TPMS magnet changes

[Anonymous]

The hubris and entitlement on this thread is so extra. Y’all already won the lottery (literally) and have 3 electives and access to comp sci courses, proprietary curriculum and peer group that no other middle schoolers can access, but this is an equity issue for YOU? If you want orchestra and FL and don’t care about the comp sci, then you can easily return to your home middle school. You have every possible choice available to you. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What rationale has the school presented for wanting to make this change?

"TPMS Bell Schedule for the 2025-2026 School Year
Last year, our staff expressed an interest in re-examining our bell schedule. We convened a committee to engage our stakeholders to provide feedback on the benefits and drawbacks of our current bell schedule and the ways in which it both benefits student learning and teacher's ability to deliver high quality instruction and was in which it complicates teaching and learning. We used multi-stakeholder feedback to examine multiple options. Last week, we engaged our teaching staff to provide an update and get their feedback. This week, we will be engaging our 6th and 7th grade students, on Wednesday, through our advisory period. This Thursday, we will be holding a 6th and 7th grade parent meeting to engage our parents and caregivers."

Considering that everyone was surprised by this, including PTA leadership, I'm wondering who the multi stakeholders are here. Are they using "multi-stakeholder" to just mean "some teachers" because that's not at all the intent behind stakeholder engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make the mind-numbing CS class an elective, so the academically advanced kids kids can take language and music classes, and do CS using one of the many free curricula at home.

The point of TP magnet is that it is a math and science magnet. Not a magnet school for language and music. Don't want them to take computer science? Your home school is an option! Plenty of willing and able kids to take their place!

I think the problem is that there's an equity issue here. Taking a language course is a prerequisite for consideration at any of the IB programs. Magnet kids currently have two electives so they can take a world language and something else. But this shift would mean that magnet kids only have one elective and they would need to use that for a world language. If they want to play an instrument, or take an art class, or explore theater, they can't do so.

Middle school is too young to lock kids into a rigid box, and the current system lets even kids who are interested in math and science explore other types of intelligence.

Equity issue? If you want to get picky about equity issues, the equity issue is your kid having a whole special magnet program that no one else gets. The audacity of complaining about electives in light of this is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. Locking kids into a rigid box? OK, don't go to the magnet, then.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hubris and entitlement on this thread is so extra. Y’all already won the lottery (literally) and have 3 electives and access to comp sci courses, proprietary curriculum and peer group that no other middle schoolers can access, but this is an equity issue for YOU? If you want orchestra and FL and don’t care about the comp sci, then you can easily return to your home middle school. You have every possible choice available to you. Good grief.

Right now, folks have access to orchestra/art and world languages, both of which would frankly be core curriculum for tweens and teens in any other developed country. Forcing kids to choose between them weakens their education.

[Anonymous]

Before this thread spirals out into further debate about magnets, it's worth noting that TPMS' approach prior to this school year was to require magnet kids to take CS and everyone else use that slot for a second math period. To me, this seemed like a good balance: everyone in the school benefitted from increased math and/or CS instruction. The extra math period at TPMS was eliminated at the beginning of this school year. That's what set up the situation as one that looks like a loss of electives. I realize the prior situation at TPMS was pretty unique within the county and that could have been a source of frustration to families at other middle schools

But it was also situation that didn't pit the interests of different student groups against one another with respect to academic enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Not a TPMS parent, but I find it extremely frustrating in general that MCPS Middle Schools consider world language to be an elective, when it should be considered as part of the 5 core classes as students transition to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before this thread spirals out into further debate about magnets, it's worth noting that TPMS' approach prior to this school year was to require magnet kids to take CS and everyone else use that slot for a second math period. To me, this seemed like a good balance: everyone in the school benefitted from increased math and/or CS instruction. The extra math period at TPMS was eliminated at the beginning of this school year. That's what set up the situation as one that looks like a loss of electives. I realize the prior situation at TPMS was pretty unique within the county and that could have been a source of frustration to families at other middle schools

But it was also situation that didn't pit the interests of different student groups against one another with respect to academic enrichment.

Do you have any sense for Martin's thinking behind that shift? It wasn't widely discussed or socialized, and was not mentioned at new student orientation. It just kind of....turned up on the class schedules of the comprehensive kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a TPMS parent, but I find it extremely frustrating in general that MCPS Middle Schools consider world language to be an elective, when it should be considered as part of the 5 core classes as students transition to high school.

the way MCPS teaches French is such that it is torture to make that mandatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a TPMS parent, but I find it extremely frustrating in general that MCPS Middle Schools consider world language to be an elective, when it should be considered as part of the 5 core classes as students transition to high school.

Fully agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hubris and entitlement on this thread is so extra. Y’all already won the lottery (literally) and have 3 electives and access to comp sci courses, proprietary curriculum and peer group that no other middle schoolers can access, but this is an equity issue for YOU? If you want orchestra and FL and don’t care about the comp sci, then you can easily return to your home middle school. You have every possible choice available to you. Good grief.

Right now, folks have access to orchestra/art and world languages, both of which would frankly be core curriculum for tweens and teens in any other developed country. Forcing kids to choose between them weakens their education.

Then. Don't. Choose. To. Go. To. Takoma. You can always go back to your home MS and have different options.

[Anonymous]

Interesting point from last night’s meeting - TPMS teachers have to teach 6 periods to be considered full time - everywhere else in the county it’s only 5 periods. I’m a parent, not a teacher, and that doesn’t seem fair to me. They said it’s making it hard to retain and recruit staff.

[Anonymous]

Thank you to the parent who attended last night's meeting and paid attention to the presentation. TPMS is indeed the ONLY MCPS SECONDARY SCHOOL where teachers are expected to teach 6 courses, instead of the 5 courses specified in their contract. Yes, it is very disappointing when your child has enjoyed an extra benefit that most MCPS students do not receive and may no longer receive that benefit. However, it would be helpful if the parents complaining about their child losing an elective would consider the price of that extra elective. What if you had a job where year after year, you were expected to do 20% more work than all your colleagues with the same job, for no extra pay or benefits? TPMS is overall a good school with a supportive community, great kids, and positive staff morale, so some teachers have accepted that trade-off. But between ongoing post-pandemic challenges, budget cuts, and a variety of other factors, teachers' jobs have gotten even more difficult in recent years. Teachers with a heavier load already are feeling even more weight on their shoulders. If MCPS were willing to provide additional funds to maintain an 8-period schedule, many TPMS teachers would be on board with it. However, the MCPS staffing model assumes a 7-period schedule, so the only way to maintain the 8-period schedule is for TPMS teachers' to continue bearing a heavier workload than their MCPS peers. Is this a fair thing to ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you to the parent who attended last night's meeting and paid attention to the presentation. TPMS is indeed the ONLY MCPS SECONDARY SCHOOL where teachers are expected to teach 6 courses, instead of the 5 courses specified in their contract. Yes, it is very disappointing when your child has enjoyed an extra benefit that most MCPS students do not receive and may no longer receive that benefit. However, it would be helpful if the parents complaining about their child losing an elective would consider the price of that extra elective. What if you had a job where year after year, you were expected to do 20% more work than all your colleagues with the same job, for no extra pay or benefits? TPMS is overall a good school with a supportive community, great kids, and positive staff morale, so some teachers have accepted that trade-off. But between ongoing post-pandemic challenges, budget cuts, and a variety of other factors, teachers' jobs have gotten even more difficult in recent years. Teachers with a heavier load already are feeling even more weight on their shoulders. If MCPS were willing to provide additional funds to maintain an 8-period schedule, many TPMS teachers would be on board with it. However, the MCPS staffing model assumes a 7-period schedule, so the only way to maintain the 8-period schedule is for TPMS teachers' to continue bearing a heavier workload than their MCPS peers. Is this a fair thing to ask?

Other middle schools have an 8 period block schedule too. Are they saying that teachers at those schools teach 5 periods, but at TPMS they teach 6? Why would that be the case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make the mind-numbing CS class an elective, so the academically advanced kids kids can take language and music classes, and do CS using one of the many free curricula at home.

The point of TP magnet is that it is a math and science magnet. Not a magnet school for language and music. Don't want them to take computer science? Your home school is an option! Plenty of willing and able kids to take their place!

I think the problem is that there's an equity issue here. Taking a language course is a prerequisite for consideration at any of the IB programs. Magnet kids currently have two electives so they can take a world language and something else. But this shift would mean that magnet kids only have one elective and they would need to use that for a world language. If they want to play an instrument, or take an art class, or explore theater, they can't do so.

Middle school is too young to lock kids into a rigid box, and the current system lets even kids who are interested in math and science explore other types of intelligence.

Then don’t attend a magnet program.

[Anonymous]

The TPMS scheduling committee researched this issue. There are only 4 other MCPS middle schools with 8 period schedules. (Others may appear to have 8 period schedules, but count lunch as a period. Most MCPS middle schools have 7 instructional periods.) Those 4 other schools all have higher staff-student ratios than TPMS. TPMS could have gone to a 5 of 8 schedule if class sizes were increased by 4-6 students. Most teachers felt this was not an acceptable trade-off as it would significantly diminish the quality of instruction to add 4-6 students to every section.