Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR SESSION MINUTES -2- AUGUST 4, 1997 <br />A concerned citizen spoke about a meeting last summer where it <br />was said that the minutes from the joint site meetings would be <br />available. This was true throughout the summer, but through the <br />rest of the year, they were hard to attain. <br />Mr. Twomey dropped down on the agenda to the Concerned Parents of <br />Reading. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />CONCERNED PARENTS OF READING <br />Mr. Twomey told the CPR that the Committee would give them a time <br />frame of 45 minutes to talk about the Chicago Math Program and <br />that after that the Administration could give their comments. <br />Finally, if the School Committee members had any comments, they <br />would have their time. Mr. Twomey opened the discussion up to <br />the CPR. <br />Dr. Mandell spoke on behalf of CPR and thanked the School <br />Committee for the opportunity to discuss concerns about the <br />Chicago Math Program. CPR was formed by a group of concerned <br />parents who noticed that their young children were not displaying <br />the same mathematical skills as their older brothers and sisters. <br />Following an April Math Night, CPR grew more concerned when they <br />found out that the University of Chicago Math Program that they <br />were learning was a new approach to the teaching of Mathematics. <br />As CPR researched the Chicago Math Program they learned that <br />computational skills were given less attention and practice and <br />the use of a calculator was emphasized over the ability to solve <br />the problems. Dr. Mandell continued to give several reasons why <br />CPR feels the Chicago Math program needs attending. Dr. Mandell <br />said CPR has had three simple requests: <br />1) Test all incoming 5th graders <br />2) Form a Math Task Force <br />3) Determine how the Chicago Math Program was chosen <br />Dr. Mandell states that the Chicago Math Program is a highly <br />experimental math program with no verifiable research to <br />substantiate its tests. The studies are poorly designed and the <br />children are at risk. CPR states that Reading can do better by <br />our children. CPR would also remind the Committee that in <br />