-7 or 8 with their kids as it is. There would be no time for extracurricular activities in the evening plus homework and part time jobs. There wouldn’t be a chance for sleeping in if they were looking after siblings as you say. Plus what about when they are off to school at 2 and now the younger siblings at school are off? Still a daycare issue  
 
Sorry this makes zero sense to me

In addition to the concerns above, you are expecting the teaching and school support staff to work 12 hour days? Or would you have 2 full time shifts of staff to cover this?  
 
Sorry, this sound terrible to me. My kids are in many extra curricular activities that start at 5 most days.

Wow what a useless thread. Makes absolute no sense.  
Also  
Brandon needs a NEW school.. in fact 2 would be better. There should be no discussion of not needing a new school period!

Worst idea ever.  
 
The only countries I have ever heard of doing this are third world.

The ideas you have posted have some merit and would make sense.  
 
They would make better use of current infrastructure rather than building new, give some families a chance to take advantage of family care situation and allow for parents to juggle work a bit better in some cases among other benefits. It would probably mean more employment because of the need for more staff, but would also mean shorter work days for staff so they could be home with families more.  
 
Third world countries use it? Yes. But here's the thing - I would venture a guess that family means a heck of a lot more to them than it does in our Western "more civilized" societies. You see it in places like China, even some European countries - familial structures are more well rounded and elders are appreciated and kept useful more.  
 
These places have no need of nannies or day care to raise their kids - the family does it together. They eat meals together without staring at iphones or fast food in a car on route to numerous sports or events. Politics and radical ideas aside, I think in many of these so called lower class countries, families probably appreciate each other more. Yes there is corruption in these countries too, but even Canada and the US are sick with corrupt politicians and greed.  
 
No - I think this idea you posted is a great example of out of the box thinking - unfortunately Manitoba is not a place for trying new things and getting out of comfort zones. Brandon and area especially is very NIMBY and backwards thinking.  
 
Sad to see such closed minded responses too. Just proves my point more. Far easier to dismiss an idea as stupid than think and try to solve an issue.

foxtrot11 said "The ideas you have posted have some merit and would make sense.     They would make better use of current infrastructure rather than building new, give some families a chance to take advantage of family care situation and allow for parents to juggle work a bit better in some cases among other benefits. It would probably mean more employment because of the need for more staff, but would also mean shorter work days for staff so they could be home with families more.     Third world countries use it? Yes. But here's the thing - I would venture a guess that family means a heck of a lot more to them than it does in our Western "more civilized" societies. You see it in places like China, even some European countries - familial structures are more well rounded and elders are appreciated and kept useful more.     These places have no need of nannies or day care to raise their kids - the family does it together. They eat meals together without staring at iphones or fast food in a car on route to numerous sports or events. Politics and radical ideas aside, I think in many of these so called lower class countries, families probably appreciate each other more. Yes there is corruption in these countries too, but even Canada and the US are sick with corrupt politicians and greed.     No - I think this idea you posted is a great example of out of the box thinking - unfortunately Manitoba is not a place for trying new things and getting out of comfort zones. Brandon and area especially is very NIMBY and backwards thinking.     Sad to see such closed minded responses too. Just proves my point more. Far easier to dismiss an idea as stupid than think and try to solve an issue. "

I strongly disagree with you about this idea having merit. It creates new issues as well as more cost. Yes exsisting infrastructure could be used, but taxes would have to go through the roof to pay staff at the schools for a 10 plus hour day. And when would staff take breaks? When would older children and staff eat supper? When would staff get to see their children? If you’re suggesting two sets of staff to accommodate this, are you ready for your school taxes to be doubled?  
Some Staff already help do intramurals at night... would those be done away with then as they are usually done at 4 or 5 pm. Who watches elementary children from 2pm till parents are done work? Still would need daycare. And then you have all the teens in the workforce having to stay at school till 7pm, so they wouldn’t be able to really work at night anymore, as they have to be paid for a minimum of 3 hours. So they’d be working till 10:30 pm. And would still need rides home later at night after work (not all teens drive). When would people have family meals? When would teens be able to participate in sports? At 8pm? Which parents will be able to watch that sport at 8pm with little ones at home getting ready for bed? If your expecting teens to watch little kids in the morning to eliminate daycare, when are teens supposed to sleep? Or do homework? Who takes over before 2 so teen can go to school? And this puts too much on the teens shoulders!  
Way to many issues and takes away from family time too much!  
This idea has no merit and is a terrible suggestion!  
Just my opinion!

Although I don’t think this would ever happen, it’s an interesting idea...  
 
Posters on here aren’t getting the point I don’t think. If you build a new school you are paying for another full staff anyways. The idea is that you would have 1 staff work the 9-2 shift and the 2nd staff would do the 2-7 I think. You wouldn’t need to build the 2nd school. (OP can correct me if I’m wrong, but that what I got out of it).  
 
Think about how all these buildings are empty for more time than they are open. It’s a waste. BUT... this will never work in our society as it is now. Most things are Monday - Friday, including child care, parent jobs etc.  
 
Although it’s not feasible, it’s an interesting idea!

garden123 said "Although I don’t think this would ever happen, it’s an interesting idea...     Posters on here aren’t getting the point I don’t think. If you build a new school you are paying for another full staff anyways. The idea is that you would have 1 staff work the 9-2 shift and the 2nd staff would do the 2-7 I think. You wouldn’t need to build the 2nd school. (OP can correct me if I’m wrong, but that what I got out of it).     Think about how all these buildings are empty for more time than they are open. It’s a waste. BUT... this will never work in our society as it is now. Most things are Monday - Friday, including child care, parent jobs etc.     Although it’s not feasible, it’s an interesting idea! "

No, I get it with staff if you are doing it that way. You would still need to fix exsisting high schools then for elementary school kids to use. Meaning toilets, sinks lowered, smaller desks that would have to be switched around at night, etc, etc. So there’s a big cost. And more daytime staff would need to be hired to run elementary classes in the high schools during the days, as high school teachers would be needed at night. As for staff for a new school, that’s not that much that would need to be hired, and the government kicks in funding too. Now for the teachers that work less hours (9-2 is less), they would have to see a pay cut as they aren’t working as much. Same with evening teachers. How do you entice people to become teachers with less wage? Also that means the buildings would be in use longer, which generates higher heating, water use, electricity, etc. So that’s more money. Also the teachers that would be in evening, who watches their kids? Not everyone has a spouse. And most daycares close by 5:30. So who is watching the teachers own kids at night?  
And once again, that would mean no more school intramurals.. meaning even less physical activity and connection for the kids.  
 
Edited by Cheezies, 2018-01-12 12:33:46

Why not look into leasing space from larger churches. Many successful schools are operated out of a church. Doesn't mean it had to be a Christian school you can rent/lease the space and gymnasium, which most churches do have. Building 2 new schools from scratch is going to be a huge debt on the tax payer. Why are we so hell bent on it has to be new built schools? What about the old ACC if they ever finish the move to the north hill why not amalgamate the high schools to ACC and the high school could be used for elementary schools? Berlin is 1 level and would work well with its location to become another K-8 school. I'm not saying I don't want new schools but we have to be realistic on the cost and burden to the tax payer. Maybe it isn't what everyone would want, but it would be a solution. Bussing service or city transit costs are cheaper than new schools!!

While it sounds totally alien to us here in Westman, some schools in Ontario and Quebec are having success with evening classes for High School. I hate to say it but, we need to look at all options with an open mind. Although, I agree it wouldn't work well or be accepted for K to eight students. In fact, I would rather see an extra hour added to relieve such a packed curriculum schools are expected to follow. Neither tax payers or the unions (AKA - Legalized extortionists) will ever let any major changes happen and minor ones as well, if it means additional costs and more personal time. The city, school division and the tax payers are out of money, while the majority of the teachers & staff act spoiled, childish and use the unions like a weapon. And I do mean they act childish... Why else would the division place half administrative days? ...It's not for or because of the kids benefit... It's because of the results in attendance numbers of the teachers themselves. They treat is as paid time off and make personal plans during those days to make it three day weekends. ...So the division punishes the families buy canceling classes for the morning or afternoon in the middle of the week to stop the abuse of a few teachers, because it's easier this way other then dealing with their union.  
 
We could go on and on on why a second shift won't work, but the fact is that the clock is ticking. Our K to eight classrooms are reaching capacity in a short time and there is no plan because there is no budget. ...And there is no budget because there is no plan. Around and around we go with the talking/arguing. The Unions entrench themselves, the government avoid/distancing themselves, the taxpayers protect themselves and the division kid themselves. ...And nothing happens. Like it or not people, the Brandon school division will reach the "saturation point", likely in three years. ...What then? We all got the hint from the provincial government that getting a new school will take more than three years and that one is all we're getting for many years to come. We also got the hint that the provincial rate is going to be stuck at where it is for a long time. ...So it's on Brandon to think on ways to save money while generating more revenue input.  
 
And here's the crazy debate that hasn't even happen yet... These kids (our kids) are leaving the elementary and middle schools, where are they going for High School? That problem hasn't been approached yet. We can't even afford installing appropriate classrooms and gyms for our current schools, let alone a new K to six/eight building... How in the hell are we going to accommodate these very kids we have right now to attend the High Schools in a couple of years? ...Night classes maybe??? That may be our only option by the 2020's at the rate of progress we are at this moment. By the time our school council/division figures out, spends whatever money they have granted, borrowed or taxed for the K to eight problem... the problem will have shifted/expanded over to the nine to twelve. ...What then? ...Split classes as well???? LOL.  
 
The school division, the teachers union and the Manitoba government have all "painted themselves into a corner" all the while blaming each other. There is no easy solution, only tough choices with sacrifices ahead. And as we watch how the Brandon school division respond at a snails pace to the likely crises of money, manpower and madness... I like to think that maybe instead of ripping down a plausible idea, we try to explore it first. Yes, it wouldn't work for small kids from young working families. But, it may be our only alternative to overcrowded High Schools. Perhaps we should start a small program soon at one of them and see the results from that? Once established, we might see the preference of students choosing the classes later in the day. I would rather see our school tax increase a little to try this out for a few years, rather than sitting and doing nothing other to be hoping and begging for our schools be granted funding for more building space. Because at the rate we are witnessing for getting any additional funding, my youngest is going to have a terrible education as a result from shortages and overcrowding.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The better solution is to do what they do in some jurisdictions. Year Round Schooling.  
 
Summer break is shortened to one month with more shorter breaks throughout the year. At any time of the year, 1/4 of students (and teachers) are not in the school, which means that each school can handle 33% more students. I believe that the places that use this only have 180 days of instruction per year as opposed to the 200 Manitoba has now. Apparently, marks in this system are often higher on average.

I don’t know where you got the idea that teachers weren’t attending PD days. I teach at one of the largest schools in town and it is extremely rare for a teacher to be absent on a PD day. I can’t speak as to what happens at the high schools though.

It was other way ariund though, Grafrs 7 to 12 in the morning hours from 7a.m. till 1p.m. and then from 2p.m. till 6:00 for younger kids. 180 days to school, so lots of vacation and fun. There were two shifts of teachers and actvities staff and seperate buildings on a large piece of land. Can't stress enough how good that felt compared to my kid going to to school for 6 more months now before the summer holidays kick in. And those who consider it a 3rd world idea, this how the pricey boarding schools manage all over the world.

whether the idea would work or not remains to be seen , but it is interesting to see that some people are able to think outside the box , wish those in the education field could do it more and listen to others that have experience in the field .