EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is another in the series being prepared on the numerous investigations comprising the U.S. Metric Study, being carried out by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards pursuant to the U.S. Metric Study Act (Public Law 90-472). This report concerns the effects of increasing worldwide use of the metric system on education in the United States. Its purpose is to attempt

to present the educational advantages and disadvantages of both the metric and the customary systems of units;

to determine the current usage of metric measurements in schools, and trends in that usage;

to find the ways in which education would have to change as the U.S. accommodates to increased worldwide use of the metric system, under a planned national program or without such a program; and to estimate the costs of the changes; and

to make recommendations for ways in which to take best advantage of the changes.

We present here capsule conclusions and key them to the body of the report for support and expansion.

The chief inherent educational advantage of the customary system is its familiarity and the fact that it is embedded in a thousand years of postAnglo-Saxon culture. Other educational advantages become apparent when the customary system is compared with the metric system- the customary units are body-related and finger-sized, while metric units are either too large or too small for very young children to handle easily. The disadvantages of the customary system are the many unrelated units, the arbitrary and various conversion factors, the need to perform longer and more complex calculations, and a nomenclature that is confusing to say the least. The chief educa

tional advantages of the metric system lie in simplifying the teaching and learning of measurement, in relieving the educational burden of teaching two systems of measurement and in concentrating upon the simpler and more easily understood one. The only educational disadvantage of the metric system is that it is totally unfamiliar to most people and, at present, almost totally absent from the surroundings. The educational advantages and disadvantages of both the metric and customary systems of units are outlined in chapter I.

Despite the enthusiastic and long-term support of organized education, the current usage of metric measurement in elementary science and mathematics is very limited; and, indeed, measurement itself is hardly taught well at all. Increases in the use of metric units of measure are confined to the new science curricula, which now reach about 10 percent of the students in grades K-9. Forty percent of 11th graders encounter the metric system (cgs) in chemistry. This conclusion is expanded in chapter I, and supported in detail in chapter IV.

If the U.S. "goes metric," our chief educational needs will be for new instructional materials, for some training of teachers already serving, and for the replacement and modification of some instructional equipment. A minimum time scale is dictated by textbook replacement patterns; most local school districts replace textbooks on about a 5-year cycle. In addition, the publishing industry should be provided with a lead time of about 3 years for the preparation of new materials, because substantial curriculum changes will be necessary, especially to suit elementary school mathematics for the instruction of students for a metric world. If we were to have a 10-year conversion period, together with national guidance for publishers and school boards, then we should be able to replace most textbooks (and library books and encyclopedias) at essentially no added cost over normal operations either to local school districts or to textbook publishers. (ch. IV.A.)

In order to make the necessary curriculum changes within a scheduled conversion period, they would have to be recommended by an authoritative national body and widely accepted by both publishers and educators. This report contains a mathematics educator's recommendation for curriculum change (app. V), and a recommendation for the composition and responsibilities of a national coordinating body for education which might provide the authoritative support for the changes needed for metric conversion. (ch. V.)

We briefly summarize here the "costs" of not going metric, that is, of not having a national program of metric conversion, and the disadvantages of having too long a period of metric conversion. They differ only in degree - in either case there would be a loss or dilution of a sense of purpose and a delay in realizing the curriculum improvements which may be expected to flow from metric conversion. In a practical sense, teachers and students would continue to spend time on unnecessary drills in fractions and percent-time which would, upon metric conversion, become available for other important studies. (ch. II.)

The inservice training of about a million elementary school teachers is a

teaching tasks, a small number of exemplary training programs could serve as models for the local construction of inservice training programs for metric conversion. It is estimated that teachers should spend from 8 to 15 hours in learning the metric system and some teaching tactics: many school districts have existing inservice training programs of this extent, and in this context there would be no extra cost. In school districts which have no regular inservice training programs, it may be necessary to organize some. The rethinking of purpose and obligation which might accompany such a change should be considered a benefit of metric conversion rather than a cost.

The emphasis of inservice training for elementary school teachers should lie in the demonstration of teaching strategies and tactics. Inservice training should be strongly activity-based, because teachers teach as they are taught. A system-wide view of inservice training is given in chapter IV, together with an outline of a program for implementing it based upon the use of educational television; both are described in appendix VI, parts a and b. A recommendation for a workshop-based teacher training program to introduce the metric system and new ways of teaching and learning measurement appears in chapter IV, with further details in appendix VI, parts c and d. The implementation of the latter recommendation would lead to a "tree" of workshops. Widely used, this program for the training of the teachers might cost as much as $6 million, but it would teach not only metric units but also new ways of teaching and learning measurement.

Educational equipment is found mainly in the shops, laboratories, workrooms, and field gear of occupational education. Changes in occupational curricula and needs for equipment changes are linked to changes in the occupations themselves. We have examined about a hundred equipment lists for occupational education curricula, and we have found that the cost of modifying and replacing equipment would not be great. It amounts at most to the equivalent of a year's depreciation, which need not be taken all at once; and in many curricula the cost would be almost negligible, that is, less than a year's attrition and supplies budget.

In case there should be no national program of going metric, several recommendations can be made for the simplification of the customary system in education and in living. These include the decimal-inch proposal and an analogous decimal-pound proposal, and the increased availability of measuring devices with usable dual calibrations. The elementary mathematics curriculum reforms mentioned above and outlined in detail in the report should be implemented anyhow; but in the absence of a national purpose, they may not be realized for more than a decade, to judge by past experience. For a discussion of these recommendations, see chapter II. It has been suggested, and even resolved by national organizations, that, regardless of national action, education take the lead in promoting the metric system as the primary system of units in the U.S. This would be inadvisable, for we have evidence that the exclusive use of metric units in science study only can lead to a cultural isolation of science reminiscent of C. P. Snow's two cultures. (ch. IV.) On the other hand, the metric system should be given full

Much is to be learned from the United Kingdom's experience in education, but the forces driving metrication and the structure of education in the U.K. are significantly different from ours. There, the national inspectorate of education is very effective at the primary level and serves as a source of inservice training as well; national examinations for college and university admission are effective in controlling the secondary curriculum; and the national industrial training boards are strongly influential in occupational education. Unless we have some strong national direction, coordination, and guidance in education, the U.S. may anticipate delays and difficulties, particularly in elementary education. With the help of the test makers, secondary education will take care of itself and the problem of going metric in occupational education is largely the problem of the occupations themselves.

In conclusion, we have found that the advantages of going metric in education are significant but not overwhelming; and, on the other hand, that the costs are not prohibitive and can be met largely out of normal expenditures. A conversion period of 10 years seems to be close to the optimum, but we would need a national leadership and sense of purpose to completely benefit from metric conversion.