Barry Burke, President, ITEA
copy to: Kevin Jost, SAE editor
Dear Mr. Burke,
I came across a "focus" essay in the latest issue of "automotive
engineering international" (by the SAE) regarding your organization's
educational standards. The SAE Executive Vice President, Max Rumbaugh,
exhorts us, as SAE members to review and comment on those standards. For
that purpose I have visited your site at
http://www.iteawww.org
and have downloaded your standards at
http://www.iteawww.org/TAA/xstnd.pdf
I have quickly scanned the executive summary for this document and have
taken only a quick look at your full document. But in that short time I
have already encountered something that concerns me. on page 162 of your
document, in the section for grades 6-8, you include a section on
energy. In there you state:
In order to select, use, and understand energy and
power technologies, students in grades 6-8 should
learn that
E. Energy is the capacity to do work.
Energy is required for a broad range of actions,
from walking to running a diesel engine. Energy is
an important input to many technological systems.
Work is the product of force multiplied by the
distance through which the force acted. Work is
measured in foot-pounds in the English system and
in Newton-meters, or joules, in the metric system.
First of all, as a minor comment, the unit newton-meter should not be
started with an uppercase letter. Secondly, energy is almost always
stated in joules, not newton-meters. But more importantly, your
standards propose that students in the future should learn to express
energy in "English" units. While this might serve some historic purpose,
with 96% of the world using only metric units and nearly half of the
industry in the United States doing the same (especially in
technological fields), this serves no useful purpose for the future.
The next section in your standard states that horsepower is a commonly
used unit for power. Fewer that 4% of the world's people use this unit.
The SAE states engine power, for example, in kilowatts primarily.
Stating all forms of power in watts facilitates system efficiency
calculations immensely.
I would expect the ITEA to be in the forefront of the setting of
standards that endorse education in solely metric units. The purpose of
a standard ought to be to serve the future, not to keep the past on
artificial life support. If we want our students to work competitively
in the global, technological world we now live in, teaching them
so-called English units will be counterproductive. Even your own
standard, on page 173, states
Symbols, measurement, conventions, icons, and
graphic images are recognized components in the
language of technology that are used to communicate
messages. Students should communicate to others
using the language of technology.
On page 177 it states
K. The use of symbols, measurements, and drawings
promotes clear communication by providing a common
language to express ideas.
To communicate globally, technology workers must use units of the
International System of units (SI), not "English" units. Otherwise, few
people will understand the communication. By the way, the English are
virtually entirely metric now.
Is the ITEA promoting preparation for the future or protecting past
practices?
Sincerely,
James R. Frysinger, CAMS
member, SAE
also at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
