Jim discussed the NMP leaving out the SI in its math curriculum.
His last paragraph sums it up very well. The SI should be taught and
used in all classes and courses. That's where the rubber hits the road; it
would make metric meaningful. However, to do this without everyday use
would be spinning one's wheels. On the other hand science for the most part
uses or should use the SI exclusively. Practical use helps people retain
knowledge.
Education Week reported on the NMP final report very well. Its
headlines were: "Panel Calls for Systematic, Basic Approach to Math" and
"Math Panel Puts Stock in Automatic Recall of Procedures."
The NMP focused on building a solid foundation with automatic recall
of basics to minimize thinking time. "Explicit instruction with students
who have mathematical difficulties has shown consistently positive effects
on performance with word problems and computation."
Until the Congress of the United States agrees to change the US to the
SI system of measurement and to join the rest of the world, the US will
continue to stay at a low level in education ranking no matter how much
effort is placed on math and other subjects. On yes, there will be some
improvement, however there will be little major rise in the world ranking.
The MIT has developed a small inexpensive ($130) computer for learning in
less developed countries; however, try to get something like that for use in
the US educational system; it's virtually impossible.
The NMP focused on books and publications and gave short shrift (two
pages in its 90 page document). It said that computer-assisted instruction
"be considered as a potentially useful tool." Potential? CAI has been used
since the 1960s. I put CAI into the African Sahel during the 1970s.
Available technology is here for students to learn "Any Time in Any Place on
Any Path at Any Pace." Where has the NMP been? The NMP still focuses on
grade levels rather than on progress through subject material.
My experience with the grandkids' teachers during 2002 in science
class rooms indicated that using a mixture of English and SI units slows
learning the SI and understanding measurement and its use. As Jim points
out, using the SI in all courses is best, however, that's not practical
unless the SI can/is used every day such as in science - physics etc. -
today. And, learning English is required to open the door to all education
in the United States.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: [USMA:40579] Re: National Mathematics Advisory panel
With all due respect to Stan's knowledge and expertise, I feel I must
disagree at least in part with what he says below.
On the surface, Stan has excellent basis for his statement. Indeed, the
International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) defines metrology
as "the science of measurement" in its _International Vocabulary of
Measurement_ (VIM). The International Bureau of Weights and Measures
(BIPM) also defines it as "the science of measurement".
http://www.bipm.org/en/convention/wmd/2004/
However, the theoretical underpinnings of this science are
mathematically derived and not derived by using the methods of science.
Metrology draws heavily from the fields of statistics and it
incorporates the quantity calculus (which is mathematically defined).
Neither statistics nor the quantity calculus are derived by experimental
methods and development of testable hypotheses. Further, in the U.S.,
the first years of education treat measurement as a math topic, not as a
science topic. Every state's standards that I have viewed place
measurement as a math component.
True enough, metrology was developed by scientists. The physical
definitions of quantities, the relationships among quantities, and the
realizations of the definitions depend almost entirely on physics.
Yet the applications of metrology are found in all disciplines,
including mathematics (especially algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and
geometry), economics, sociology, geography, geodesy, domestic and
vocational curricula, and even the grammar of languages and literature.
Those who teach in these "non-science" fields must be educated in the
use of the SI and must teach its proper use to their students.
So, as a practical matter, the SI must be taught and used in all
curricula, including mathematics, and not merely as a science topic. In
the structure of primary and elementary education in the U.S., the task
of teaching measurement falls into the discipline of mathematics.
Jim
STANLEY DOORE wrote:
Pat et al:
It is not surprising that the SI was not mentioned in the Math Panel's
final report. And, it shouldn't be because the SI is a
measurement/science issue and not a math issue.
The SI should be taught and used in science courses and classes, as I've
said before. The education system in the US has seen metrication as a
computational issue (conversion) and not a fundamental measurement issue.
Until the US understands this, the US will have trouble metrication.
However, there is hope. Here in Montgomery County, Maryland, our
Superintendent of Schools, Dr Jerry Weast, (138,000 students) recognized
this back in 2002 when I brought it to his attention. Since then, the SI
has been taught in science classes and courses and used exclusively in
them. On a couple of occasions since, Dr. Weast has told me that he is
committed to the SI. That's where the rubber hits the road.
Incidentally, I was at the final meeting of the NMP as I've reported.
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Pat Naughtin <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:46 AM
*Subject:* [USMA:40576] Re: National Mathematics Advisory panel
Dear Jim and All,
I have had another look at the National Mathematics Advisory Panel
(NMAP) final report and I am even more surprised and perplexed than
I was before.
The Final Report can be found at www.ed.gov/mathpanel
<http://www.ed.gov/mathpanel> and the press release is available at
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2008/03/03132008.html.
You may recall that the NMAP final report did not mention:
the metric system
the International System of Units
meters (or metres)
grams
liters (or litres)
But neither did it mention inches, feet, yards, or furlongs. The
only measuring words that I could find were 'miles per gallon' and
these words were mentioned only once and they appeared in this
context:
**
Text Box: National policy must ensure the healthy development of a
domestic technical workforce with adequate scale and top-level
skill.Mathematics literacy is a serious problem in the United
States. According to Philips (2007), 78% of adults cannot explain
how to compute the interest paid on a loan, 71% cannot calculate
miles per gallon on a trip, and 58% cannot calculate a 10% tip for a
lunch bill. Further, it is clear from the research that a broad
range of students and adults also have difficulties with fractions
(e.g., Hecht, Vagi, & Torgeson, 2007; Mazzocco & Devlin, in press),
a foundational skill essential to success in algebra. The recent
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, “the Nation’s
Report Card”) shows that 27% of eighth-graders could not correctly
shade 1/3 of a rectangle and 45% could not solve a word problem that
required dividing fractions (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Labor economists Richard J. Murnane and Frank Levy have spoken to
the vital importance of mathematical skill (Murnane & Levy, 1996):
/Close to half of all seventeen year olds cannot read or do math at
the level needed to get a job at a modern automobile plant. Barring
some other special knowledge or talent that would allow them to earn
a living as, say, a plumber or artist, they lack the skills to earn
a middle-class paycheck in today’s economy./
/**/
The last of these paragraphs stunned me because I know that the
automotive industry in the USA is almost totally metric and it has
been largely metric since the mid 1970s.
How can you have a mathematics education policy that does not even
include a single reference to the metric system when probably many
more than half of the current crop of school students will work
using metric units in the domestic industries of the USA? Lorelle
Young, the president of the United States Metric Association
estimated, a few years ago, that industry in the USA was then more
than 60 % metric.
Where will children learn to measure using the metric system if the
'National Mathematics Advisory Panel' specifically leaves out any
reference to the modern metric system when they advise on policy for
USA schools?
How can you have "a domestic technical workforce with adequate scale
and top-level skill" when absolutely no guidance is given by the
nation's mathematical leaders about units of measurement?
On 2008/03/15, at 10:28 AM, James Frysinger wrote:
That's an impressive statistic, Pat. Your previous email on this
subject (but with no subject line entry) was USMA:40565. That
forwarded a list of emails that NMAP had received. But that list
did not include the submissions that were read to the panel in
person.
I find little to hope for in this. The NMAP struck me as being
rather deaf on the subject of the metric system, both during my
presentation and in their interim reports. On the day I attended
and presented, the bulk of the questions asked and comments made
by the panel had to do with proposed commercial education
packages. We have seen these "miracle cures" marching down the
road for years, in a steady stream, for their chance to drink deep
at the public money trough. Apart from that the only interest by
the panel seemed to be when to start teaching algebra. In short,
the NMAP seemed more focussed on methodology (especially the
procured sort) than on content.
Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised when the report comes out
on Tuesday. I hope so.
Jim
Pat Naughtin wrote:
Dear Marion and All,
You might be interested in the fact that the National Mathematics
Advisory panel:
… reviewed written commentary from 160 organizations and
individuals … and 30 of these submissions (19 %) were about the
teaching of the (SI) metric system in USA schools.
On 2008/03/15, at 6:25 AM, m. f. moon wrote:
Pat, great comment. Without going into great detail of the
problem, I got
myself into a bit of difficulty when during a discussion on a
standards
specification, I suggested that a certain equation may not be
correct. I was
assigned to study the problem over night but didn't have a
calculator nor
computer with me. I choose to do rational arithmetic which
handled the
boundary conditions with ease -- this is where I thought the
problems might
be. A couple of quick calcs showed the intermediate values to be
correct also.
So, my claim was wrong but the method of solution was unusual
for most of the
other standards committee members but persuasive. Who needs
fractions?
marion moon
------ Original Message ------
Received: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:42:37 AM PDT
From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [USMA:40565] Dear All,
Here is a copy of the 30 submissions that the National
Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP) received with reference to
teaching of the the metric system in the schools of the USA.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that
they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or
selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources
for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial,
industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and
in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google,
NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the
USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/ for more metrication
information, contact Pat at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or to get the free
'/Metrication matters/' newsletter go to:
http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter/ to subscribe.
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(H) 931.657.3107
(C) 931.212.0267
