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?

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."

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 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."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is changing that would eliminate the elective?

They are considering moving from a block schedule to a standard seven period day. Because the magnet kids lose an elective to computer science, moving from eight classes to seven classes would mean they only get one elective. Kids in the comprehensive program would still have two electives.

This is a backwards move, for sure. I think the whole county should shift to block schedule. It is so much better for kids to be able to plan HW completion over 2 days.

If you've been in a classroom lately, you'd know that block scheduling is terrible especially in this day and age. Kids cannot focus for more than 30 minutes, those extra 15 feel like pulling teeth sometimes...90 minutes? Give me a break.

I much prefer block days a a parent.

How, as a parent, does it affect you? You're not the one going to school, sitting in 90 minute classes. Students HATE block scheduling.

Students LOVE block scheduling!

Teacher here. Wrong on every level. All we hear are constant complaints about block scheduling from students. No complaints when I worked at a standard 7 day period, 43 minute class school.

“Constant complaints” from who? All I hear is how much they like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is changing that would eliminate the elective?

They are considering moving from a block schedule to a standard seven period day. Because the magnet kids lose an elective to computer science, moving from eight classes to seven classes would mean they only get one elective. Kids in the comprehensive program would still have two electives.

This is a backwards move, for sure. I think the whole county should shift to block schedule. It is so much better for kids to be able to plan HW completion over 2 days.

If you've been in a classroom lately, you'd know that block scheduling is terrible especially in this day and age. Kids cannot focus for more than 30 minutes, those extra 15 feel like pulling teeth sometimes...90 minutes? Give me a break.

I much prefer block days a a parent.

How, as a parent, does it affect you? You're not the one going to school, sitting in 90 minute classes. Students HATE block scheduling.

Students LOVE block scheduling!

Teacher here. Wrong on every level. All we hear are constant complaints about block scheduling from students. No complaints when I worked at a standard 7 day period, 43 minute class school.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So the other block scheduling schools have teachers teach 5 periods but make the class sizes larger? How does that work with block scheduling? They each reach 2.5 classes?

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.