TPMS magnet changes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TPMS magnet parent alum here.

There is no way I can support a class schedule that has teachers teaching more than specified in their contract. Most teachers are woman and the profession suffers enough from the more generally applied sexist expectation that women should provide their labor for free, out of the goodness of their hearts to help others. Nope. If the contract says X hours or Y classes for Z pay, then it's patently unreasonable to expect more than what is contractually obligated.

Let's move on and talk about what bell schedules work with the contractual # of classes.

Contract means nothing for teachers working in a secondary school that’s not on a standard 7-day period schedule

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TPMS magnet parent alum here.

There is no way I can support a class schedule that has teachers teaching more than specified in their contract. Most teachers are woman and the profession suffers enough from the more generally applied sexist expectation that women should provide their labor for free, out of the goodness of their hearts to help others. Nope. If the contract says X hours or Y classes for Z pay, then it's patently unreasonable to expect more than what is contractually obligated.

Let's move on and talk about what bell schedules work with the contractual # of classes.

Contract means nothing for teachers working in a secondary school that’s not on a standard 7-day period schedule

Exactly. This is not prohibited by the contract, it’s just not specifically outlined in the contract. The teachers are being disingenuous in arguing it’s illegal, or that it’s unprecedented in MCPS.

They teach the same number of hours whether it’s 5 of 7 or 6 of 8 give or take a few minutes.

[Anonymous]

Before bashing the teachers, it would be good to have your facts straight. The issue with the 6th class is not instructional minutes, it is student load. The TPMS scheduling committee clearly presented this information at the parent meeting two weeks ago. Due to the 6th class, many TPMS teachers teach 20-30 more students than their peers at other middle schools. This is the reason most TPMS teachers want to return to a schedule that aligns with their contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before bashing the teachers, it would be good to have your facts straight. The issue with the 6th class is not instructional minutes, it is student load. The TPMS scheduling committee clearly presented this information at the parent meeting two weeks ago. Due to the 6th class, many TPMS teachers teach 20-30 more students than their peers at other middle schools. This is the reason most TPMS teachers want to return to a schedule that aligns with their contract.

This is a valid problem for the teachers to raise, but it is also a valid concern for parents and students to raise. It’s really unfortunate that students from ES through HS are often sacrificing Band/Orchestra in order to keep up with other academics.
In ES, for most kids to be in band/orchestra they have leave out of a class in progress and then make up the work. In MS the magnet kids have to sacrifice taking Foreign Language which potentially becomes a problem when applying to some HS programs. And in HS the band teachers are literally asking the kids and families to speak to the teacher first before deciding to drop band/orchestra because of DE schedules or other double period classes make it seem unworkable. It really show how little we as a society value the arts.

Frankly I think this topic should be brought up higher and more visibly than TPMS so the district can see how many parents and students wish something would be done about the issue.

[Anonymous]

Higher ed educator here.

Another course load in the same amount of time is MORE work. Period.

My child went through the TPMS magnet several years ago and I feel bad about this, not knowing it was happening.

The magnet program used to be more selective and the 8 classes were a benefit for academically inclined and motivated students; as it's is trending, the magnet program is far less attractive. The extra class for TPMS teachers is totally unfair. Both of these things can be true.

[Anonymous]

Isn't the better path here for MCPS amd MCEA, across the board, to come to an arrangement in which teachers are more reasonably compensated for addressing differential school needs? It seems clear that delivery of magnet programs at the MS level might best be done with an 8-class block schedule due to the extra course inherent to the magnets.

Not just TPMS, but others: language immersion, MSMC, presumably the Humanities magnet -- each has management challenges that result from the inflexible central budget allocation algorithm that is based, in part, on the MCEA-negotiated contract. The dearth of seats available for these is another matter, of course, and one that likewise should be addressed. While that would be a considerably more cumbersome initiative for MCPS, taking far longer to implement than compensation/budgetary adjustment, efforts to bring that to reality certainly would be supported by more flexible staffing paradigms.

For that matter, they should be doing the same to allow more reasonable differential compensation for subjects for which or situations in which there are teacher shortages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the better path here for MCPS amd MCEA, across the board, to come to an arrangement in which teachers are more reasonably compensated for addressing differential school needs? It seems clear that delivery of magnet programs at the MS level might best be done with an 8-class block schedule due to the extra course inherent to the magnets.

Not just TPMS, but others: language immersion, MSMC, presumably the Humanities magnet -- each has management challenges that result from the inflexible central budget allocation algorithm that is based, in part, on the MCEA-negotiated contract. The dearth of seats available for these is another matter, of course, and one that likewise should be addressed. While that would be a considerably more cumbersome initiative for MCPS, taking far longer to implement than compensation/budgetary adjustment, efforts to bring that to reality certainly would be supported by more flexible staffing paradigms.

For that matter, they should be doing the same to allow more reasonable differential compensation for subjects for which or situations in which there are teacher shortages.

Now get MCEA to agree to that. Parents and Central Office already do.

[Anonymous]

They should implement the change in 2 years when the current 6th graders graduate to high school. That way kids are not promised 2 electives and 1 taken away mid-way.

[Anonymous]

Any updates on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before bashing the teachers, it would be good to have your facts straight. The issue with the 6th class is not instructional minutes, it is student load. The TPMS scheduling committee clearly presented this information at the parent meeting two weeks ago. Due to the 6th class, many TPMS teachers teach 20-30 more students than their peers at other middle schools. This is the reason most TPMS teachers want to return to a schedule that aligns with their contract.

You are clearly a TPMS teacher. The presentation two weeks ago was a mess and was anything but “clear”. It was incomprehensible to most parents and clearly one sided without consideration of what is best for the students. Not to mention that chat was turned off and questions were curated to stick to the narrative. Communication on this issue has been abysmal and flawed. It’s clear the administration want to check a box rather than engage families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the better path here for MCPS amd MCEA, across the board, to come to an arrangement in which teachers are more reasonably compensated for addressing differential school needs? It seems clear that delivery of magnet programs at the MS level might best be done with an 8-class block schedule due to the extra course inherent to the magnets.

Not just TPMS, but others: language immersion, MSMC, presumably the Humanities magnet -- each has management challenges that result from the inflexible central budget allocation algorithm that is based, in part, on the MCEA-negotiated contract. The dearth of seats available for these is another matter, of course, and one that likewise should be addressed. While that would be a considerably more cumbersome initiative for MCPS, taking far longer to implement than compensation/budgetary adjustment, efforts to bring that to reality certainly would be supported by more flexible staffing paradigms.

For that matter, they should be doing the same to allow more reasonable differential compensation for subjects for which or situations in which there are teacher shortages.

Now get MCEA to agree to that. Parents and Central Office already do.

It would be a good test to see if the Apple Ballot BOE candidates can encourage MCEA toward such an end or if they, instead, avoid the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any updates on this?

Yeah, the school is pushing full steam ahead with what they decided being closed doors and ignoring parental concerns.

TPMS parents are frustrated, if not by the decisions themselves by the poor communication and the empty claims that they are listening to parents.

For some magnet parents, it sadly feels like the magnet has been in decline since the new principal took over. She certainly is not supportive of the magnet.