TPMS magnet changes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

TPMS parent here. Where did you see this? I haven’t seen it.

Principal's newsletter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not DCC middle schools that run an 8 period schedule, it is the middle school magnet consortium (Parkland, Argyle, Loiederman). And no, teachers there do not teach 1 class every other day - on a 5 of 8 schedule, they teach 3 blocks one day and 2 blocks the next. TPMS could have gone to a 5 of 8 schedule but significant class size increases would have been the trade-off. Any parent who thinks 4-6 more students in every one of their child's classes would not impact the quality of instruction has clearly not spent time in a middle school.

Wait, are you saying that in addition to 3 electives and the other benefits of the magnet, those classes are also smaller, at least 4-6 students below the middle school class size recommendations?

I don’t think that’s what the PP is saying. I read it as other schools accommodate the block schedule by having teachers teach 5 classes that are each larger than middle school class size recommendations by 4-6 students, while TPMS has been having teachers teach 6 classes that are each the standard size according to tge middle school class size recommendations.

It seems to me that the answer is to follow the model of the other school and have 5 larger classes. If, as a prior poster suggests, this causes problems with classroom behavior, then we should revise our discipline policies so that teachers are empowered to maintain order in their classrooms.

[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.

You're right, we should be increasing educational opportunity to the maximum for everyone, not decreasing educational opportunity to the minimum.

[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.

You're right, we should be increasing educational opportunity to the maximum for everyone, not decreasing educational opportunity to the minimum.

+1
ABSOLUTELY THIS!

Knowledge is not a scarce resource that needs to be rationed. We should have more magnet spaces (and other opportunities) for those who want them.

That being said, not every student is going to want to meet the extra demands of a magnet program. We should make sure that everyone receives a solid education and offer a range of opportunities according to their interests.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

It's unfortunate that this thread is labelled "TPMS magnet" because the changes affect non- magnet students too. Kids with disabilities who have "resource" as a class won't be able to have *any* electives. The impact on the terrific music program Ms. Pasquale runs for *all* students will probably be negative. The opportunity to offer double period math for kids that need that is also diminished.

Fewer elective choices hurts all students, not just magnet students.

[Anonymous]

I’m a TPMS magnet parent and I agree with others here who have said the magnet parents sound entitled and out of touch with reality. However, I also agree that the admin really flubbed the communication around this change. If they need to make the change for contractual reasons, they should have just said that from the start rather than pretending they were gathering parent feedback. Also, as some have said, SSIMS has a block schedule and does not seem to have this 6 of 8 problem so I think they may be purposefully not sharing all the info here.

Overall we’ve been thrilled with the school, the teachers, and the education our dc is receiving, and we don’t think a change from 8 to 7 periods is necessarily a bad thing. It’s just been poorly communicated and not transparent enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not DCC middle schools that run an 8 period schedule, it is the middle school magnet consortium (Parkland, Argyle, Loiederman). And no, teachers there do not teach 1 class every other day - on a 5 of 8 schedule, they teach 3 blocks one day and 2 blocks the next. TPMS could have gone to a 5 of 8 schedule but significant class size increases would have been the trade-off. Any parent who thinks 4-6 more students in every one of their child's classes would not impact the quality of instruction has clearly not spent time in a middle school.

Wait, are you saying that in addition to 3 electives and the other benefits of the magnet, those classes are also smaller, at least 4-6 students below the middle school class size recommendations?

I don’t think that’s what the PP is saying. I read it as other schools accommodate the block schedule by having teachers teach 5 classes that are each larger than middle school class size recommendations by 4-6 students, while TPMS has been having teachers teach 6 classes that are each the standard size according to tge middle school class size recommendations.

It seems to me that the answer is to follow the model of the other school and have 5 larger classes. If, as a prior poster suggests, this causes problems with classroom behavior, then we should revise our discipline policies so that teachers are empowered to maintain order in their classrooms.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not DCC middle schools that run an 8 period schedule, it is the middle school magnet consortium (Parkland, Argyle, Loiederman). And no, teachers there do not teach 1 class every other day - on a 5 of 8 schedule, they teach 3 blocks one day and 2 blocks the next. TPMS could have gone to a 5 of 8 schedule but significant class size increases would have been the trade-off. Any parent who thinks 4-6 more students in every one of their child's classes would not impact the quality of instruction has clearly not spent time in a middle school.

Wait, are you saying that in addition to 3 electives and the other benefits of the magnet, those classes are also smaller, at least 4-6 students below the middle school class size recommendations?

I don’t think that’s what the PP is saying. I read it as other schools accommodate the block schedule by having teachers teach 5 classes that are each larger than middle school class size recommendations by 4-6 students, while TPMS has been having teachers teach 6 classes that are each the standard size according to tge middle school class size recommendations.

It seems to me that the answer is to follow the model of the other school and have 5 larger classes. If, as a prior poster suggests, this causes problems with classroom behavior, then we should revise our discipline policies so that teachers are empowered to maintain order in their classrooms.

I believe this is correct. TPMS class sizes are currently on the larger side of standard but other school are smaller, so their class sizes with five classes per teacher are already equivalent to TPMS with six classes per teacher. So if class sizes increased my kids class of 29 would become 33-35 and her class of 32 would be 36-38. My non magnet kid hates losing an elective but I know she would not do well in a class of 38.

[Anonymous]

Several posts have mentioned SSI running a 5 of 8 schedule, and the TPMS scheduling committee did indeed look at the four schools (SSI plus the middle school magnet consortium) that run 5 of 8. What we found was that all of those schools have better student to instructional staff ratios. (The why's of this are a question central office would need to fully answer, but at least part of the answer is FARMs rates and special programs. TPMS used to receive a small additional staffing allocation due to the presence of the magnet, but no longer.) For example, the last year that MCPS has data posted (2022-23), TPMS had a 13.0 student to instructional staff ratio, while the ratio at SSI was 10.7. The MSMC ratios are not quite as low as SSI, but still lower than TPMS.
Regarding class sizes at TPMS, they are roughly comparable now to most MCPS middle schools so the move to 5 of 8 would have put many classes at or above the class size guideline (already too high) of 33 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those suggesting a student could access both language and orchestra (or other electives which might be considered higher level) by remaining at one's local school, it might be reasonable to assess the availability of such across middle schools. Not ubiquitous. Not nearly so.

Are you saying that there are MCPS middle schools that do not offer foreign languages or band/orchestra? Could you provide an example? My kid was at a pretty bad middle school and they had to combine all orchestra levels into one class, but they still offered it. It would be interesting to know which schools don’t.

Oh, this information is so hard to find. You can find the course catalogs for each school if you spend time digging around 40 different websites that are all organized differently, but that is kind of like the wish list for what COULD be offered if a) enough kids sign up, and b) there is a teacher available. In reality there are a lot of schools with very slim pickings for middle school electives.

[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.

This x1000. We TPMS parents should be thanking our lucky stars and offering our eternal gratitude to these TPMS teachers that have been doing all of this unpaid labor all of these years. This is my 6th year with a child at TPMS and I had no idea.

[Anonymous]

The issue is that contractually teachers can’t be asked to teach 6 classes like they have been for years at TPMS. Now that they have voted for 7 periods instead of 8 (and gone to the union) it’s unlikely that any amount of parent feedback will make a difference. Bell schedules are determined by teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several posts have mentioned SSI running a 5 of 8 schedule, and the TPMS scheduling committee did indeed look at the four schools (SSI plus the middle school magnet consortium) that run 5 of 8. What we found was that all of those schools have better student to instructional staff ratios. (The why's of this are a question central office would need to fully answer, but at least part of the answer is FARMs rates and special programs. TPMS used to receive a small additional staffing allocation due to the presence of the magnet, but no longer.) For example, the last year that MCPS has data posted (2022-23), TPMS had a 13.0 student to instructional staff ratio, while the ratio at SSI was 10.7. The MSMC ratios are not quite as low as SSI, but still lower than TPMS.
Regarding class sizes at TPMS, they are roughly comparable now to most MCPS middle schools so the move to 5 of 8 would have put many classes at or above the class size guideline (already too high) of 33 students.

So would it make sense to petition central office for more funding again? Is that how this works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several posts have mentioned SSI running a 5 of 8 schedule, and the TPMS scheduling committee did indeed look at the four schools (SSI plus the middle school magnet consortium) that run 5 of 8. What we found was that all of those schools have better student to instructional staff ratios. (The why's of this are a question central office would need to fully answer, but at least part of the answer is FARMs rates and special programs. TPMS used to receive a small additional staffing allocation due to the presence of the magnet, but no longer.) For example, the last year that MCPS has data posted (2022-23), TPMS had a 13.0 student to instructional staff ratio, while the ratio at SSI was 10.7. The MSMC ratios are not quite as low as SSI, but still lower than TPMS.
Regarding class sizes at TPMS, they are roughly comparable now to most MCPS middle schools so the move to 5 of 8 would have put many classes at or above the class size guideline (already too high) of 33 students.

So would it make sense to petition central office for more funding again? Is that how this works?

Where do you think they are going to find the funding? It makes sense to accept reality. Kids will have 7 classes, not 8.